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

[MerricB]

The renown system is quite interesting; it's basically a development of the earlier Player Rewards system, except - as the DM Rewards have become - is now being made available through directly participating in Organized Play, not through general mailouts.

The trouble is this: the rewards aren't really that exciting. Yes, I get a card that I can use in the Encounters, but it isn't that special. Interestingly, it's currently almost impossible to get the 100 Renown points needed for the final card in the current season - especially with the rewards for creating a Character Builder character unachievable without Essentials being in the CB!

Charles, if I might ask, how well did the Wednesday-only restriction go down in the UK? Were catch-up sessions scheduled?

Cheers!

 

[Chrono22]

Thanks Wicht, that clears alot up for me. I'd never heard of him before.

Still, it would be nice to see some of the figures that make encounters an undeniable success...

 

[Remathilis]

Overall, I've grown disillusioned with the current D&D, I think because it feels like the game has become a law text. I've found myself longing to play BE(CMI) D&D and 2E (something I'd sworn never to touch after a year of playing 3E), though I've really been taken by the likes of the Savage Worlds game. It feels to me that the game has been become lost in the mechanics over the actual play of the game.

I find myself in a similar situation as well; I'm burned out on 3e and its ilk, didn't like 4e (though essentials came close) and am seriously considering running either Basic Fantasy or 2nd Edition again.

I'd be willing to PLAY in anything, but running? That's a different story...

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks Wicht, that clears alot up for me. I'd never heard of him before.

Still, it would be nice to see some of the figures that make encounters an undeniable success...

Come on. He can't publicize WotC financial data just to make a point on a message board, and at this point you're just quibbling. If he says it's a success (in the financial sense), I think we can take it that he knows what he's talking about.

As to whether financial success will translate into long-term benefits for the hobby? Hard to say, but it seems likely to me. At least some of the Encounters players will have a blast and decide they want to try "the real thing," so in an absolute sense it will increase the player base.

The danger is over-focusing on the Encounters market at the expense of the committed, long-term DM base, which as several people have pointed out really is the core of the hobby; they'll have to go through a lot of Encounters players to find a replacement for a single experienced DM. And of course we don't know what the "conversion rate" is between Encounters and traditional D&D. (On the plus side, WotC has an incentive to push that conversion. A traditional D&D player/DM is surely going to buy more stuff than an Encounters player or DM.)

 

[Hussar]

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]

See, this is where I differ. I don't particularly enjoy the process. Prepping the game, building worlds, that sort of thing is not why I play D&D. I play D&D for the fun that is had at the table with my friends.

This could go a long way to explaining why I run a lot of modules. And always have.

For me, I prefer straight up instructions of a dry cookbook to somethat that rambles on, presuming that I can find whatever they're talking about in the cookbook.

I've never particularly viewed gaming as my artistic outlet. It's something I enjoy doing and something I've enjoyed doing for years. But art? Meh. It's no more artistic than my Poker night as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jhaelen]

Still, it would be nice to see some of the figures that make encounters an undeniable success...

Undeniable? Teeheehee!

Nothing is undeniable. The very concept of denial is based on ignoring facts - see:
Denial

 

[Maggan]

If we all see the information that is backing up your claims, we wouldn't have to rely on your word alone.

I trust Mr. Ryan's words.

/M

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since when has asking for proof equated to an accusation of lying?

It isn't. It is an important part of the rational process. You are allowed to determine the burden of proof required before you will believe anything. Someone who doesn't accept your right to do this is probably selling something......

Come on. He can't publicize WotC financial data just to make a point on a message board, and at this point you're just quibbling. If he says it's a success (in the financial sense), I think we can take it that he knows what he's talking about.

As to whether financial success will translate into long-term benefits for the hobby? Hard to say, but it seems likely to me. At least some of the Encounters players will have a blast and decide they want to try "the real thing," so in an absolute sense it will increase the player base.

The danger is over-focusing on the Encounters market at the expense of the committed, long-term DM base, which as several people have pointed out really is the core of the hobby; they'll have to go through a lot of Encounters players to find a replacement for a single experienced DM. And of course we don't know what the "conversion rate" is between Encounters and traditional D&D. (On the plus side, WotC has an incentive to push that conversion. A traditional D&D player/DM is surely going to buy more stuff than an Encounters player or DM.)

Very good post. Sorry I couldn't XP you for it.

Undeniable? Teeheehee!

Nothing is undeniable. The very concept of denial is based on ignoring facts - see:
Denial

The very concept of denial of a claim, in a rational sense, is that a burden of proof hasn't been met. Any conclusion you will ever draw will be based on sifting what evidence you have, and deciding which you think is most likely to be true.

From a rational standpoint, denial of a claim is not a claim that the denied claim is false; it is a statement that the denied claim is "not proven" and therefore should not be assumed to be true (although it may well be).

Thus, I deny that the moon landing was faked, not on the basis of ignoring facts, but because the claim is not proven. I might be wrong; the moon landing might have been faked.

I trust Mr. Ryan's words.

As do I. AFAICT, he is a straight shooter.


RC

 

[CharlesRyan]

If he says it's a success (in the financial sense), I think we can take it that he knows what he's talking about.

Actually, to be clear, that's not what I meant to say. I meant that it's a success in the sense of bringing lots of players into the program on a weekly basis, seeing lots of NEW players in those sessions, and having the numbers grow over time. An OP program's goal is to increase trial and regular play; D&D Encounters has been terrific in meeting that goal.

Again, I agree that Encounters doesn't reflect a style of play that gets the most out of RPGs. But it's bringing new players in by the thousands, and some of those will become long-term players, and some of those will become the next generation of evangalists. And that's the most you can ask out of any promotional strategy.

And, back to the point in contention, it does so by effectively putting new players into contact with experienced DMs.

(By the way, thanks for the kind comments, everyone.)

 

[JeffB]

I'd be willing to PLAY in anything, but running? That's a different story...

This has always been my case as well. I totally burnt out on 3E after a couple years, and while 4E is MUCH better for my own enjoyment, it is still "too much" as a game system. Some old lapsed players of mine recently asked me to run a 3.X or Pathfinder game, and just to get some game time in, I said OK. I purchased the PF books and despite several attempts to really get into reading/learning and getting inspired by the system, after an hour my eyes just glazed over. I shelved the books and told them, "sorry, no can-do". I offered to run some B/X or S&W:WB, 2E, or C&C. They are currently contemplating.

It's the same thing when I bought the recent Mongoose Runequest II book- From a player persepctive I can enjoy the more complicated combat & technical aspects but as a GM-rules up the ying yang stifles my creativity and enjoyment. Many RPGs have become way too complicated for me to enjoy.

as to the original intent of the OP- I have a son turning 11 at the end of the month- I have attempted several times to spark an interest in D&D in previous years using the 4E basic kit (the original one) as well as the 3.5 version, and the only moderately successful time was when I gave him the Mentzer players book (Frank's original hand erratta'ed copy, no less!). He's on occasion pulled the book out to read. I am hoping being slightly older and 4E red box which he will receive this sunday, which will generate some interest. I think a GOOD D&D game for the Nintenod DS/Wii or some other console would probably be a better catalyst for most young folk these days. The current rules systems are IMO just too complicated to have mass appeal. the original Basic Sets did a much better job in not only sparking imagination, but provided a far simpler play experience in combination with those old basic modules. In addition they had much extended play value as they were pretty compatible with AD&D modules. Todays young player gets into red box, and then gets slammed with a very complicated book in HOTFL or the PHB1- and 3.x was even worse.

Then again, D&D is not the world wide "cult hit" it was in the late 70s and early 80s, and I don't think we will ever see that again- kids are blasted with so much more Fantasy & Sci-Fi TV/Movies/Video games these days , D&D is comparitively "weak". Very unlike my youth in the 1970s- when the fantastical & the sense of wonder was far less commonplace and the medium was the the original Star Wars movie (EP IV), an old white cover copy of The Hobbit/LotR, or the incredible graphics of a Atari 2600