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

[Neonchameleon]

You don't know the physics of the real world, but you manage pretty well. And even if you do have a Ph.D. in physics, then most people don't and they manage just fine.

I know a fair amount of the physics of the real world even if not numerically defined. I know that if I jump off a house I'm likely to break my legs. This does not hold in D&D.

You don't have to know the physics - or more precisely the math - behind outcome resolution to have a sense of the world.

No. But you need to work hard to tell me in three paragraphs as much as three lines of math will.

You don't need to know the rules. If you do need to know the rules, it betrays a fundamental distrust of the system and/or the DM, because the only reason to know the rules is to try to wring out every last bit of advantage out of them, or to exploit or avoid their edge cases.

Are you trying to be personally insulting? The first reason I want to know the rules is that because if you try to hide them from me, my brain is going to spend half its effort reverse-engineering them. This is not a choice. It is a matter of how my brain is wired. That yours isn't must be relaxing for you. In complex games (e.g. GURPS, 3.X, 4e, Pathfinder) the next reason to want to know the rules is so I can get my character to represent what I want to play. I have a better idea what my character is than any DM (or anyone else).

For that matter, the only sort of RPGs where I exploit the rules right up to the hilt are ones like old-school D&D where they are partially concealed and I've had to discover them in play. And that's because my character has discovered most of those rules in character and so has mastered them.

But none of that is IMO essential to enjoying an RPG, and to a certain extent it just gets in the way.

But not knowing the rules at all makes me itch between the shoulderblades. It really gets in the way of enjoying a RPG unless the goal is to find the rules of the new world. Different strokes for different folks. But please don't tell me mine are Badwrongfun.

Maybe. I suspect that those things are more essential to making people enjoy GMing.

I'll concede the point with the proviso that a GM who burns out fast is probably worse than none at all - you've not only had a bad campaign, you've even reduced your pool of potential GMs.

And it wouldn't be hard to come up with examples of games that seem like they should work but utterly fail in the end because its not at all clear to the would be GM how to play the game afterall no matter how clear the rules are.

Indeed. The map is not the territory.

Ok, here I'm just going to have to note your condescension and how misplaced it is. There are many things you can accuse me of with good cause, but if you are of the belief that I don't know RPG rules and how to judge them or to craft them then you are just simply quite wrong. I know what a rules light system is and how they work, and from your example, I dare say I've considered the problem more seriously than you are at the moment.

If a rules light system is "a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references" then it's badly written even if it's a good game. And you do have a point when you take another interesting rules-light game like Dogs in the Vineyard. I want to sneak past someone (or worse yet several someones) in that game. How do I do it? What sort of fallout do I take if I fail?

Moreover, you have completely failed to notice a problem that you might have noticed had you actually spent more time listening to me rather than getting grumpy about what I was saying. You are caught up entirely in the notion of a pass/fail fortune mechanic, and you've failed to consider that at the game table, a very large percentage of player propositions aren't of the pass/fail type and don't have 'yes/no' answers.

1: If my computer can work on binary pass/fail, yes/no checks as long as I break it down enough then so can an RPG.

2: That's one of the reasons I really like skill challenges. There is a target but the things aren't strict pass/fail.

Converting analytic analog propositions into simple binary ones requires a bit of rules alchemy, and that process of 'working out how many blocks for a given action' is far more of an art form than you seem to realize.

And ultimately comes down to picking a number between 1 and 5. Normally 1.

A game like Dread is built for an evening's entertainment [snip]

There is that.

And as for 'inelegant', I quite agree, but I don't think this is nearly so damning of a charge as you seem to think it is. Many things which are very functional are 'inelegant', and a great many things which are elegant are not particularly functional.

And in terms of game/rules design, elegance involves simple but functional. "As simple as possible to do the job desired and no simpler".

So, this depends very much on whether you think true elegance is a matter of artistic form, or whether you think its a matter of functionality.

Functionality every time.

I prefer the latter, and I find - after playing many many systems and reading many many more over nearly 30 years - that D&D is an intensely functional and gameable system,

What are you calling D&D? But I'm running two campaigns at the moment. And not because I don't have players who'll try other systems.

Not at all. I'm working under several assumptions loosely or tightly held, but none of them are that.

That was the consequence rather than the reason, I'll grant.

Of course, you might discern by this point that I consider that to be a sign of more true elegance than the traits proposed by many of the artsy fartsy theories about what makes a game elegant. I'll have more respect for such theories when they manage to make as gameable of a game, and when their proponents understand better why D&D works and don't stupidly (as I once did in my ignorance) blame its success merely on being first.

I'm normally on the other side of this debate But a large part of why D&D works is that it grew organically rather than was a system designed from the top. People don't fit into neat little boxes and D&D was tinkered with until it worked.

 

[Celebrim]

Heh, I obviously disagree, but then, that's fair enough.

I don't think we disagree all that much. We are just talking abit cross purpose. In the details though, I think we are much on the same page.

I think that systems that put so much emphasis on the person running the game to constantly have to devise rulings for actions that are reasonably expectable within the context of the game are poorly designed. How far can my character jump? Well, if Bob runs the game, then I can jump this far. If Dave is running it, I can jump that far.

For example, we are very much in agreement there and it echos much of what I've been saying for the past few pages. The point where I think you fail to understand me, is that while that is very much true, that point of failure is not really very important with respect to attracting new players to the game. And, were that really the issue, then 3e had a very high degree of 'casual realism' (obligatory citation here) and there would be no reason to think we'd need another sort of game to attract new players.

Then again, I have never drawn inspiration particularly from the mechanics. The mechanics, to me, are simply a tool that I use for exploring the particular story that me and the group want to explore. Whether that's a very free form sandboxy style or heavy plotsy style, doesn't matter. The mechanics are a tool, nothing more.

See, we do agree.

Obviously tastes differ. For me, given the choice between a 1e DMG and a 4e DMG, I'd take the 4e DMG hands down every time.

Unmodified, I might do the same. But, more likely, I'd take my own modified version of 1e that takes lessons from 20+ years of playing D&D in several editions to smooth out the problems with the system I know about. I look at 4e though and don't have a clue what I'd do to fix the problems I see save gird my loins and just trudge on bearing them in as manly of a fashion as I could. Which might point to the main difference between me and you being how much we expect or want to be able to tinker with the system. There are some other differences of course in our tastes, and that's a matter of taste and so I'm not knocking you for your choice of 4e. It's just that not only is it not the game for me, but its so designed such that I can't turn it into a game for me.

 

[Celebrim]

Are you trying to be personally insulting?

Says the snide snippy condescending eye-roller? But as a matter of fact, no, I'm not. I don't expect you to be all happy with what I'm saying, but if I wanted to be personally insulting I'd be a lot more direct about it than I am.

I know a fair amount of the physics of the real world even if not numerically defined. I know that if I jump off a house I'm likely to break my legs. This does not hold in D&D.

That is just a huge can of worms, and I'd not want to open it here. We had that one many times before, and its really interesting, but it usually ends with people shouting at each other.

Suffice to say:

a) Even if you can't possibly break your leg by jumping off a house in D&D, it doesn't necessarily follow that the game is improved if the player nows that.
b) It might actually be excellent versimilitude with any heroic setting that a hero can jump off a house with no chance of breaking his leg, but depending on the setting it isn't necessarily also excellent versimilitude if the hero acts as if he can jump off houses (or skyscapers!) without breaking his leg.
c) That assumption, if applied at my table, would likely get you the player in a lot of trouble in the long run. While I don't feel any need to keep my falling rules secret, assuming you didn't know them, you'd actually be better off with the assumption that jumping off a house occasionally means a broken leg than with the assumption that, "Since this is D&D, I can exploit known limitations in the rules to jump off houses without breaking my leg." And indeed, I feel this is true regardless of what the rules happen to be.
d) The particular thing you site is such a notorious example, that not only is it the case that it has made people unhappy for years and years, but its been patched and altered from the base rules probably more than any other single rule. Sitting down at a random D&D table, I'd pretty much assume that a house rule for falling was in play until it was demonstrated otherwise.

The first reason I want to know the rules is that because if you try to hide them from me, my brain is going to spend half its effort reverse-engineering them. This is not a choice. It is a matter of how my brain is wired. That yours isn't must be relaxing for you.

I don't know. I do know that I can't enjoy a movie without thinking about it and that I can't turn my brain off to do so. I just guess I don't find it very distracting to work out the rules over time, and am in no particular hurry to do so.

In complex games (e.g. GURPS, 3.X, 4e, Pathfinder) the next reason to want to know the rules is so I can get my character to represent what I want to play. I have a better idea what my character is than any DM (or anyone else).

Ok, sure, but you don't need to know the rules in order to do that. It's perfectly possible to separate rules for chargen from the resolution rules. Most games are pretty up front about the chargen rules, and then have resolution rules in latter chapter which may or may not be perused by players but usually certainly do not have to be. Why do you think you need to know the resolution rules in order to 'get my character to represent what I want to play'?

And that's because my character has discovered most of those rules in character and so has mastered them.

???

But not knowing the rules at all makes me itch between the shoulderblades...But please don't tell me mine are Badwrongfun.

I'm not. I don't however think you are typical of a new gamer though, and to be honest I think you are pretty far down the spectrum of how much rules/system mastery you feel you need to have as a player. In your case, I'd hand you my 500 page house rules document and say, "Have fun.", and fully expect you to come back with, "The rules for X are incomplete. What happens when..." And that's fine. It's just not what I'd expect of a new player and while it might be what you enjoy, for your average new player I'd probably tell them that they were worrying to much about knowing the rules. This would especially be the case if I saw they were worried about knowing the rules but very unanxious to consume a 500 page densely written document.

If a rules light system is "a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references" then it's badly written even if it's a good game. And you do have a point when you take another interesting rules-light game like Dogs in the Vineyard. I want to sneak past someone (or worse yet several someones) in that game. How do I do it? What sort of fallout do I take if I fail?

Dogs in the Vineyard is neither badly written or a bad game. It is simply a rules light game and so will have the inherent limitations of any rules light game, among which are "doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references". Good designers of course mitigate against this by matching the intended game to the rules light mechanics of the game so that this problem gets in the way as little as possible. But, every rules light approach invariably involves heavy reliance on narrative versimilitude, DM fiat, and improvised mechanics.

Let's take the Dread example. Dread is interesting in that it uses an unusual fortune mechanic. The particular fortune mechanic it uses causes the difficulty of a task to steadily increase over time, so that a 'pull 1' task early in the game is not nearly the same as a 'pull 1' task later in the game. What this means is that we have a non-simulation. We have a game where the difficulty isn't determined by the task, but by the needs of the story. The GM is constantly fudging to achieve a particular story arc. His constraints and interests aren't really in, "How likely is this to succeed?" or even in, "How much can be accomplished?" but rather, "How much time is left in the story?" The fortune mechanic is such that virtually any task has almost a 100% chance of success very early on, but eventually the odds of any task succeeding approach 0% in the long run. The art is in running into that high chance of failure at the right time - neither too late nor too early. That's the expectation of the system. It's a fortune mechanic designed to run a story to a definite and tense conclusion. You couldn't run the same game with a coin flip.

Now, it should be perfectly clear then that the mechanic is in fact, "a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references", because the art of the game is in the pacing of the story and the challenges - inventing pulls where needed to pick up the pace and avoiding them elsewhere to slow it down. There is no way that he rules can do more than give vague and difficult to apply guidelines for this, and so its up to the GM to come to understand and apply the art of the game.

(Incidently, if you are living in the central Ohio area and think you've mastered this art, I'd love to be invited to sit in on a game to play and to learn.)

1: If my computer can work on binary pass/fail, yes/no checks as long as I break it down enough then so can an RPG.

First of all, your computer can't run an RPG. If it could run an RPG, it could also pass the turing test. And if you understand the art of an RPG well enough that you can teach a computer to do it, then I suggest that your skills are very underused and that you should be applying for a faculty position at UT, GT, CMU, MIT, CalB, or the like ASAP for your own good and the good of mankind.

Secondly, that "as long as I break it down enough" is the phrasing hiding all the art and complexity there, and within it is hid even things that make the most rules heavy system shudder. The question is not whether any system is comprehensive, because it certainly isn't. The question is whether the tools are there with good guidelines on how to use them. In a rules light system, those guidelines must inherently be quite general and unspecific, and the rules themselves are likely to be of the same sort. This doesn't make them 'bad rules', and they might even be better rules than heavier rules that consistantly give bad answers (especially in the hands of a good GM). But it does mean that the GM has less in the way of guidance and must rely - like the users of the afore described school handbook - more on their own judgment.

And in terms of game/rules design, elegance involves simple but functional. "As simple as possible to do the job desired and no simpler".

Yes, it is the very same standard that is used for programming. But sometimes this means something incredibly complex and 'janky' looking indeed because the simple things just don't do the job.

But a large part of why D&D works is that it grew organically rather than was a system designed from the top. People don't fit into neat little boxes and D&D was tinkered with until it worked.

Yes.

 

[Camelot]

Celebrim, you mentioned that the D&D books were "as dry as a cookbook." I think you need to rethink that simile, because as I see it, it fits D&D perfectly.

When you want to eat food, you need to make it first. You get out your cookbook and find a recipe that sounds and looks good, based on the description that the author provides and the pictures of the completed food. You then must go through the steps of creating the food. You might add in your own ingredients or take out suggested ingredients that you don't like. Of course, you might also mess up some of the measuring or timing during the preparation. Once you are finished, you can then eat the food. You may find that it is just as you expected, but you might also find that the meal didn't turn out as you had hoped. You could go back and try again, or you might make something completely new.

When you want to play an RPG, you need to make a character first. You get out your Player's Handbook and find a class and race combo that sounds and looks good, based on the mechanics that the author wrote and the pictures and flavor text of those characters. You then must go throught the steps of creating the character. You might add in your own homebrew mechanics or change some roleplaying aspects that you don't like. Of course, you might also mess up some of the math or misunderstand the mechanics. Once you are finished, you can then play the RPG. You may find that it is just as you expected, but you might also find that the character didn't turn out as you had hoped. You could go back and rework the character, or you might make something comepletely new.

The point is, you need those rules to make the food/play the RPG as the author intended it. You could also make up your own recipe/game rules, but it might not turn out as good as it would have with the cookbook/rulebook, because the author of that book has had a lot more experience than you at making the food/game rules taste good/be fun.

The rulebook may be dry, but that's because it isn't the game by itself. There is some effort involved, in any game, to actually play the game instead of just reading a book.

 

[Wicht]

I have quite a few cook books. The ones that get the most use are the ones which make me want to cook the things in them. There are two ways they do this. Either they have good pictures of the food, or they have some sort of narrative or facts about the food, telling me what it goes good with, what its history is, things like that. The cook books that have recipes with no commentary or pictures simply don't get used as much.

 

[nedjer]

It is simply a rules light game and so will have the inherent limitations of any rules light game, among which are "doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references". Good designers of course mitigate against this by matching the intended game to the rules light mechanics of the game so that this problem gets in the way as little as possible. But, every rules light approach invariably involves heavy reliance on narrative versimilitude, DM fiat, and improvised mechanics.

In a rules light system, those guidelines must inherently be quite general and unspecific, and the rules themselves are likely to be of the same sort. This doesn't make them 'bad rules', and they might even be better rules than heavier rules that consistantly give bad answers (especially in the hands of a good GM). But it does mean that the GM has less in the way of guidance and must rely - like the users of the afore described school handbook - more on their own judgment.
/QUOTE]

Kind of selective there? Chess, Catan, Traveller and White Box don't seem to fit with this. Just how long does a set of rules have to be to escape being labelled rules light?

 

[Dausuul]

Celebrim, you mentioned that the D&D books were "as dry as a cookbook." I think you need to rethink that simile, because as I see it, it fits D&D perfectly.

Hardly. A cookbook is a script meant to be followed. The presumption is that if you do exactly as you are told*, you will get the result you want--and that result will be good regardless of whether you find the cookbook inspiring or entertaining, or whether you have any fun following the directions, because the goal is to produce a tangible thing which is distinct from the process of producing it.

Games don't work like that. If you're just performing rote directions from a book, why bother? The goal is to enjoy the process, not the nonexistent product; and in D&D, a central part of the process is the exercise of the imagination. Therefore, a good D&D book should fire the imagination of the reader.

Now, a dry, boring D&D book is not necessarily a total loss. Skilled gamers can bring the inspiration without the book's help, and one does need a good set of rules. Still, such a book is not doing as much as it could or (IMO) should to strengthen the game. Say what you will about 1E's mechanics, the books were fascinating to read and filled with creative fuel.

[size=-2]*Certainly a skilled chef can vary the recipe and will likely enjoy the process. But the point is that you don't need to vary the recipe or enjoy yourself to achieve the basic goal.[/size]

 

[Chrono22]

Chrono, you are absolutely right that WotC would be foolish not to develop and exploit the excellent resource that is the dedicated D&D DM. These guys do more to get players in that a million ads.

I couldn't agree more with this assessment! Go DMs!

But isn't that what they're doing with Encounters? Every Encounters DM is a local volunteer; the vast majority are likely dedicated players. WotC's doing a great job for herding new players into the arms of these evangelists through Encounters.

I'd say, no. Many, many previous editions DMs felt disenfranchised with DnD 4e's direction. Many decided to get off the bandwagon and play other games. Which would have been fine, except that they aren't just enthusiastic DMs- they are enthusiastic gamers. Many took some or all of their "herd" with them. Now those GMers are advertising for other games and systems.
But many did stick with it, and gave 4e a fighting chance. For many 4e is a hit, and its emphasis on balance is everything they could want in an RPG.
Then where does Essentials come in? Simplified rules, fewer choices, and a smaller range of advancement options. You have a game that is tailor made to hook the casual player niche of gamers. With little investment required in a character concept or comprehension of the rules, Essentials enables even a casual player to try out the D&D experience.
But essentials and other systems lack something CRPGs have: Accessibility. Affordability. All the effort in the world to make D&D the game of choice will be for naught so long as games happen once or twice a week. So WotC's solution is Encounters- walk in play. Casual players can get a mouthful at a time, at their leisure. But why doesn't this work? Because the people running it aren't casual players.
Encounters leaves dedicated DMs in the lurch. Stuck in a series of one offs, with the same repetitive 2 dimensional casts and mechanics, and with no ability to make meaningful changes the published encounters or events... can you imagine? How boring. How uninspiring. How unfulfilling. Encounters may be attractive to casual players, but actually DMing it sounds repulsive to me. But then I guess the renown points system just seems like a gimmick to me, so that might be part of it.

I think you're wrong, though about abandoning new players. Where do the long-term, dedicated players come from? I was a newbie once, and I'm sure you were too. Yeah, a lot of them might try it and move on, but some portion of new players go on to become long-term players, and just the sort of dedicated, hard-core gamers we need to bring new generations into the game.

I'd say, the long-term dedicated players come from the friends of other long-term dedicated players. They aren't some elusive niche with a bizarre enthusiasm for technology and cheetos. Dedicated players can come from any walk of life- but all of them have friends who play. The people that walk into a gaming store, and start playing with a bunch of strangers, aren't (in my experience) the people that create a long-lasting personal connection to the game.
So what WotC really needs to do, is something like Gamers Seeking Gamers. A way for the entire gaming community to seek eachother out. Constantly repackaging their rules and using Encounters (or Living Forgotten Realms) to advertise their lastest offerings isn't cutting it.
I really wish DDI had produced the Game Table, as was advertised.

 

[Herschel]

Faithful customers who stick with you for 30 years are easier to plan around than potential customers who might be tempted to give you their patronage if you revamp your entire inventory.

Except there really are no 30-year customers for WotC. They've "only" had the D&D brand since 3E for one thing. For another, many people either skipped entire editions or didn't go beyond certain others. All the people still playing OD&D/1E/2E aren't really WotC customers at all unless they come back with 4E, Essentials or some later product. Scads of people simply skipped 3E and came back with 4E. Another group stopped with 3E (just like every other previous edition).

The only 30-year customers of D&D (the brand) are playing 4E and in their 40s or older (and many with overwhelming competition for their free time). Not exactly a fertile vista of new gamers to grow an industry.

 

[Lanefan]

You seem to be working under the assumption that versatility automatically makes a system good.

Given how many different things people have used the game for in the past and how many different ways they've played it (even within the same edition), I'd say this is an excellent base assumption.

For that matter, the only sort of RPGs where I exploit the rules right up to the hilt are ones like old-school D&D where they are partially concealed and I've had to discover them in play.

Which in my view goes exactly against the spirit of the game and how it should be played. It's not a game of "find the loophole", and if that's how you've been approaching rules-light or rules-concealed games no wonder they haven't worked for you.

The rulebook may be dry, but that's because it isn't the game by itself. There is some effort involved, in any game, to actually play the game instead of just reading a book.

True, but the books also set the tone for the game; and if the books are a new player's first exposure to the game the books need to *be* the game.

1e books are like a dungeon - dig a little deeper and you'll find something new.
4e books are like a battlemap - it's all laid out and what you see is what you get.

Except there really are no 30-year customers for WotC. They've "only" had the D&D brand since 3E for one thing. For another, many people either skipped entire editions or didn't go beyond certain others. All the people still playing OD&D/1E/2E aren't really WotC customers at all unless they come back with 4E, Essentials or some later product. Scads of people simply skipped 3E and came back with 4E. Another group stopped with 3E (just like every other previous edition).

Speaking from purely personal experience I can refute the bold-text part of this argument entirely. I'm a warrior for 1e and I've been playing it continuously since 1982, but I've still bought more than enough 4e stuff - and 3e stuff before that - to (I would hope) qualify as a WotC customer.

If WotC puts out decent stuff, people playing every edition will buy it. Even more so if they could find a way to put out decent edition-neutral stuff, but that thought never seems to enter their heads.

Lan-"does the D+D cookbook have a recipe for roast elf?"-efan