D&D Family Problems (and the Impenetrability of the Game for Newbies)

[Manbearcat]

While I do agree with the premise that, from a business perspective, diversifying the scope of gameplay (from entry-level to complex) may be the best hope for a successful 5e, I'm still not so certain that there was some universal, basic, gateway experience that led the D&D revolution. My own experience, and the experience of most folks I know who played at that time, wasn't just breaking out Holmes, Mentzer or Moldvay. It involved an eclectic, incoherent pile of stuff from which folks sewed their own quilt of D&D. Chainmail + A collection of issues of Dragon + a volume or 2 of Arduin's Grimoire + a boxed set or a monster manual...maybe some Runequest background...and maybe several years later a copy of UA. This sort of collage and mish-mash of sub-systems and "stuff" is what made every creative agenda, social contract, table dynamic unique. It was anything but "Basic" or "non-complex". Due to that, there was a heaping helping of learning curve from table to table. I'm not so sure that experience was highly anomalous amongst the greater culture. Certainly wasn't in my anecdotal sphere (which was quite large and has grown in the course of decades).

 

[Li Shenron]

4e has more in common with miniatures wargaming than with video games.

I totally agree with this, but unfortunately this is even worse to make D&D more popular.

Now the question might be: do we really want D&D to be popular, or do we want it to be an elitists hobby? [Note that from a business point of view, the answer it not really obvious at all, which one is more profitable depends on a lot of factors]

I think that D&D has always generally leaned towards being more an elitists hobby than a popular one, but since the concept of "system mastery" introduced by 3ed, it has become more elitist because of a higher entry barrier. Personally I heard a lot of people telling me "yeah I'd be interested in trying it out, but I don't want to spend time learning all those rules".

The problem is that there are A LOT of people who would like to play a game where they are required to THINK but much fewer who like being required to KNOW or remember, before they can start enjoying the game. There are many more people who like playing games where they have to "solve problems" by being smart rather than by being experts.

Those people are cut-off from D&D as soon the game is totally focused on combat (which generally requires to know the details of a lot of rules) and marginally focused on exploration (which many times requires more common-sense or rules-light reasoning rather than rules-heavy) and story/interaction (which indeed requires the least "mastery" among the pillars). And if the D&D rules support "combat as sport" much more than "combat as war", then again this makes it even more rules-dependent therefore elitist.

But many D&D fans insist on devaluing the people we call "casual gamers" by assuming that they are superficially interested or don't want to put any effort in playing, not understanding that instead they remain "casual" just because a rules-heavy game does not allow them to put the effort where they want, i.e. on "smart" and creative problem-solving.

And yet what are the most common nuisances at the gaming table? Rules-lawyers, munchkins, power-gamers (all of which are "system masters" not "casual gamers") and players who drag the game down because they are bored or incompetent... but is really their fault or is it thanks to the required "system mastery"?

 

[DEFCON 1]

If the choices are between both a basic and advanced game that are compatible with each other, and only an advanced game, why not have both? Best of both worlds and the existence of the former need not take away from the latter in any way, shape or form.

I don't think anyone here would say there shouldn't be a basic component to the game. Mearls and company have stated that their hope was to make the game have a design possibility that apes BECMI as well as all the later editions... and I don't think anyone has taken them to task for that.

But the real issue here is: How is the game presented to all of us? Both the basic and the advanced versions?

Whenever we see posts by folks who say that the Player's Handbook should present the basic "core" game (in order to make it easy to understand)... what seems to be what they are saying is that's ALL that would be presented (at least in the beginning of the Player's Handbook). The "basic" version of the game. You open up the Player's Handbook, and those first couple chapters on description and character creation would ONLY give you the aped BECMI rules. And that anything "complex" on top of that... things like Backgrounds, Specialties/Feats, Fighter Maneuvers, the non-four base classes, etc. etc. etc... would not actually appear until the "modules" start showing up (either in later chapters of the PH, or even in entirely different books.)

And that's where many of us are saying "Hold on."

I do not believe you need to have to completely strip out all the "complex modules" (if you'd even call Backgrounds "complex", although some people do) out of the opening chapters of the first Player's Handbook, and it'd be really silly if you did. You can present all the character creation guidelines in those first few chapters (basic and complex, modules and non) and just tell people (via sidebars and the like) how to play the game "basic" or "advanced" or anything in between by pulling those bits you want out of the group that gets given.

Yes... it would mean that someone who wanted to play just the basic core game would have to skip over the information on things like skills and feats within those first couple chapters of the PH in order to get to the core... but that is a much better organizational option than splitting all the information into two different sections, just so that the basic core gets separated from all the additional options you could add to it. Because quite frankly... the number of people who will want to play just the core without ANY options or modules is an exceedingly small percentage of the player pool I believe. At the very least... most players will want to use the extra "non-core" classes, races, and probably Backgrounds/skills. So making those folks flip to the back chapters of the book (or buy another book entirely) is doing no one any favors.

Now this being said... I also have always thought and said the game really should get released in two versions... the hardcover three-book model that covers the entire game (like usual) as well as the boxed set beginner's game. And with that one... yes, absolutely I think it'd be completely fine should that beginner's game include only the basic core-- the four base classes, the four base races, no Backgrounds, no Specialties, no Fighter Maneuvers except for Deadly Strike, no alternative casting mechanics, no Specialty Spells, condensed spell lists, and so on. That could be the place to have your base game. One specifically designed, laid out, and published in that format for those who want it.

But please don't demand the actual hardcover Player's Handbook use that format too.

 

[nijineko]

interesting thread.

i'm going to summate briefly. it has always been at least three books as core. i think that is good enough even today.

i think that the options should be fully presented, and marked as optional when appropriate. player options should be in the phb. dm-approval type variants should be in the dmg.

it is the job of the dm to teach new players. having said that, in cases of bright new players with no dms involved, i like the gurps method. they have a free 32 page pdf on their store site which gives a concise summation of all the minimal rules needed to play. free to download, easy to read, easy to start jumping in and playing, and off you go. add rulebooks to taste.

and d&d did this with the SRD. one of the reasons 3.5 and pathfinder even exist and are so popular. d&d exploded back onto the scene with this model. there is a reason for that success.

 

[Libramarian]

I would like to see a RADICALLY introductory product. Like something that doesn't require any advanced prep at all.

That's the weird, potentially off-putting thing about D&D compared to other games. One person buys the thing on their own and prepares it by themselves, and then invites their friends over to play, and if it doesn't go over well it's kinda all the one person's fault. That doesn't really say "game" to kids. That's more like hosting a dinner party.

I can imagine an adventure scenario with all the needed rules included, that doesn't require any advanced prep. The "read aloud" sections would often be meta and explain to everyone at the same time the rules of the game and how it works, at the same time as it's describing the setting and NPCs. Everybody learns how to play and what D&D is like together.

And this should be on the website for free.

I stopped reading at the WoW comparison. How is this tripe STILL being tossed around four and a half years after it was total nonsense?

4e has more in common with miniatures wargaming than with video games. It's exception based design would be immensely difficult to work into a video game and it's simplification of many table procedures which eat up time and minimization of dice rolling endear it to being played at a real table with real dice. It is absolutely, categorically, nothing like World of Warcraft. The only legs this charge stands on is "well, your powers come back after a certain amount of time" which is just about as baseless as saying it's just like WoW because it has classes and levels.

The section on quests in the DMG (esp. the suggestion to write and give the players "quest cards") definitely reminded me of the way quests/story goals work in WoW and other modern RPVGs.

 

[n00bdragon]

I can imagine an adventure scenario with all the needed rules included, that doesn't require any advanced prep. The "read aloud" sections would often be meta and explain to everyone at the same time the rules of the game and how it works, at the same time as it's describing the setting and NPCs. Everybody learns how to play and what D&D is like together.

These games exist by the bucket-load. Pick up any dungeon crawling board game. Hell, Wizards of the Coast makes a variety of these and sells them with the D&D logo on the front. They are lots of fun, don't require you to read a lot of rules (relative to actual D&D at least), and are usually buckets more fun than a D&D dungeon crawl. The drawback is they are very static. Once you've played it once there's nothing exciting or new to see.

The section on quests in the DMG (esp. the suggestion to write and give the players "quest cards") definitely reminded me of the way quests/story goals work in WoW and other modern RPVGs.

Because it's not like D&D has ever involved quests before!

 

[Starfox]

I still recall my initial impression when I first picked up the 3.0 Player's Handbook:

"My god, this is complex"

I'm with the OP, Next should be more like BCMI. Both 3E and 4E are too complex as introductory level games. Of course, they should learn from the "system unity" both 3E and 4E tried to do - things like how 3E unified rolls to d20 + bonus and 4E unified powers (not saying these are the things Next should keep, just giving examples of system unification). A more developed "better" game system can do more with less rules. BCMI and AD&D had a lot of artifacts from the helter-skelter development process that was the origin of DnD.

 

[hamstertamer]

I don't believe in the "let's make it more simple for newbies." I think that's a wasted effort. I started playing in my early teens (1980s) and loved reading rules and seeing increased complexity and detail. I didn't have video games though or a computer. I just had books.

Trying to win over the "I can't be bothered" gaming people and go into competition directly with video games, card games, & board games especially video games is a no win scenario for RPGs. Someone who isn't into detail and rules isn't going to be into RPGs, not when they have so many other distractions right now (and forever).

I learned about RPGs from other experienced players as most people did and when I got hands on a rule book I read it all the time. I had no problem learning how to play by reading. In fact reading and understanding is a major part of the RPG experience. So that means, RPGs will only ever be for a small amount of people ever. Most people don't read very often and most people are used to instant gratification.

I just don't believe in marketing a RPG to people with no attention spans and/or low intelligence. Leave them to their video games and TV watching but leave D&D alone.

 

[Iosue]

First, thanks to Mercurius for the thoughtful post. I've had similar thoughts.

I think Mercurius's point would be better understood not in the perspective of "simplicity vs complexity", but rather with the concept of "buy-in". There are all sorts of popular complex games out there, but they all have an easy buy-in. Video games used to come with manuals that you were meant to read before you started playing, so you knew how the game worked. That has been largely abandoned in favor of the tutorial or introductory level. The static nature of board games make the buy-in easy; a classic example is chess, which lends itself to much study and analysis, but learning how to play is just a matter of learning how six pieces move in fairly straightforward ways. Card games such as Magic also have a pretty easy buy-in. The basic rules are easily explained, and the effects of each card are written on them, so you easily learn as you go, using cards you've never seen before.

Of course, RPGs have an extremely easy buy-in if you're playing with an already established group. Give the newbie a pre-gen, and tell him just to do what he imagines, and the GM will adjudicate and/or ask for a die roll accordingly. But D&D can't rely purely on that to grow the fan base. It needs something that allows people to do what they can do with the above games: have a group of people who've never played before pick up the game and fairly easily start playing.

D&DN has been raked over the coals for not being innovative, for running back to old, out-dated concepts in a short-sighted bid to grab players who have fallen away, be that OSR or Pathfinder. IMO, D&DN has in fact shown incredible innovation in the development of specialties and backgrounds (among other things). In the TSR-era, the Basic and Expert Sets provided an easy buy-in for AD&D. WotC wants something like that. But, they don't want two competing lines running concurrently. The problem is that chargen in WotC-era has become a much larger part of the game. Introduction and chargen in Moldvay Basic is 13 pages. 1e is 38 pages. 2e is 79 pages. I don't have 3e books, but Pathfinder is about 160 pages. 4e is over 200, not even counting equipment. There are no few people playing complex games, and enjoying building characters for MMORPGs, but none of them involve flipping through 150-200 pages.

Pre-gens are of course one easy way to avoid this, but then you're depriving the new players one of the great appeals of role-playing: creating and relating to a character all your own. There are video games that offer this up-front, with a much easier buy-in. So what the specialties & backgrounds do for D&DN is allow them to re-create the ultra-simple buy-in of TSR-D&D, but within the same game allow for the kind of ultra-customizeable chargen that WotC-D&D lovers enjoy, and that some new players will undoubtedly enjoy.

Related design goals are theater-of-the-mind, ease of one-on-one play, and the ability to run a whole adventure in an hour. These are also things that ease the buy-in. I was introduced to D&D with a one-on-one game, and much of my earliest play was one-on-one with my sister, or two-on-one with my sister and my friend. We had but the Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert sets -- no minis, with our dungeons plotted on graph paper, and our characters written out on notebook paper. None of this has anything to do with simplicity or complexity, but with an easy buy-in.

Edit: to give a further example. I was introduced to D&D with a one-on-one game of Moldvay Basic. After that one session, I borrowed my friend's copy, read it, and introduced my sister to the game with a one-on-one adventure. That's how easy the buy-in was, even though for someone who's never played or DM'd before, Moldvay Basic doesn't really come across as "simple".

 

[Mercurius]

Sorry for the late replies - busy with Life and then ENWorld was supposedly an "attack site".

On your third example of simple core plus complex modules -- I really think that is going to be a clusterf*ck. That would just result in Basic, Advanced Options, Maur Options!, You Cannot Live Without These Option!, and so forth. If you just wanted to run Basic, you are fine. If you want to run them all, you are fine. But I suspect the hobbyist will want to cherry pick stuff from all the books. Then we are back to 3/4e with all the tonnage.

But it doesn't "have to" be a clusterk*ck. It could be as simple as, "Here are the core rules - you can stop here if you want a simple game - but here are tons of options you can layer on, at your discretion." These "layers" can be relatively easily defined simply through use of the PHB I, II, III model.

In other words, it will only be a clusterf*ck for those that like and can deal with clusterf*cks - the serious D&D players that like dabbling with all sorts of complications. But having a more basic core rules set - like a serious of box sets similar to the BECMI model, although maybe only two or three detailing 4Esque tiers - allows those that want a simpler game to be able to easily dive in.

We need to remember that for the thousands of active D&D players and serious D&D players that have played pretty much over the last ten, twenty, thirty+ years, there are millions of casual players who played in the 80s or 90s or early 00s and would be open to get back into the game, but need a relatively easy route - and a game that is playable and gives that "D&D feel" without requiring a huge time investment to learn the rules and plan sessions.

To be honest, this is what has kept my group from playing over the last six months or so. It is comprised of men in the 35-45 range who played D&D at some point in the 80s or 90s and want an every-other-week game that doesn't require a lot of planning effort. I'm the only one that can really DM, but I don't have time to prepare in the way that I want to. If the game was easier to run, with more adventures and options for "playing out of box" then we'd probably have been able to get together more often (actually, this makes me want to start another post on this exact topic - how to make D&D Next playable with little prep).

But that brings me to this point...

D&D needs to find its Soul (tm) again and focus on that. D&D is part rules system and part genre. Trying to be all things to all people is just going to result in people wander off to find what they really want to play.

I completely agree, but if anything I believe having a simple core game better facilitates this than starting at a higher complexity level. The "soul", as you say, has less to do with the rules themselves and more to do with aesthetic aspects - the feel of the game, its presentation, etc. Many people who dislike(d) 4E have admitted that a lot of it comes down to presentation first, "video gamey" rules second. We could say that WotC simply put the cart before the horse with 4E and lost their priorities.