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

It is unclear, when you sit down to look at a character sheet, what that character is good at.

D&D does a far better job at this than many games just by virtue of the second thing on the sheet usually being "Class", and those class names usually being fairly descriptive. Fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric. Well, ok, perhaps not cleric.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


But that's just the point - the very fact that a character builder has a reason to exist at all is a large part of the problem!
I'll have to question the logic on this. Savage Worlds has software associated with making characters and campaigns on Metacreator, I don't think anyone can call that system overly complex and keep a straight face.
 

But that's just the point - the very fact that a character builder has a reason to exist at all is a large part of the problem!

Character Builder certainly has a reason to exist but it doesn't need to exist, at least no more than it needed to exist with 3.5 (which it didn't, unfortunately). I would take it a step forward and say that one of the reasons why 4E is less complicated than 3.5 (IMHO) is because of Character Builder. If neither had CB I would guess that 3.5 would still seem more complicated.
 

As several people have already pointed out, many people play RPGs precisely because of the complexity, not despite it. In fact, that's probably at least part of the appeal for the vast majority of players. The game gives them something to learn and master; trying different options and exploring ways (ways that are not immediately obvious) to better one's character gives the game an extra dimension of challenge that isn't really offered elsewhere.

Go to the game's primary acquisition market--13-year-old boys--and this becomes extra doubly true. Kids at that age are obsessed with rules. They don't want to know just what they can do, they want to know how they're supposed to do it. In fact, in Basic Game focus groups (lo those many years ago) we saw over and over again that if kids couldn't find a rule they needed, their games simply stalled; the "you're the GM; make it up" or "it doesn't really matter, move on" thoughts were not on their radar screens.

In other words, the presence of additional rules facilitated play for these guys. Removing rules in favor of GM/player judgement was a game-killer.

One last point: Suppose you took the words "Dungeons & Dragons" and replaced them with "Magic: the Gathering." (Granted, the psychographics are not identical, but they're closely related.) Magic is a game that draws an audience =precisely= because it's complicated. But it's doing pretty darn good--gangbusters, lately--with the "kids these days."
 

I've recently seen it build a Str-based Barbarian, only to max out his Cha instead, and build a character with loads of sword-focused feats, only to fail to equip him with a sword. I feel pretty comfortable labelling those badly suboptimal.
Granted, I would definitely call that badly suboptimal, as well. I can't remember it did anything that stupid for me, though.
We have just started a new campaign with a mixed group. Given that we're expecting to play those characters long-term are you really suggesting that the experienced players should deliberately nerf their characters? (And potentially find themselves playing characters that they're really not happy with for months.)

That is what you are suggesting, after all.
Not really. I'm suggesting that a game involving complete newbies is extremely unlikely to still have the same cast of characters after a couple of sessions. Are you honestly expecting you'll be playing all of those characters for years to come? My 3e campaign has been running for six years now - an absolute personal record for me - I don't think any campaign ever lasted longer than two years before. But even so, there's not a single character from the beginning left. Most have their third character but for one everyone lost count (including the player himself). It's probably been over a dozen.

Again, I cannot imagine a DM insisting a player had to continue playing the same character for all eternity. Now, that would be something I'd call absurd.
(The way we dealt with this? The newbies explained the type of character they wanted, and the DM built it for them. But that, frankly, isn't a good solution - it's just the least-worst option available.)
I'd say that's a good way to deal with it, too. In 3e, several of my players just told me their character concept and I suggested some (prestige) classes that were close to the concept. This made sense, since in the beginning I was almost the only person who had all the books.
And if they hate their first session due to having a bad character, then they won't stick around to fix their bad choices... they'll just do something else instead.
Depends. For some that may certainly be true. Some may also do something else despite thinking it was fun. And some may not have fun despite having received thoroughly optimized characters.
What's most likely is that the newbie player will sit at the experienced player's PC and use his installation. Of course, that would be the fully-updated version, with all the options.
Well, when we started, noone was a DDI subscriber, so that was not an option for us :)
You've just said that your experienced group had trouble dealing with all the options. In that case, can you not see how it might be a problem for new players?
Well, they didn't have any experience with 4e. Of course it might be worse for someone without any rpg experience at all.

When I started playing back in the days, I started with AD&D 1e. The DM told me in two sentences about the class choices and I picked the one that intrigued me the most (an illusionist!), I rolled a bunch of dice and someone assigned them to attributes for me and rolled for my starting spells and starting equipment.

Then, after the first session (in which I was killed by a fellow player, playing an assassin), I borrowed the PHB and tried to start reading the rules myself, which was quite a challenge considering I had only just started learning English at school...

For some inexplicable reason all of this caused me to become even more interested in playing rpgs; and I continued playing to this day.

I daresay, with 4e it's a lot easier to get into the game.
 

As several people have already pointed out, many people play RPGs precisely because of the complexity, not despite it. In fact, that's probably at least part of the appeal for the vast majority of players. The game gives them something to learn and master; trying different options and exploring ways (ways that are not immediately obvious) to better one's character gives the game an extra dimension of challenge that isn't really offered elsewhere.

Exactly.

In fact, in Basic Game focus groups (lo those many years ago) we saw over and over again that if kids couldn't find a rule they needed, their games simply stalled; the "you're the GM; make it up" or "it doesn't really matter, move on" thoughts were not on their radar screens.

This goes to my other point. That rules are for GMs, and your typical GM - especially a new GM - needs and wants alot of them. It's burdensome to invent rules. Many otherwise good GMs can't do it. The real interface of the rules in the game for a group in a new game is this:

1) Player makes a proposition.
2) GM applies a rule, perhaps without even telling players what the rule is.
3) GM tells the player what the outcome of the proposition is.

The point of the rules is to make it easier for the GM to get through step #2, and sometimes that alot easier in a rules heavy system than it is in a rules light system. In particular, a rules heavy system is almost essential to providing answers to proposition where the player wants to quantify something - not simply get yes/no, pass/fail. How much can I lift? How far can I run before I get tired? How long does it take me to make a dugout canoe using stone tools? How long does it take to tunnel through the wall? If those questions aren't specifically addressed in the rules, then its a potential failure point in the game. It's at that point that system finally starts to matter, because a system that consistantly gives poor answers (or no answers!) to questions like that in the hands of a new GM will frustrate everyone. Now, of course, if the GM can handle all of that by fiat, then system still doesn't matter but the game only works in the hands of a narrower and narrower set of GMs with a rarer and rarer set of skills.

The sort of person that becomes a GM is typically a rules freak. Some players are rules freaks, and we call them power gamers, rules lawyers, and so forth. And that's ok. I think we are typically way to snobbish in our dismisal of players that love RPGs because they love exploring system mastery. Those players can be a problem it's true, but so can any kind of player - casual gamers can be too casual, RPers can put character ahead of game, goofs can be goofy to the point of disfunctionality, tactical minded players can become domineering table sergants that want to play every other players character for them. But the important point is that new players are't really ever turned on or off by the complexity of the system or really anything having to do with the system, because that's not how the new player plays the game. I've played several systems that I never even learned the rules to. I didn't need to know the rules. I once played a couple sessions of D&D with a DM that didn't even let the players see their own character sheets. You don't even need a character sheet to play an RPG! The new player doesn't interface with a sytem; he interfaces with the GM. How frustrating it is to interface with the GM, and how much reward he or she recieves for doing so is the real determining factor.

Their are several real problems with 4e as far as attracting new players goes, but its nothing to do with complexity. Nor for that matter are any of the problems so great that its going to prevent 4e from attracting new players (because system doesn't matter!). One problem I see with 4e from the standpoint of starting up new tables is that it is a player focused rules set when players per se aren't what a game system should try to be attracting. A rules set should be aimed at GMs because its the number of GMs running your system that determines its success. There are a surplus of players in the world and a shortage of GMs. Any GM with decent skills can attract more players than he's capable of handling. There are millions of lapsed players out there wishing they knew a decent GM.

Which is for example why WotC was always making a huge mistake trying to be the 'rules company' while outsourcing all the adventures to third parties because 'they didn't make money'. Silly WotC, all the money is in the modules; the system doesn't matter. The suits at WotC probably think the problem right now is the OGL because they are focused on 'system' as what makes an RPG successful. The real problem is that they don't understand what grows a market for RPGs because they don't know who their customers are or how to make new ones. they still don't know which is evidenced by the essentials and introductory lines that they are coming out with that offer nothing to GMs.

Nothing in the past few years has told me 4e D&D is doomed quite like the number of players I've talked to locally who say things like, "I prefer the 4e system, but the campaign I'm enjoying most right now is a 3.X/Pathfinder game because the DM is better."
 

When I was young I loved complicated games like Shadowrun, Rolemaster and GURPS, now than I'm old I find anything more complicated than Ubiquity or Storyteller way too complicated.
 

For a group of people never having played D&D, picking up the rules for thefirst time and trying to figure it out can be a daunting task, especially if there isn't at least one rules freak, as Celebrim put it above, in the group. For new players joining a group with experienced players, it isn't as bad because the newbie can be brought along.

That said, I personally think that for players D&D should take a page from the computer game industry and include a Quick Start section. They can explain the basics in just a few pages and get someone started without bogging them down in details. I know I learn best by getting into it and using it, looking up rules as I need rather than reading books cover to cover and trying to retain it all.
 


First up, I want to apologise for my tone yesterday. I got quite worked up about the subject when I should not have done. Sorry for any offense I caused.

When I started playing back in the days, I started with AD&D 1e...

Then, after the first session (in which I was killed by a fellow player, playing an assassin), I borrowed the PHB and tried to start reading the rules myself, which was quite a challenge considering I had only just started learning English at school...

For some inexplicable reason all of this caused me to become even more interested in playing rpgs; and I continued playing to this day.

Certainly, having gone to the effort of getting to grips with the rules, I can see a strong reason for carrying on. Where I have concerns is the distance between "new to the game" and "playing your first 'real' character".

I do also think there's two gaps in the product line:

As I see it, the D&D Gamedays are drawing in a lot of people for a demo game, where they play once with pregen characters. But they may well not have a regular group to join. What I think is needed is a 'real' Basic Set to take the players who have played once with an experienced DM, and teach them the ropes so they can form a group out of their friends. (For various reasons, I feel that every starter set since the old Red Box, including the new Red Box, has fallen short in this regard.)

The second product I think should be there is an "Expert Set" expansion to the same, expanding it from a tiny sample of the game to something that can sustain play for at least a year (or even until the next 'partial edition' comes out?).

I daresay, with 4e it's a lot easier to get into the game.

I definitely feel that 4e is an improvement over 3e in this regard, and Essentials appears to be a further improvement over the original 4e. I feel there's still a ways to go, though.
 

Remove ads

Top