Essentials: which new players?

[ourchair]

The kids these days have been exposed to Anime and MMORPGs or even just VideoGames whose genres are close to D&D. They werent in 1980. Sword bearing martial artists who perform periodic feats of wild and intricate action even ones who dont lapse strongly in to magic tropes.... are a part and parsel to a healthy amount of there fantastical environment.

Thinking "I hit it with a sword" is designed for them???? seems pretty head in the sand.

The LOTR they are used to involves an elf kiting on a borrowed shield into a super charge maneuver onto a battle and a warlord (ranger) flinging a dwarf impossibly far into position against a crew of baddies, and occasionally two arrows launched from a single nock.... not just the plodding counting of heads.

I think that's a pretty condescending generalization about kids in general. You underestimate the savvy and flexibility of the youth.

I grew up as a teen in the early 90s in a Third World Asian republic where most of my peers played Magic: The Gathering and Nintendo and had no experience of "I hit it with a sword," as well as any meaningful amount of experience with 1e/2e/3e D&D and I seem to have adjusted to it just fine thank you very much.

Also, while the combat powers of 4e are designed to reflect the over the top theatrics of today's fantasy such as "shield-kiting" and "dwarf-tossing," I've learned that many gamers with more experience and playtime than I have been fully capable of replicating this kind of dementedness without the 4e mechanics.

Saying that because kids grew up with a certain kind of fantasy (LOTR, anime, MMORPGs) means that they've received an education that closes them off to an entirely different style of play is like saying kids who grew up with comic books are incapable of learning how to read without pictures.

 

[Garthanos]

Saying that because kids grew up with a certain kind of fantasy (LOTR, anime, MMORPGs) means that they've received an education that closes them off to an entirely different style of play is like saying kids who grew up with comic books are incapable of learning how to read without pictures.

Wrong completely I said it was naive/head in the sand thinking it targeted them.

It is condescending thinking that there fantasy environment is inferior and that they need trained to think fighting works like "I hit it with my sword" or that martial classes dont need a mind.

 

[Garthanos]

Admittedly some things like Warlord are currently missing from Essentials, but frankly I think they only had so much space they could wedge things into. I suspect if the devs could get another 50 pages into the budget for one of those books you'd have seen Warlords.

Sorry the target of earlier edition grognardia would have been missed Just like Tony Vargus said Your arrows are going completely opposite directions maybe WOTC are rangers ;-p

Now I am going to say the technique for building a character as you play is a indie game feature actually... I like that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sorry the target of earlier edition grognardia would have been missed Just like Tony Vargus said Your arrows are going completely opposite directions maybe WOTC are rangers ;-p

Now I am going to say the technique for building a character as you play is a indie game feature actually... I like that.

Mmmm, I'm not exactly sure we're talking about "grognardia" here. I think we're talking about a product where some choices needed to be made as to which elements were included.

I'd observe that when I first started running 4e I sort of looked at the Warlord class and wondered "what exactly is the archetype this class is reflecting?" and I wasn't exactly sure what that was. I suspect the players in my game must have wondered the same thing. Now most of them are long time D&Ders, but I note none of them really considered running a warlord or really seemed terribly sure what sort of character this new class was. I think we all figured it out, but it was a bit of an unfamiliar concept.

Now brand new players would probably not have this issue, but then again tradition is a strong element of the game and when faced with choices of which classes to include in Essentials there were a bunch of pre-ordained choices. There was going to be a cleric, paladin, ranger, rogue, wizard, and fighter. Druid also had a strong tradition. Warlock not so much, but it is still a pretty clear and concise archetype and I think they plain just wanted another striker in the mix more than they needed another leader.

I don't think that "appealing to grognards" is the main reason there isn't an Essentials Warlord. I think the class mix (just like the races) adheres to tradition to a certain extent. I think realities of space limitations in the product and some lip service to D&D tradition simply put the warlord class lower in priority. Like I said before, if there was a budget for some more pages I'm relatively confident that warlord is a class that would have made the cut and I think it was probably seriously considered.

Everything in life is a compromise. On top of that I think the 4e devs don't really compartmentalize Essentials from 4e 'classic' to anything like the degree that people tend to do on the forums. Consider that they have said over and over it isn't a separate game or edition of the game and they've never said they intended it to stand alone in contrast to the rest of 4e. Take that at face value and there's no need to invoke some kind of slavish subservience to "grognards" (which in any case I find to be a fairly stupid categorization of players, am I a grognard? I started playing before Basic D&D even existed, so what exactly is a "grognard" because I don't see any category like that which I personally fit into, nor any of my friends that I play with who mostly started playing back then too).

 

[JereGenest]

I'd observe that when I first started running 4e I sort of looked at the Warlord class and wondered "what exactly is the archetype this class is reflecting?" and I wasn't exactly sure what that was. I suspect the players in my game must have wondered the same thing. Now most of them are long time D&Ders, but I note none of them really considered running a warlord or really seemed terribly sure what sort of character this new class was. I think we all figured it out, but it was a bit of an unfamiliar concept.

My 6 year old plays a Warlord and does okay at it (she is 6 so requires some help, but the basic concept works for her). I'm always surprised that folks say a tactically minded, group leader who is always looking for the ideal opportunity isn't an easy archetype to find in fantasy. Sokka from Avatar: The Last Airbender can, for example, easily be seen as a Warlord.

Fantasy tends to be a very rich area to mine, and my kids seem to do very well with all the classes they've seen. And there is a whole lot of interesting stuff happening in children's and ya fantasy. I'm hoping the Essentials line will do something to tap into it.

Linking in with the thoughts on the 2011 campaign, I suggest the fusion of Practical and Essential in a kid friendly package.

 

[Garthanos]

Grognard as the ye old - Guard of a tradition? for those inclined to acronyms (old GOAT).

Can I be a grognard of the design paradigm espoused in 4e and abandoned for essentials? I am actually unlikely to hold traditions purely because it is traditional so I can/may change my mind.

 

[ourchair]

It is condescending thinking that there fantasy environment is inferior and that they need trained to think fighting works like "I hit it with my sword" or that martial classes dont need a mind.

I have difficulty parsing the way you've typed out this statement, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about "there fantasy environment is inferior" and I most certainly didn't mean to imply that they need 'training' of any sort. The "martial clases don't need a mind," bit though, I have no idea where that came from.

Wrong completely I said it was naive/head in the sand thinking it targeted them.

Alright.

But why can't 'kids' possibly be the target for 4E Essentials? Is it because its resemblance of old-school mechanics automatically means it is for older players? I don't see how the two target markets can't be targetted by the same product.

Sure, Essentials mechanics hearken to old school play styles, and because o that it is ENTIRELY likely that this means it is not targeting kids. However, I'm it is entirely possible that hearkening to old school play styles might be WotC trying to target kids too.

Now whether or not such a decision is counterintuitive or smart or whatever doesn't matter, but the point is that Essential mechanics being for kids and Essential mechanics being for grognards are not mutually exclusive of one another.

As in: "It's simpler and the decisions made in building one's character are much more intuitive and that's why it's for younger newer players" and "It's just like the older game with basic attacks and situational modifiers as class features and that's why it's for grognards" have a dimension of overlap.

 

[JereGenest]

Sure, Essentials mechanics hearken to old school play styles, and because o that it is ENTIRELY likely that this means it is not targeting kids. However, I'm it is entirely possible that hearkening to old school play styles might be WotC trying to target kids too.

I think you also have to seperate mechanics from presentation. The basic book comes with:

• 32-page book for players, with rules for character creation and a solo adventure
• 64-page book for Dungeon Masters, with the rules of the game, advice on how to run the game, and adventure content
• 2 sheets of die-cut tokens for characters and monsters
• Cardstock character sheets and power cards
• Double-sided dungeon map
• 6 polyhedral dice

As a parent, that is a pretty reasonable package for $20. Especially for a kid who might be interested and I'm not sure if they'll really like it. Or they want to play ebcause their friends are.

And then after that I have the Player's Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands, which is another $20. And if my kid is just interested because his friends are playing, thats $20 alone. Much better than the player's handbook.

When we made the decision a few months ago to play D&D with our kids (prompted by my son's growing interest) we spent significantly more on a hobby we might not have embraced as a family. I think I would have rather staretd with the $20 purchase (thats going out for ice cream in these parts).

Whether WotC is marketing this material right, and whether the mechanics decisions are right are other matters. I'm waiting to see marketing (I'll assume they are marketing this right when the box book stores give it some good attention grabbing displays). And frankly, I don't have enough experience to gauge the small material I've seen on Dragon about content.

 

[TerraDave]

I go away for a while....and we have a pretty good discusion. There is probably a lesson there.

I think that what many of us originally anticipated was an intro box set that had more then the various starter sets released over the last 10+ years, but still built directly off 2008 4E, e.g. here are two kinds of fighters (with daily powers), pick one.

They haven't just done that box set, they have gone beyond it, and the way they have gone beyond it does feel very familiar.

There is something to the "intuitive" argument: it may make sense for wizards to work one way and fighters another. But I don't know that 4E was that counter-intuitive in actual play.

 

[JohnSnow]

I go away for a while....and we have a pretty good discusion. There is probably a lesson there.

I think that what many of us originally anticipated was an intro box set that had more then the various starter sets released over the last 10+ years, but still built directly off 2008 4E, e.g. here are two kinds of fighters (with daily powers), pick one.

They haven't just done that box set, they have gone beyond it, and the way they have gone beyond it does feel very familiar.

There is something to the "intuitive" argument: it may make sense for wizards to work one way and fighters another. But I don't know that 4E was that counter-intuitive in actual play.

All I can do is speak to my experience introducing 4e to a bunch of people that included experience gamers who were primarily 1e and 2e veterans, and others who had never played an RPG before. And all of them had a difficult time "getting" (or accepting) the concept of martial classes with powers. Even several sessions in, most of the time those players (and their characters) were defaulting to 1 or 2 signature powers that they latched on to. My wife's rogue loved "Deft Strike," every ranger in our games liked using "Twin Strike," and so on.

And ALL my defender players had trouble getting into the idea of marking targets. I think that some form of passive power would have been much better received by the players in my group. Now, these aren't dumb people, but they're mostly creative types, not particularly "techie" or "gamist." And for them, default 4e is pretty finicky. The more "cerebral" players in each group I ran opted to play Wizards, and both had a ball.

One other comment. When I was in business school, one of the things that was hammered into our heads was "NEVER assume you know your customer base. Because 90% of the time, your instincts are WRONG. And even if your instincts are RIGHT, you can learn something by talking to your customers." The only way to know what your prospective customers actually want is to conduct a proper survey, and do experiential analysis (i.e. watch people play). WotC actually does this, and I'm sure the approach of both Essentials and the new Starter Set is based on their research. Ryan Dancy pointed out a while ago that one of the mistakes TSR made back in the day was to rely entirely on their instincts. Sometimes, those lead to great products (the Mentzer Red Box), but most of the time they don't.

The internet can be great for feedback, but you can make a catastrophic business decision if you listen to the vocal minority and don't even try to find out what the majority wants.

Just some thoughts.