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

[Lanefan]

I know one game that had been running several years, and then a character ran out of raises (AD&D 2e, IIRC) and despite the cajoling of the DM, nobody wanted to continue if one player had a new character. That seems much more common to my experience than an endless churn of new characters.

My long-term experience couldn't be more different if it tried. Characters come and go, it's a fact of life.

I suspect most people's experience is somewhere between our two extremes.

See. Exactly my point. You are arguing here against what you just said. You have a rules light system - a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references - and so when you actually have to use the rules, you find that you spend most of the time making up new rules that there after become 'common law rules' which determine how similar future situations will be resolved. This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are never highly successful in the RPG market place.

Not successful at market perhaps, but amazingly successful at the table. If I as player and-or DM have in effect helped design the game I'm playing by making up these now-common-law rules and helping flesh out the rules-light framework then I'm by extension almost certainly going to buy into it far more deeply than if I'm playing something prepackaged with rules to the nines.

I mean, not everyone likes the 'Victoria Rules' 1e variant we play, but those who do are fiercely loyal to it - because it's ours. We built it, out of the framework given us by 1e, and we'll play it till we die.

And with this, I'll introduce a really contriversial position. Really well designed RPG's aren't elegant. Elegance is a trait to be scrutinized the way you'd look at potentailly lethal microbes under the microscope. Really well designed RPG's have a vaiety of monolithic subsystems that you can ignore or add as you desire to make the game complicated or uncomplicated as you desire and in the areas you care about. Elegance tends to produce tightly coupled RPG systems where every aspect of them effects every other system, so that you can't pull on one part of it without risking the whole thing falling apart. This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.

But here, you've hit the nail right on the head.

Individual parts of a system can be immensely elegant; and the more of these the better. But make the whole system elegant and you've 99% certainly also made it much more constrained and non-tinkerable.

Lan-"Victoria rules right!"-efan

 

[AngryMojo]

Modularity, not elegance. Brilliant.

I would recommend an addendum to this statement, as modular systems can be elegant. Savage Worlds, for example. There are a variety of sub-systems to can add on if you want to, including numerous different ways to handle magic and powers, depending on your specific setting. The system as a whole, however, is quite elegant and flows well.

I'd say rather than elegance as something to avoid, integrated game design would be something to avoid. The idea of having multiple parts working in tandem can be problematic, and I agree. This wound up being one of my main problems with 3.5 by the end, do something as simple as change a single feat during a revision (Power Attack) and the entire concept of melee changes. I normally refer to his as integrated design.

Modularity, not integration.

 

[Mercurius]

Celebrim, Beginning of the End covered a lot of points I would have made but I'll reply to what you wrote.

You don't get friends or spouses of friends to start playing by showing the stacks of rule books, and you don't need to read through 800+ pages of rules to get started with a game. Frankly, I prefer to sit down to a new RPG without knowing any of the rules and without touching a rule book. Reading the rules probably will get in the way of my enjoyment of the game.

Yes, that was you and that was (mainly) me, but as BotE pointed out, not only is there another way of entering the game--buying a book and learning how to play on one's own--but WotC can't rely on just word of mouth to grow the game. Why? Because it hasn't worked. Well, it has worked to some degree but it is largely out of the hands of WotC - all they can do is make the best product they can and try to attract new buyers.

So yes, some people do start playing an RPG by buying the books. Or maybe they re-start playing by buying a book, like the new Red Box. A lapsed AD&D player who hasn't played for twenty years is basically a new player and would have to re-learn the game. Don't you think WotC is trying to re-connect with this "lost generation" of players--mainly Gen-Xers--that hasn't played since they (we) Grew Up? Think of how many people played D&D in the early to mid 80s; there must be millions of 30-50 year olds who haven't played since junior high or high school; say, hypothetically, that there are 10 million people that played D&D in the 80s that haven't played since. It isn't about trying to get those 10 million back, but what about 1% of them? One in a hundred of that "lost generation" and you've got 100,000 new players.

The point being, if you are WotC you are looking at multiple markets; here is what comes to mind, off-hand:

• Existing 4E players
• Friends of existing 4E players
• Existing players of other editions of D&D/Pathfinder
• Existing players of other RPGs
• Lapsed players who have played within the last decade (3.x era)
• Lapsed players who haven't played in 10+ years
• Lapsed players who haven't played in 20+ years
• People who have never played D&D

That is probably not an exhaustive list but my point is that different markets require different marketing strategies, and that doesn't even take into account "sub-markets." For instance, existing players of other editions of D&D - the 3.5 crowd is different from the Old School crowd; or with regards to people who have never played, there are artsy types, nerdy types, theater types, etc. Which goes back to the OP and the perceived need to have an easier entry point, easier character generation, and a generally less "stat heavy" variant of the game, at least as an introduction.

It doesn't take away the fact that many--even most--people learn from experienced gamers. But there are other ways to enter the game, and and a wide variety of people (and markets to be targeted) that might enjoy playing.

See. Exactly my point. You are arguing here against what you just said. You have a rules light system - a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references - and so when you actually have to use the rules, you find that you spend most of the time making up new rules that there after become 'common law rules' which determine how similar future situations will be resolved. This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are never highly successful in the RPG market place.

Rules lite games are not, in my experience and opinion, about "making up new rules" as they are applying judgment and imagination. The same goes for my experience at my job; it isn't about making up a rule on the fly as much as it is using my judgment within a given situation and taking into account context and the specifics of the situation. Certainly I have experienced many situations where not having a clear rule has made things a bit fuzzy, but on the other hand if one has a rule for every possible situation it ends up being overly complicated and divorced from reality. In other words, it becomes a massive abstract bureaucracy that misses the people that it is meant to serve.

But when I am talking about a simpler version of D&D I am not talking about an "ultra-lite" game like FATE or ORE. I am talking about something more light-to-medium, and in contrast with the "rules heavy" 3.5 and the "rules medium-to-heavy" 4E.

Furthermore, and more to a point, a well designed light-to-medium game can cover most situations quite adequately. For example, let's say that this so-called Basic 4E did away with skills and replaced them with Ability checks. If you are trying to walk across a tightrope you very simply use your DEX mod + half level and that's that. Maybe each class gets a bonus to different ability checks, so for example a Rogue might get a bonus to DEX checks and a wizard a bonus to INT checks. Etc. The point being, you do away with the added complication (or module) of specific skills, but a character can still do anything they want, it just falls under the purview of ability scores.

In this I agree. And with this, I'll introduce a really contriversial position. Really well designed RPG's aren't elegant. Elegance is a trait to be scrutinized the way you'd look at potentailly lethal microbes under the microscope. Really well designed RPG's have a vaiety of monolithic subsystems that you can ignore or add as you desire to make the game complicated or uncomplicated as you desire and in the areas you care about. Elegance tends to produce tightly coupled RPG systems where every aspect of them effects every other system, so that you can't pull on one part of it without risking the whole thing falling apart. This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.

Yes, exactly. This is why I've been emphasizing modularity, over and over again, and why I'd like to see at least a differentiation between a stripped-down Basic game and an Advanced set of modular rules. Everyone plays the Basic game but what modules each DM uses may vary.

(I really should just sit down and work out a Basic 4E; I don't even know how it would look and have only thought about it in relation to these discussions, never actually tried to formulate it; hmm....)

 

[Hussar]

Just reading the thread and spotted this one.

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. /snip.

Umm, let's look at the math a bit here. An encounter in 4e takes about an hour. It takes 10 encounters to make a level. Let's shorten that a bit, because of things like bonus xp, traps, whatnot that might make that easier. You're talking about 200 hours of game play to go from level 1 to 30. Multiply that by "the first few times" and you're looking at about 500-750 hours of game play.

And you're surprised that the game is losing a bit of luster? The game's only been out less than three years and you've put in that many hours of play? It's not the system that's losing the luster, it's the fact that you've played the ever living hell out of it.

 

[Hussar]

On the idea of integrated rules:

Is modularity something you want to give to a new DM? Is it fair to presume that a new DM will be able to pick and choose? How? How can someone who is new to RPG's have the criteria for knowing what will work at the table and what won't?

Doesn't modularity result in lots and lots of failed sessions, if not failed games, as DM's fumble their way through reinventing the wheel time and time again, table to table?

Why not start from the presumption that DM =/= amateur game designer and build a ruleset that works most of the time? Sure, it might not be a great system for bending towards other things, but, is that what you want from a system? Why not presume that people who play Game X are going to play in a certain style and then provide Game Y for those who might want something different?

This is precisely what 3e D&D did. You have a very integrated system in 3e (note the plethora of threads decrying various people's inability to adapt the system to whatever variants they want), with a bajillion side games, mostly from 3pp based on whatever new avenue people want to explore.

I honestly think that the era of the "tinker's game" is over. I know that people don't want to think that, but, IMO, what we're going to see is more and more integrated systems. The tighter the system is tied to a specific genre or theme, the more integrated the system will be.

Savage Worlds is a generic system, so, while it's fairly integrated, it's not very tightly wound. Not until you add in a campaign book, and then the system becomes very tightly integrated - trying to pull out elements of the specific campaign books is not an easy task.

 

[Argyle King]

Just reading the thread and spotted this one.



Umm, let's look at the math a bit here. An encounter in 4e takes about an hour. It takes 10 encounters to make a level. Let's shorten that a bit, because of things like bonus xp, traps, whatnot that might make that easier. You're talking about 200 hours of game play to go from level 1 to 30. Multiply that by "the first few times" and you're looking at about 500-750 hours of game play.

And you're surprised that the game is losing a bit of luster? The game's only been out less than three years and you've put in that many hours of play? It's not the system that's losing the luster, it's the fact that you've played the ever living hell out of it.

An understandable position until I consider that my gaming habits haven't changed. If anything, I probably play less 4E than the other games I currently play and the pre-4E games I played.

Honestly, what you mention is something I had considered too. I took a break from D&D for a little while before being asked to run the game I am running now. I do think there is some merit to the point though, and you are actually touching upon one of my qualms with 4E - It's a great experience... at first.

I find that, when I'm on the players side of the table and join a game, I'm really into it for the first few sessions. Then, for some reason, I am suddenly hit by the feeling that I'm just going through the motions to make the group happy; so they have enough people to play. I don't know what it is or exactly how to even describe it, but I... I don't know... I wish I could explain it, but I am unsure how to.

I really wish I could explain it better because without being able to put it into better words, what I am saying probably comes across as some sort of unfounded 'h4tEr' bias. There are very many things about the game that I look at and like. I love the new cosmology; I like the lessened power curve between levels; I like the 'drag and drop' nature of how GMing works. Though, for some reason; after the first few bites, I find my appetite has gone the way of the dodo.

I find myself in an odd position because I can't go back to 3E either. There are things which I feel 4E got right; and experiencing those things has made me unable to sit down and play 3E again. I tried, and I couldn't do it. Though, in spite of the things I feel 4E does right, it doesn't feel right when I sit at the table with it. Something about it just doesn't deliver what I want out of an rpg experience. Great game; very well designed game, but somehow (for some reason) it doesn't give me what I want from an rpg. Somehow 4E has managed to present options I like without being a game I enjoy.

From the GM side of the table, things are ok as long as I don't try to get too ambitious with the crunchy aspects of world building. I like running a 4E game. Though, I have noticed something odd during the past few sessions that I never gave much thought before.

That is that I feel as though it is possible to GM 4E without knowing how to play 4E. I do know how to play -especially after 'playing the ever living hell out of it'- but I was sitting there watching the players take their turns and it hit me that I need to know virtually nothing about how things function from the player side of things to run the game. This is a good thing in some ways; it makes GMing less of a daunting task. Conversely, at times I find myself feeling more detached from the rest of the group than I would like to. Still, I do find that I generally enjoy GMing 4E far more than being a player.

 

[Jhaelen]

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 don't know how well the 4e Red Box works as an introduction point to the game, but I agree that the old Red Box did it very well. Continuing to expand the game with the Expert Set, Master Set, etc. was also a clever thing to do.

I would have liked the Essentials line to take the same approach, i.e. have one product per tier. Since paragon and epic gameplay are supposed to be a different play experience it would have made sense to 'partition' the game like this.

Then again, I realize that someone interested in the game may want to get the 'whole picture' without having to buy four different boxed sets. E.g. I remember being somewhat disappointed after buying MERPS to find it ended at level 10, and I was apparently expected to switch to Rolemaster if I wanted to continue playing after that.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know how well the 4e Red Box works as an introduction point to the game, but I agree that the old Red Box did it very well. Continuing to expand the game with the Expert Set, Master Set, etc. was also a clever thing to do.

The danger with that though is that you further split your consumer base. While AD&D and B/E D&D were compatable, I know from anecdote at least, that lots of people refused to "cross the streams", as it were. They'd buy whichever supplement fit their system and ignored everything for the other system.

I have no idea how much cross pollination was going on, but, that's certainly a concern with creating a "full" game split off from the core game. I could also see it diluting the brand as well. One setting is for X D&D, and the other setting is for Y D&D. Is it all D&D? Maybe. In the eyes of the consumer though? Probably not.

Not saying you're wrong. Just putting out a possible reason why this might not have flown.

I find myself in an odd position because I can't go back to 3E either. There are things which I feel 4E got right; and experiencing those things has made me unable to sit down and play 3E again. I tried, and I couldn't do it. Though, in spite of the things I feel 4E does right, it doesn't feel right when I sit at the table with it. Something about it just doesn't deliver what I want out of an rpg experience. Great game; very well designed game, but somehow (for some reason) it doesn't give me what I want from an rpg. Somehow 4E has managed to present options I like without being a game I enjoy.

Now this? This I totally understand. I've just spent the last year hopping between a bunch of different systems. Five or so different systems, three different DM's, plus myself, just to shake off the cobwebs. Like you, I'd played the crap out of 3e. Weekly, sometimes twice weekly games for the better part of ten years, plus all the time I spend here and elsewhere.

I was REALLY burned out of D&D by the end of that. So, I managed to convince my wonderful group to try out a bunch of weird, indie games. Played a bunch and read a whole bunch more.

That kinda got me back in the mood for D&D. I find myself jonesing for D&D again, so, that's what we're currently playing.

My advice, take a long break. Don't play any D&D for a while and stretch out the legs for a while. It sounds to me like you're in a rut and just need some freshness. Despite all the hullabaloo, I really don't find 4e all that much different from 3e at the end of the day. They play pretty close to the same at the table for the most part. ((Yeah, yeah, i can hear you pounding your keyboard from here, please stop. I'm just sharing an opinion with this guy, you don't have to correct me)).

Step away from the D&D cycle of gaming and get into something really different for a while. It might help.

 

[Celebrim]

My long-term experience couldn't be more different if it tried. Characters come and go, it's a fact of life.

I suspect most people's experience is somewhere between our two extremes.
Not successful at market perhaps, but amazingly successful at the table. If I as player and-or DM have in effect helped design the game I'm playing by making up these now-common-law rules and helping flesh out the rules-light framework then I'm by extension almost certainly going to buy into it far more deeply than if I'm playing something prepackaged with rules to the nines.

I mean, not everyone likes the 'Victoria Rules' 1e variant we play, but those who do are fiercely loyal to it - because it's ours. We built it, out of the framework given us by 1e, and we'll play it till we die.

D&D, and especially 1e AD&D, is rules light only in a very particular (though I grant you important) sense. And that is that D&D can be usefully stripped down to a few very basic very simple to use mechanics. And in that since, it meets my definition of a 'well designed game' in that its very modular with a simple core system.

But in the sense that I'm talking about here, AD&D 1e is fundamentally one of the least rules light system ever, because its is definately prepackaged with rules to nines especially if you start considering the full breadth of the supplementary materials. Want to know how much metamorphic rock you can tunnel away in a weeks time use goblin slave labor? It's out there. Want to know how fast you can travel between two cities using a 90' schooner with a 20 man crew? It's out there. Want to know the amount you can safely devalue your currency by - literally making money by minting coins - if you have an 100 year old established kingdom with good credit? It's out there. Want to know how much income you earn from running an inn on an established trade route, or maybe if you run a theives guild in a capital city, or do you want to know the nesting habits of stirges? It's all out there.

Everyone's version of AD&D is their own, but because the fundamental systems are so similar everyone has the ability to borrow from that vast rules library for whatever propositions that they encounter in the game.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Is modularity something you want to give to a new DM? Is it fair to presume that a new DM will be able to pick and choose? How? How can someone who is new to RPG's have the criteria for knowing what will work at the table and what won't?

Just because my computer has the ability to swap out graphics cards doesn't mean that everybody needs to be handed a box full of random parts and be forced to assemble their computer from scratch. You can put together an accessible computer without welding the case shut.

Although, personally, I think this whole "modular" vs. "integrated" thing is kind of bunk. You change Power Attack and that has an impact on melee combat for characters that have Power Attack? Well, duh.

There's this rather comical belief that you can (a) change the rules of the game without (b) having an effect on how the game plays. This is, frankly, impossible.

"But I can do it with AD&D!"

No. You can't. AD&D may be enough of a glorious mess that you don't really care about the add-on impact of your changes, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Get rid of magical healing? Whole game changes. Change magic to a spell point system? Class balance radically alters. House rule stoneskin so that a handful of pebbles discharges the spell? Your game is playing significantly differently from the guy using stoneskin as a win button against meteor strikes. Stop rewarding XP for treasure and start rewarding it for combat? Significant impact on how people approach the dungeon.

And so forth.