Essentials: which new players?

[Garthanos]

yup, net is noisy with opinions (and people who are already playing aren't the target of essentials except peripherally) ... note the word power is "out of genre", whereas maneuvers works for just about anyone. I get told language doesn't mean anything its just fluff and I laugh.

A programmer has exactly the wrong instincts to test his program - same place your 90 percent bit about instincts come from. Devs arent their own target either especially in this case.

 

[JohnSnow]

yup, net is noisy with opinions (and people who are already playing aren't the target of essentials except peripherally) ... note the word power is "out of genre", whereas maneuvers works for just about anyone. I get told language doesn't mean anything its just fluff and I laugh.

A programmer has exactly the wrong instincts to test his program - same place your 90 percent bit about instincts come from. Devs arent their own target either especially in this case.

The one place where I think the WotC guys might be alright on this one is that I think the "Weapons Grade Nostalgia" aspect of the Red Box has pulled Mearls, Thompson, and the rest of the gang somewhat out of "game developer mode" and put them back into "wide-eyed kid with new toy" mode.

While that could be slightly problematic, as long as they remember their job, aiming to recapture the approachable nature of the old set is very wise. THe other thing that so many here seem to gloss over is that the original Red Box came out 27 years ago! The gamers who were wide-eyed 10-year-olds then might have wide-eyed 10-year-olds of their own NOW. Which means that former players whose intro to D&D was the Mentzer Red Box (or any other D&D boxed set) are going to look at this and go..."A modern version of Dungeons & Dragons? Screw another video game! THAT is what my kid needs!"

The intro they read on the Totally Rad Show shows that the designers get it. Their pitch is that anyone who's ever played an online RPG such as "Neverwinter Nights, Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, World of Warcraft, Dragon Age or games like these," should have "some idea of what Dungeons & Dragons is about." So the idea is that the box appeals to the parents who used to play D&D "back when," and the target audience inside is both them and their kids. And WotC's pitch is that D&D was the inspiration for all the games that followed.

Will it tempt kids away from computer games or re-attract old gamers? Only time will tell.

(As an aside: I can speak to the WoW thing directly; I know the person who was the top "story guy" at Blizzard when they created it. He freely admits that WoW started as "let's put D&D online" combined with his own "unique approach" to a setting.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't buy the 'intuitive' or 'familiar' arguments about gimping martial classes by denying them powers. I can't buy it for one very simple reason: they have the cleric in the boxed set.

The D&D cleric only makes sense to D&Ders. And, it never really made /that/ much sense to most of us, we just got used to it.

If the boxed set were trying to make the classes more intuitive and familiar to genuinely new players, they'd've cut the Cleric entirely. They'd've used the Warlord for the leader, since the heroic warrior who leads men into battle is very archetypal and familiar, and, if they wanted a divine class, would have made the Knight a Paladin build, since the pious Authurian Knight in shining armor is also a profoundly familiar and intuitive archetype.

They didn't do that.

 

[JohnSnow]

I can't buy the 'intuitive' or 'familiar' arguments about gimping martial classes by denying them powers. I can't buy it for one very simple reason: they have the cleric in the boxed set.

The D&D cleric only makes sense to D&Ders. And, it never really made /that/ much sense to most of us, we just got used to it.

If the boxed set were trying to make the classes more intuitive and familiar to genuinely new players, they'd've cut the Cleric entirely. They'd've used the Warlord for the leader, since the heroic warrior who leads men into battle is very archetypal and familiar, and, if they wanted a divine class, would have made the Knight a Paladin build, since the pious Authurian Knight in shining armor is also a profoundly familiar and intuitive archetype.

They didn't do that.

But the martial classes aren't being "gimped" just because they lack daily powers. Classes don't need daily powers in order to keep up with those that do have them. They need somthing equivalent to daily powers. IF the fighter and rogue end up weaker than the cleric and wizard, it will be because the design failed to some degree. I'm astounded people can't comprehend that this isn't a foregone conclusion.

And the design principle is to simplify some of the classes so they can offer different levels of class complexity. I admit that the 4e classes aren't super-complex, but they're all complex to roughly the same degree. WotC has customer feedback and surveys that say some people want this. If you accept that, it just comes down to picking which class or classes to simplify. So why the martial ones? Well, reason one is because some people have a problem with how they work, and reason two is the nostalgia one: they used to be simpler. Fortunately, that's not at war with reason 1.

The cleric, as unique to D&D as it originally was (but isn't now - I'll get to that), can be explained conceptually with a single sentence. "Clerics are divine warriors who channel divine power to heal and cast other magical spells." "Divine warrior" is understandable, and cleric spells work pretty much the same way wizard ones do in concept, so there's no mental gymnastics there. Martial "powers" aren't even comparable. You just can't explain or justify them in a single sentence, and some people have a problem with them conceptually. So if you can fix that problem while offering a simple class, you've met two worthy design objectives.

Some people may disagree these are worthy design objectives, to which I just have this to say: WotC is a business and they have surveys. I assume they've read them.

One final point about the cleric, is that while it was weird when the game started, it now has around 30 years of precedent, including the fighting priest characters in numerous fantasy novels as well as World of Warcraft and other online games. I grant that most of those things were modeled on and inspired by D&D - but at this point, that's largely immaterial. So, while the cleric may still not be considered "standard fantasy," it's hardly a "new" concept to most people these days.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The cleric, as unique to D&D as it originally was (but isn't now - I'll get to that), can be explained conceptually with a single sentence. "Clerics are divine warriors who channel divine power to heal and cast other magical spells." "Divine warrior" is understandable, and cleric spells work pretty much the same way wizard ones do in concept, so there's no mental gymnastics there.

Actually, the idea of a divinely-inspired or empowered individual who casts 'magic spells,' would be pretty hard for many to swallow, for religious reasons. Indeed, religion is a touchy subject, and it wouldn't hurt to steer well clear of it in an introductory set. If you were really trying to cater to new players with no prior knowledge of the game, rather than cater to lapsed players who whine that their wizard or CoDzilla is no longer sufficiently superior to the lowly fighter.

Martial "powers" aren't even comparable. You just can't explain or justify them in a single sentence, and some people have a problem with them conceptually.

"They're manuevers your character can use to do cool things beyond just simply stabbing someone with a sword." One sentence. Explained. Justified. In plain english any newbie would grasp immediately.

One final point about the cleric, is that while it was weird when the game started, it now has around 30 years of precedent, including the fighting priest characters in numerous fantasy novels as well as World of Warcraft and other online games. So, while the cleric may still not be considered "standard fantasy," it's hardly a "new" concept to most people these days.

I suppose MMOs may reached quite a lot of non-D&Ders, but, that's still not 'most people,' by a long shot. I'll grant that 4e may well have been aiming at MMO'ers, and they'd be familiar with the clericky healbot role, but, then, they'd have no intrinsic problem with martial characters needing to 'cool down' after using a big power, either.

I'm sorry, no, the explanation just doesn't hold together. The explanation that /does/ hold together is turning back the clock to please hold-outs who initially rejected 4e because it dared to deliver actual class balance.

 

[Garthanos]

"They're manuevers your character can use to do cool things beyond just simply stabbing someone with a sword." One sentence. Explained. Justified. In plain english any newbie would grasp immediately.

I had a definition which included the words - exploiting opportunities provided both by chance and the chaos of the battlefield via the use of perception and physical prowess.... similar things but whatever... supporting my Strength/Wisdom fighter you know.

 

[Festivus]

For some of them, the simple rules many exceptions structure of 4e is a big old headache as they have to remember that powers and feats are about breaking the normal laws of the ruleset. Which on a certain cognitive level, can feel weird. What I'm trying to say I guess is that the learning psychology of players is so divergent that using new players/old players to distinguish between them is a mistake when trying to figure out "Who is Essentials supposed to be for?"

I think that people who can't get, or dislike, the concept of exception based rules are the ones for whom this game is not a good fit, and probably are more likely to be a 3.x/Pathfinder fan. These are the people who like an explanation in the rules for every ability a creature can have, how that fits into the overall mechanism of the game. Players who like extensive understanding over how the system works, and how their characters interact with that world. 4E throws that all out the window.

Personally, I like surprises. I like that a monster doesn't fit into something that can be explained. It scares me, and makes things seem far more fantastic... bringing me back to that sense of wonder from when I was a kid.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I had a definition which included the words - exploiting opportunities provided both by chance and the chaos of the battlefield via the use of perception and physical prowess.... similar things but whatever... supporting my Strength/Wisdom fighter you know.

That has the advantage of actually using the word 'exploit.'

Maybe if 4e had been a little more persistent in using 'spell,' 'prayer,' and 'exploit' (or 'manuever,' which has the advantage of not already meaning 'powergaming trick' in the jargon of the hobby), in place of 'power,' it might not have encountered quite the same amount of resistance to or complaints of martial exploits being too much like arcane spells.

 

[giant.robot]

I can't buy the 'intuitive' or 'familiar' arguments about gimping martial classes by denying them powers. I can't buy it for one very simple reason: they have the cleric in the boxed set.

The D&D cleric only makes sense to D&Ders. And, it never really made /that/ much sense to most of us, we just got used to it.

If the boxed set were trying to make the classes more intuitive and familiar to genuinely new players, they'd've cut the Cleric entirely. They'd've used the Warlord for the leader, since the heroic warrior who leads men into battle is very archetypal and familiar, and, if they wanted a divine class, would have made the Knight a Paladin build, since the pious Authurian Knight in shining armor is also a profoundly familiar and intuitive archetype.

They didn't do that.

Besides a Cleric being one of the historic core classes of D&D there's a huge reason to bring a Cleric along, the "radiant" keyword. Most undead are vulnerable to radiant damage and receive extra damage when hit with radiant attacks. A Cleric running around using Lance of Faith is going to cut through the ranks of undead like a hot knife through butter. For instance your basic Zombie skirmisher (soldier?) is vulnerable to radiant damage and receives and extra 5 damage when hit. For low level heroic tier characters an extra +5 bonus damage makes a big difference with skirmishers and brutes. This is obviously in addition to Turn Undead.

Undead opponents are really popular in D&D and having a Cleric available gives a party an actual advantage in the game. Clerics also have Healing Word which allows an ally to make use a healing surge without using up their one-per-encounter Second Wind with gain bonus HP from it. They're not the walking first aid kits that they used to be with 3E but they're plenty useful.

 

[JohnSnow]

I had a definition which included the words - exploiting opportunities provided both by chance and the chaos of the battlefield via the use of perception and physical prowess.... similar things but whatever... supporting my Strength/Wisdom fighter you know.

The problem is neither of those definitions explains this:

"If it's they're ordinary techniques, why can I use someone whenever I feel like, others once an encounter and still others only once a day? That doesn't make any sense."

The explanation has to explain that away rationally and consistently. It doesn't.

On the subject of religious reasons for avoiding clerics, people with those sorts of hangups aren't your target market ANYWAY. Just like people who have no prior exposure to fantasy aren't part of your target market either. One of the mistakes TSR made with 2nd Edition was trying to clean the game up to appease the religious loons who were pissed off about the mention of "demons" and "devils." People who can't take fantasy on its own terms are like those who think Harry Potter is introductory Satanism. They're amusing, but hardly worth worrying about.