• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Best edition for new players: pick any two

I think we need to give "new players" a bit of credit here...
This is kind of what I was wondering too as I read through this thread. When we say "new players" what exactly do we mean?

Are we saying:
- A player's significant other (who perhaps is sick of becoming a D&D widow) and is going to blow a gasket if things start getting too difficult or weird
- Some random guy who likes reading fantasy that we thought we'd invite along one time
- A younger player who loves computer games and who you know will go hell for leather in terms of absorbing everything he can
- Some generic "new" person... who is new?

I think the introductory merits of a particular edition are secondary to:
- The type of new person
- What the game is that our group is actually playing.

If a new player cannot be introduced with the version we're playing, then they're not going to work in with our group anyway. In essence, I think most editions are good at enthusing a new player as long as that new player is bringing their own enthusiasm and motivation to the table. If they're not, then pen & paper rpging is most likely not for them. I don't think any particular edition is going to get in the way of that.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Keldryn

Adventurer
I think we need to give "new players" a bit of credit here, it's not like they look at the powers on their character sheet and burst into tears at how horrible and complex it is.

Burst into tears, no, of course not. Find it overwhelming and too much like work? Definitely. Two of my four players are new to the game and both feel that 4e is too complex, primarily because of the powers. They have too many options and they find it hard to tell how certain powers differ from one another. They hate having to remember when the bard gives them 3 temporary HP or a +2 bonus on attack rolls for a single round. These two play a two-blade ranger and an Essentials slayer, which are among the more straightforward classes in 4e.

Some new players will absolutely love the way that 4e powers are set up and will take to it quickly. A lot of dedicated gamers (tabletop, video, or otherwise) thrive on mastering complex systems and enjoy spending time outside of the game sessions reading the books and learning about it. More "casual" gamers frequently don't enjoy complex systems and don't spend much time and effort (if any) outside of the gaming sessions to learn about the game.

I mean hell, have you played some of the video games out there? Some of them make 4e look like a walk in the park.

That is true, and many of those more complex games are unapproachable to those who don't make gaming their primary pasttime.

The two players in my group who don't enjoy the complexities of 4e also don't enjoy complex video games.

My wife is a good example. She is very well-read, excels at word games and puzzles, is a voracious reader of fantasy novels, has a master's degree, has a terrible habit of ripping my own logical arguments to shreds with her logical reasoning, and plays a fair number of video games. She's new to D&D and finds 4e too complex, to the point where she feels that the rules get in the way of role-playing because they require so much of her attention. The powers are the chief culprit here.

She also doesn't enjoy most modern console games. She loves RPGs and Zelda-type games that are in the vein of those that were done on the SNES. She played one session of Basic D&D after having played a few 4e sessions, and her analogy was that playing Basic D&D was like playing a Super Nintendo or DS game with a D-pad and 4 buttons (yes, it had more than that, but many games didn't use more than 4). Playing 4e was like playing an Xbox 360 game where the controller has a D-pad, two analog sticks, 8 buttons, 2 triggers, and needing to use all of those while also having to navigate a virtual 3D space and control the camera while trying to move and fight. She's finished Zelda: A Link to the Past on the SNES a number of times, yet she finds Zelda: The Wind Waker on the Gamecube -- the game which legions of gamers complained was so easy that they never even came close to dying -- to be too complicated and difficult to play.

So 4e can be fairly simple and easy for some new players to pick up -- I won't argue against that. Without getting into a debate about the scientific validity of Gardner's multiple intelligences theory (as it is a useful tool for illustrating my point), I think that 4e very much appeals to players with strong logical-mathematical abilities. From my own experience in working as a video game designer, and from interviews I've read, a large proportion of game designers (across all industries) are predominantly "logical-mathematical" in how they approach things. New players who tend to be stronger in verbal-linguistic or interpersonal abilities are probably much less likely to enjoy 4e and might find it not at all simple to learn. Yet these are quite likely the most natural story-tellers and role-players (read: "actors").

Basic D&D is a simple enough system that most anyone can learn to play in a short period of time, and then the rules fade into the background and the players can focus on all the areas that don't involve the rules. The more rules there are and the more complex those rules and their interactions are, the longer this process takes. Games with more complex rules will naturally appeal more to the "logical-mathematical" types than others, and players who don't enjoy -- or simply aren't very good at -- that mode of thinking may never reach the point where the rules just fade into the background. From their perspective, the rules just get in the way of telling a good story or portraying their characters. The gamers who thrive on mastering and tinkering with complex rules systems frequently don't understand why some other players are struggling with it.

B/X or BECMI D&D used to be the simpler game that was accessible to most anyone with an interest in fantasy adventure stories, regardless of their personal strengths. AD&D was there for those gamers who enjoy more complex game systems. Hero was there for those gamers who wanted to exclude anyone who wasn't a budding computer programmer (I kid). I don't dislike 4e, and there is a lot that I really like about it, but it has proven to be a poor introduction to RPGs for the two new players in my group.

D&D 4e targets the "logical-mathematical" type of gamer and delivers a fantastically-designed game that runs smoothly and is relatively easy to learn. But I think that has been at the cost of its accessibility to gamers outside of that group. If you don't care about whether or not your fighter is balanced with Bob's wizard through all levels of play, if you don't care that your character's main activity in combat is rolling a d20 to see if you hit and then rolling damage, if you don't care about having a plethora of options to customize your character, if you a prefer fast-and-loose over a strongly tactical approach to combat, and if you're playing a fighter precisely because you don't want to have to maintain a list of "spells" to choose from, then 4e has little to offer you and learning it will likely prove to be an uphill battle.

And as an introduction to role-playing games for new players, the game should appeal to a broad group of player preferences. I don't think that 4e's appeal is anywhere near as broad as that of Basic D&D.
 

amnuxoll

First Post
Well my original post has been derailed a bit. I suppose it's my fault for rambling.

My intended discussion topic was: Have others observed a significantly lower long-term retention rate when you start new players with 4e? Or is it just me?
 

pemerton

Legend
If you have a knowledgeable DM 4E can support new players, but I think overall it has so many fiddly bits that it gets intimidating very quickly.
It's a long time since I've introduced any new players - and that was to Rolemaster, which makes 4e look mechanically trivial in comparison - but I agree that to me it doesn't look that appealing to new players.

Moldvay/Cook/Marsh by far.
For D&D editions I'd have to agree.

For RPGs, I think HeroQuest is mechanically pretty simple, and fairly intuitive in its rules. I think it would suit new players - especially those who are more into words than numbers - but maybe not a new GM (it puts a lot of demands on the GM to interpret the results of mechanical resolution in ingame terms - moreso than 4e, for example, and therefore far more than Basic D&D).
 

Keldryn

Adventurer
Sorry for participating on derailment. It has't been anywhere near long-term, but my two new players were getting bored after 3 sessions of 4e and were trying to think of polite ways to say that they weren't interested anymore. After one session of Basic, they were actually looking forward to the next game.

I don't think either one would keep playing if we stay with 4e.
 

amnuxoll

First Post
I honestly can not fathom this statement.

I would have said 4e can create a version of quite literally any concept one could conceive! (the ironic part being that this annoys me about it, :lol:)

Concepts I've been unable to create satisfactorily/effectively with 4e:
- A melee-focused warlock who does not understand magic or the source of his power and has below average intelligence.
- A character who has great physical resiliance (read: has significantly more hit points than normal for his class).
- A true pacifist cleric: has no powers that deal damage, only powers that aid allies.
- Also, any character concept with more than 3 classes. Example: barbarian, sorcerer, cleric.

In all cases, you have to shoehorn it in somehow or make up house rules to handle it. Usually when I complain about such things I get one of two reactions:
A. "that's a bad character concept"
B. "oh yes, you can" (and then proceeds to shoehorn).
 

ProfessorCirno

Banned
Banned
Not to nitpick, but...

- A melee-focused warlock who does not understand magic or the source of his power and has below average intelligence.

This is like being irate that I can't make a wizard with below average intelligence in any D&D game.

- A character who has great physical resiliance (read: has significantly more hit points than normal for his class).
- A true pacifist cleric: has no powers that deal damage, only powers that aid allies.

Not only are these both possible (for the first one, choose a big beefy guy with a lot of HP and toughness and pound on the constitution or, in other words, this is the Warden class), but the second is to some degree popular enough to have its own handbook.

- Also, any character concept with more than 3 classes. Example: barbarian, sorcerer, cleric.

This one's easier so long as you separate class from character.

In other words, you don't need to be the fighter class to call yourself a "fighter," just as you don't need a separate "farmer" class to say "I used to be a farmer."

It strikes me as odd - older editions were all about refluffing. There weren't pirates and samurai and gladiator classes, you just made a fighter then said "Ok, I'm a gladiator." 4e optimistically gives you better options for defining yourself, so what suddenly stops this?

I guess what I'm saying is, character concepts don't require classes. "I'm a graceful and cunning warrior with two weapons." What class is that? Rogue? Ranger? Fighter? Heck, even sorcerer could work. The idea is to start with the character first, then pick the best mechanics out to fit your ideal.



Also the answer to the OP is clearly Alshard ;p
 

renau1g

First Post
Concepts I've been unable to create satisfactorily/effectively with 4e:
- A melee-focused warlock who does not understand magic or the source of his power and has below average intelligence.

Well, you can choose a below-average Int as it's the secondary for Warlocks, and have a high Cha/Con and use Eldritch Blast/Strike. Warlock is a ranged striker though so there are not a ton of melee powers. Just like barbarians don't have a ton (any?) ranged powers.

- A character who has great physical resiliance (read: has significantly more hit points than normal for his class).
Well, A Con-focused Warlock, A summoner Wizard or Evocation Mage (Con secondary), Battlemind, two of the Warden builds, etc. Plus grab Toughness and Durable feats, good to go.

- A true pacifist cleric: has no powers that deal damage, only powers that aid allies.
Pretty easy to do. I've got one in a PbP I run here. His only damage power is Sacred Flame, but he doesn't use it.

LEB:pC:River (Velmont) - ENWorld Living Eberron Wiki

- Also, any character concept with more than 3 classes. Example: barbarian, sorcerer, cleric.
Hybrid barbarian|sorcerer, MC cleric. You could put 14's in either Str/Cha/Wis (and grab a race that bumps two of the three) and put a 16 in the non-racial bump to have 3 16's for the main stats, but understand that you've chosen a super-MAD PC. Like making a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer in 3e. Sure you can do it, but you won't be super-effective

No character concept is bad, just some can be far from effective. "I want to make a gnome barbarian with 8 Str" sucks in just about any edition.
 

Aus_Snow

First Post
BFRPG.

Or, one of the even simpler, more streamlined retro clones, derivatives, offshoots, etc.

I just happen to rather like Basic Fantasy, as D&D of this kind goes. It's also stupendously easy to add to, alter, whatever.
 

pemerton

Legend
The whole "character concept" thing is a bit strange to me. I've toyed with it a bit, because I've run two Rolemaster campaigns to very high levels (mid-20s both) and have over the years, mostly out of curiosity, looked at how you would convert the PCs to various versions of D&D. And the first thing that happens is that, in RM, spell-using PCs are super-focused (eg one PC in a game I ran was a fire mage, another a lightning-bolting demon summoner, another a disintegrator and dominator). And this super-focus doesn't make them mechanically sub-optimal, but rather is one aspect of their mechanical optimality. Breadth of magical ability, in Rolemaster, tends to be a mechanicaly sub-optimal build decision.

In D&D, however, it is hard to build an optimal but narrowly focused spell-user (especially pre-4e). Some of the PCs from these old RM games can be reasonably converted into 4e, but others can't (eg a Rolemaster warrior mage, who with spell buffs is about as good a fighter as a RM fighter, plus has flying for maximum ability to charge wielding a two-handed sword, but is weaker in combat when the spells aren't cast - in 4e this is hard to do, though a hybrid barbarian/swordmage can probably approximate to it).

3E is about the same. It is probably a bit better at the warrior mage, but in my view doesn't do a psionicist monk so well, if only because that sort of PC will suffer in both spell-casting level and BAB (whereas a 4e psionicist has reasonable AC with Unarmoured Agility, and can take a melee 1 at will force power to handle the martial arts stuff).

Both systems are probably more promising than AD&D, just because of the great wealth of character-building options they provide.

But ultimately any RPG system constrains the PCs that can be built within it - that is part of what a system does. For me, then, the question isn't "Are there character concepts that 4e doesn't support very well" but "Does it support a viable range of character concepts". And the answer to this question surely is Yes.
 

Remove ads

Top