Essentials: which new players?

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, but the point is that it's the player who decides when those opportunities arise. To the character, they just happen. That mental disconnect between player choice and character choice is the problem that's hard to explain to people. And it's impossible to do it quickly.

If a divine character calls for a miracle, and it doesn't happen, why is that? Well, a divine miracle is a /request/, and the deity may be otherwise engaged or find it unworthy. But, who decides that? The player. OMG, there's the same disconnect.


The thing is, in a narrative, there's no disconnect at all, and, unless you've been heavily indoctrinated into an immersive or simulationist game, you'll be able to be indoctrinated quite smoothly into a narrative or gamist one, and won't even notice the problem.


The problem comes with prior exposure to the game, and an inability to move on from the older eds.

 

[JohnSnow]

The problem comes with prior exposure to the game, and an inability to move on from the older eds.

The irony of this statement coming from someone who's objecting to moderate alterations to the current edition is not lost on me. 4e is gaining some new options and new approaches. It's time to stop complaining and move on.

They're trying new ways of doing things because clearly they have reason to believe it's what at least some part of their market wants. If they didn't have reasons, they wouldn't be doing it.

Look, I've got an MBA. There are ways to get this information. Sure, you start with surveys, but you also have to watch people play. And survey people who don't play. And have them try to play. And so on. It's a lot of work, but it's doable. You just have to a) have the money for it and b) decide that spending that money will get you useful information.

Thanks to Hasbro, WotC certainly has the cash, and since Hasbro probably does this sort of thing all the time, this is hardly a hard idea to pitch. Try this for starters. TSR sold millions of boxed sets back in the '70s and '80s. There was a point where D&D was thought to be "almost the most popular game in the world" (I think it was behind "checkers"). If you think you have a chance of getting even CLOSE to that position again, it's surely worth spending some money on market research. Succeed and you have a smash hit on the order of Magic - only better.

 

[Garthanos]

They're trying new ways of doing things because clearly they have reason to believe it's what at least some part of their market wants. If they didn't have reasons, they wouldn't be doing it.

You have your words inverted.. those are old ways of doing things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The irony of this statement coming from someone who's objecting to moderate alterations to the current edition is not lost on me. 4e is gaining some new options and new approaches. It's time to stop complaining and move on.

They're trying new ways of doing things because clearly they have reason to believe it's what at least some part of their market wants. If they didn't have reasons, they wouldn't be doing it.

Look, I've got an MBA. There are ways to get this information. Sure, you start with surveys, but you also have to watch people play. And survey people who don't play. And have them try to play. And so on. It's a lot of work, but it's doable. You just have to a) have the money for it and b) decide that spending that money will get you useful information.

Thanks to Hasbro, WotC certainly has the cash, and since Hasbro probably does this sort of thing all the time, this is hardly a hard idea to pitch. Try this for starters. TSR sold millions of boxed sets back in the '70s and '80s. There was a point where D&D was thought to be "almost the most popular game in the world" (I think it was behind "checkers"). If you think you have a chance of getting even CLOSE to that position again, it's surely worth spending some money on market research. Succeed and you have a smash hit on the order of Magic - only better.

There's no irony involved in what Tony said at all John. It's actually a highly valid point. I personally happen to think that the 4e devs (at least some fraction of them and I'd include Mearls in that group judging from the stuff he's done in the past) understand the whole "how to build a story" thing. You understand the concept, I understand the concept, most experienced players certainly understand the concept. Fundamentally EVERYONE understands the concept of "this is a game, these are the rules." I mean it isn't any different from the rule that you have to pay rent in Monopoly. It doesn't need an 'in-game' reason and I have yet to have the slightest problem with people accepting it. I literally explain it to them like "well, it is just like the way full house beats 2 pair in a poker hand, it is just rules so we can play the game."

Now we can argue all day, night, week, month, forever about what aspects of the changes in Essentials are driven by what considerations. It certainly is a reasonable point to say that Hasbro does market research and believes X, and Y will sell more games. The truth is some of the things in Essentials are no doubt driven by that, some are probably driven by devs that want to just 'do something different', and some is driven by attempts to experiment and improve the game. Like any large project I'm pretty sure it has a lot of different goals and inputs and isn't all going in a single direction.

I'm with Garthanos though, I liked warlords. I think clerics DO represent a significant archetype, but I like warlords. Probably a variety of reasons they're not reprinted in Essentials (complexity, etc), but it is too bad. It will be interesting to see what happens next and if softcover "Essentialized" resources will focus on them later.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The irony of this statement coming from someone who's objecting to moderate alterations to the current edition is not lost on me.

I'm not objecting to the game doing something new and possibly getting better, I'm objecting to game backsliding to an aproach that had long been proven to be worse, and which took some major pain to finally get away from. I'm certainly not being a stick-in-the-mud 'grognard' who refuses to accept change - or I'd be playing Pathfinder, or still playing 2e with old college buddies.

4e was a big change to the game. It slaughtered sacred cows, made the game more aproachable by radically reducing the need for 'system mastery,' and went from a hard-core-gamer 'simulationist' aproach, to an easier 'gamist' one. That was radical change, and I was OK with it, even though I'm one of those hard-core hobbyists who's been gaming since 1980. I live in Silicon Valley, I work in the high tech industry. I can handle change. And, I can tell constructive change from change-for-it's-own-sake, from reaction. Essentials is not a big change, but it's a change that seems to be backsliding. And, why it's backsliding leads us to...

4e is gaining some new options and new approaches. It's time to stop complaining and move on.

The 'new' options and approaches aren't new, they're retro. They're being undertaken because enough people /complained and wouldn't move on/. Is that irony lost on you?

TSR sold millions of boxed sets back in the '70s and '80s. There was a point where D&D was thought to be "almost the most popular game in the world" (I think it was behind "checkers").

Absolutely. And the kids that played it back then are in their theoretical 'peak earning years' now. Going 'retro' is a painfully obvious aproach, and one gauranteed to meet with at least a little success. Geeky guys getting on towards their mid-life crisises are bound to buy the notalgic Red Box. If the game is evocative enough of the old game, they might even get back into it. If you address some of the 3.x hold-outs biggest complaints (XOMG! martial powers! barf!), you might apease a few of them, too. So you'll lose a few players who liked 4e, no problem: if you could trade all the current 4e customers for all the former 3.x and 1e customers, you'd be way ahead of the game.


Which underpins why it seems so obvious to me that Essentials is aimed primarily at the 'old new' or 'lapsed' players. They bought millions of this crap before, they're around 40, feeling their mortality, they'll do it again. Flawlessly logical. Not good news for sellers of red sports cars, but probably inevitable.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

In my honest and very long time opinion, I don't believe Essentials is going to bring any more new gamers to the table than normal 4th edition has.

Seems to me that Wizards is grasping straws here and it almost seems like they are desperate for customers.

There is nothing that an Archer Ranger nor a Two Weapon Fighting Ranger can't do with regards to teaching younger kids how to play the game that the Essentials can do better.

Most people need a group to play D&D. This solo crap is what it is in a nutshell. Having a group and using trial and error is how the game is learned. I'm sorry but there is no gaming group on this planet that has played any RPG perfectly right out of the box. Perfection is something that Wizards is trying to reach and I'm afraid that will never happen.

Sticking some books in a "Red Box" isn't going to make a difference. Wizards bringing out the "Red Box" "again" should be your clue as to which crowd they are gearing this toward.

Another thing I want to know is what happens when a new DM that starts with the Essentials suddenly has people coming to their table bringing Pre-Essentials characters to the table?

I think this is going to be a train wreck and I can't help but watch. If I am wrong then good luck to Wizards and if I am right well then Wizards is going to need all the luck they can get.

 

[Jhaelen]

This solo crap is what it is in a nutshell. Having a group and using trial and error is how the game is learned. I'm sorry but there is no gaming group on this planet that has played any RPG perfectly right out of the box.

Hear, hear. You may want to explain how an RPG is played perfectly right

Anyway, imho, you're simply wrong. You sound exactly like Lord Kelvin back in 1895:
"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"

Isn't it a good thing there were people who didn't listen to him?

Btw. did you know that the old BECMI red box also included a solo adventure? I really wonder what they were thinking...

 

[Garthanos]

Btw. did you know that the old BECMI red box also included a solo adventure? I really wonder what they were thinking...

Must have been thinking there game wasn't centered around team work

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Hear, hear. You may want to explain how an RPG is played perfectly right

Anyway, imho, you're simply wrong. You sound exactly like Lord Kelvin back in 1895:
"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"

Isn't it a good thing there were people who didn't listen to him?

Btw. did you know that the old BECMI red box also included a solo adventure? I really wonder what they were thinking...

What exactly am I wrong about? Trial and error is how you learn the game I'm afraid. Please name me a group on this planet that has played an RPG exactly right the first time around? Don't even try it because you can't.

First game you play there will be mistakes. Second game maybe a few less mistakes. That's how it is.

Want to discuss aviation. How many failed attempts were made before the Wright Brothers got it right?

Sorry, but even though it may come with a Solo Adventure, it still doesn't mean that it's a good idea. The only solo adventures that semi worked was the books that said "If you turn left, turn to page X."

 

[Tony Vargas]

A solo adventure in an introductory set - especially a 'pick your path' type, which is what the one in Essentials has been reported to be - makes sense when targetting brand new players. It's a way to get some idea of what the point of the game is and how it might be played, even if you don't yet have anyone to play with.