Why the Modern D&D variants will not attract new players

[Mercurius]

Haven't WotC employees claimed on their blogs and elsewhere that 4E outsold all of their expectations and that it was the best-selling edition in D&D history?*

If they have truly outsold all of their expectations, why do they have three years worth of backstock on the Players Handbook? Afaik it is not the first printing, but I did read here a few times that WotC has a huge backstock of at least the PHB.

 

[AngryMojo]

If they have truly outsold all of their expectations, why do they have three years worth of backstock on the Players Handbook? Afaik it is not the first printing, but I did read here a few times that WotC has a huge backstock of at least the PHB.

Because it's much cheaper to print in bulk, and if you're going to have a large backstock of any product, it should be the one that you know will sell?

 

[The Little Raven]

If they have truly outsold all of their expectations, why do they have three years worth of backstock on the Players Handbook? Afaik it is not the first printing, but I did read here a few times that WotC has a huge backstock of at least the PHB.

What says they have three years worth of backstock? The only thing they said was in response to the "ZOMG! THEY'RE NOT REPRINTING THE PHB!" hubbub was that they aren't reprinting it yet, because they still have enough inventory not to warrant it.

And it outsold their expectations because the first print run was 50% larger than 3.5's first print run and they sold out that print run before the game was released, while 3.0's first print run lasted until about 3 months after the game was released. They sold out of the second print run within a couple months after release, making the current stock their third print run.

 

[Mercurius]

I wrote "three years of backstock" because the PHB came out two and a half years ago and they still have have copies of early print runs. Not the first, evidently, but--from what I've heard on this site--they have enough copies in inventory to dissuade them from publishing a revised version of the PHB.

So it may be that they outsold their initial expectations but they certainly haven't their later expectations.

 

[Celebrim]

First, I think you are in large part agreeing with me.

I am? Then its possible that I don't understand you at all.

Maybe you took what I said about character sheets to mean computerized character sheets, but that's not at all what I meant, I meant the sheet of paper that sits in front of you at a table.

What I was saying is that the sheet of paper sitting in front of you at the table is almost incidental to a new players experience of the game. It doesn't matter how complex or how simple it is because the new players enjoyment of the game isn't usually grounded in understanding the rules. The new player doesn't need rules. They are irrelevant. Rules interfacing doesn't even typically happen until after the new player is 'hooked', and at that point how much complexity you want is something of a personal preference. But at that point, complexity won't be the deciding factor in whether the player plays.

You say you want the rules to be as invisible as possible. That's what I want too. The current character creation rules of 4E and Pathfinder are filled with all kinds of rules and steps needed to be taken. Many more than the D&D systems in the 80's and 90's. I want a character creation system that gets out of the way of the new player, so that they can create the character they want, and sit down and play. In two months or two years, maybe they'll want to try the more "advanced method", but i want there to be a basic method.

The basic method is always the same regardless of system - tell the DM what you want, and then let the DM guide you through it. The only impact of system here is whether the system will let you be what you imagine, and to that extent complex systems may actually be better because they more quickly give the new player the connection 'oh, because of this thing here on my sheet there is this thing in the game my character is better at just like I wanted'.

I know when I learned, the DM took care of most of the rules. I told him what I wanted to do, and he told me how I could do it. Now, I wouldn't want to play that way anymore.

Yes, I agree. Now you wouldn't. But that way is perfect for a new player.

 

[Canor Morum]

My ten year old son learned how to play 4E after one gaming session. Now he's leveling up his PC in the character builder and trying to convince me that he should have a lizard mount because he can afford it. I gave it to him on the condition that he come up with a back story for how he got the lizard.

I don't think that complexity is the problem. You are talking about kids that grew up with computers and video games.

 

[AngryMojo]

I don't think that complexity is the problem. You are talking about kids that grew up with computers and video games.

The really ironic thing is that some of the harshest criticism for 4e when it was released involved the game being "dumbed down" too much. I remember comparisons to Sesame Street, stating the game was targeted at a wider audience.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't feel 4E is complex at all. Why I feel it sometimes doesn't have the 'old school feel' is that (in my opinion) it doesn't maintain the sense of wonder and adventure that a rpg should have.

I understand the reasons why many of the changes were made. I understand what WoTC was trying to do. To some extent, I also believe it did work.

However, this is something I noticed while recently GMing a session: going from level 1 to level 30 is exciting the first few times. It starts to lose its luster very quickly though. For many of my players, the wonder of an rpg comes from living vicariously through your character. While this is still possible in D&D 4E, I feel that the manner in which the current system is structure has a little bit too much of a linear push to it. Sometimes part of the fun for a player is getting lost in the life of the character; having motivations and goals; making friends and enemies; owning land; building a castle; seeing your actions have impact on the world your character lives in.

Again, I am in no way saying none of this is possible with D&D. As a game of the imagination, you are free to play the way you want to play. However, by default, I feel that the ideals upon which the game was built support a particular style. Often, this particular style assumes that certain aspects of playing a rpg are not important. It is my belief that some of these forgotten aspects carry with them the feel that people are searching for. Some of the most enjoyable quests I've played in as a player didn't require me to save the world; they only required me to live the fantasy I wanted to live through my character - regardless of whether that meant being a pauper attempting to shepherd my sheep through the countryside or a prince defending my crown against traitorous nobles or a paladin venturing into the depths of hell. I shouldn't feel as though one idea or another is considered more right or more wrong by the structure of the game; I often do.

This ability to live my fantasy is (again, in my opinion) somewhat infringed upon by the ideal that PCs should be a certain type of character and that characters should be a certain type of hero and that heroes of certain levels should be doing certain tasks. It's a little too linear. Too often, when I've been a player, I feel as though my actions don't have enough impact on the game world. As a GM, I try to give my players more choice, but I often need to bend those choices to the assumptions that the underlying system makes. I have noticed a marked difference in both my enjoyment and the enjoyment of my players when we play D&D versus a system which makes less of an assumption about our style.

Right before making this post, I had a conversation with one of my players via Facebook in which that particular player had mentioned being unable to fully enjoy D&D again after seeing what the other system we play had to offer. This caught me completely flat footed; mostly because the player in question was the one who was the most supportive of D&D and least supportive of trying something else prior to the group's experimentation into other systems. I can't always put my finger on exactly what is different, but something is indeed different about playing D&D now than it was before. I have my ideas about what I think has changed, but I imagine others have different views.

 

[nedjer]

I don't feel 4E is complex at all. Why I feel it sometimes doesn't have the 'old school feel' is that (in my opinion) it doesn't maintain the sense of wonder and adventure that a rpg should have.

I understand the reasons why many of the changes were made. I understand what WoTC was trying to do. To some extent, I also believe it did work.

However, this is something I noticed while recently GMing a session: going from level 1 to level 30 is exciting the first few times. It starts to lose its luster very quickly though. For many of my players, the wonder of an rpg comes from living vicariously through your character. While this is still possible in D&D 4E, I feel that the manner in which the current system is structure has a little bit too much of a linear push to it. Sometimes part of the fun for a player is getting lost in the life of the character; having motivations and goals; making friends and enemies; owning land; building a castle; seeing your actions have impact on the world your character lives in.

Again, I am in no way saying none of this is possible with D&D. As a game of the imagination, you are free to play the way you want to play. However, by default, I feel that the ideals upon which the game was built support a particular style. Often, this particular style assumes that certain aspects of playing a rpg are not important. It is my belief that some of these forgotten aspects carry with them the feel that people are searching for. Some of the most enjoyable quests I've played in as a player didn't require me to save the world; they only required me to live the fantasy I wanted to live through my character - regardless of whether that meant being a pauper attempting to shepherd my sheep through the countryside or a prince defending my crown against traitorous nobles or a paladin venturing into the depths of hell. I shouldn't feel as though one idea or another is considered more right or more wrong by the structure of the game; I often do.

This ability to live my fantasy is (again, in my opinion) somewhat infringed upon by the ideal that PCs should be a certain type of character and that characters should be a certain type of hero and that heroes of certain levels should be doing certain tasks. It's a little too linear. Too often, when I've been a player, I feel as though my actions don't have enough impact on the game world. As a GM, I try to give my players more choice, but I often need to bend those choices to the assumptions that the underlying system makes. I have noticed a marked difference in both my enjoyment and the enjoyment of my players when we play D&D versus a system which makes less of an assumption about our style.

Right before making this post, I had a conversation with one of my players via Facebook in which that particular player had mentioned being unable to fully enjoy D&D again after seeing what the other system we play had to offer. This caught me completely flat footed; mostly because the player in question was the one who was the most supportive of D&D and least supportive of trying something else prior to the group's experimentation into other systems. I can't always put my finger on exactly what is different, but something is indeed different about playing D&D now than it was before. I have my ideas about what I think has changed, but I imagine others have different views.

The complex part is not learning crunch and grind, it's allowing RPGs to play as RPGs. Movies, magazines, videogames, off-the-shelf modules, multiple monster manuals . . . are all about fixed narratives, which discourage open-ended play, player choice and improvisation.

It's clearly possible to play any RPG as open-ended, player (rather than rules) led and improvisational. Unfortunately, as systems become larger, get more rules to cover everything, have more options decided on the roll of a dice, favour combat-focused solutions and characters . . . play is constantly being channelled towards fixed narratives and linear challenges.

This model is seen as necessary to companies, which see themselves as the content creators instead of helping players to act as their own content creators. The ready made module or MM3 is convenient but comes at the expense of discarding the magic pixie dust made from players' imaginations.

Lego offers a pretty clear analogy. You can buy Lego kits with instructions for making a particular model for a particular setting, e.g. Prince of Persia or Atlantis. From the word go the kit, with its final outcome, follow the instructions, 'win mentality' is shaping players' experience and gameplay.

Equally, you can take a bunch of Lego bricks and make your own desert fortress or undersea kingdom. This can have all sorts of shapes and forms, be populated by your characters and 'run' your ad hoc, opened-adventures.

As a result, instead of play being channelled towards admiring a finished model and/ or playing with the model in the cast of a PoP movie, the model is ever-changing and play may touch on 1001 Nights, Beau Geste, The Four Feathers, the Mummy, your last adventure, your favourite characters - in a creative crucible filled with players' ideas and aspirations, rather than those handed down from 'above'.

 

[Jhaelen]

I disagree, at least regarding 4e: Using just the PHB it's no more complicated than creating a character in a typical computer rpg. I assume using Essentials, it's even easier. Using the Character Builder it's a piece of cake. You can even quick-build a pc with a single click and choosing race & class (and the result is actually a character that is playable!).

Even simple video games, like Diablo use a more complicated power system than 4e. Many board games have a more complicated ruleset than D&D these days.

Imho, only someone who's been living under a rock for the past two decades might have trouble with it.