Essentials: which new players?

[Garthanos]

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.

Does it now? or did it then? as I said the sense that D&D was about team work was a really fuzzy thing barely expressed back in the day.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The boxed set I got way back when, two printings before the famed Red Box, had a straight module in it, not a pick-your-path. Someone posted an 'unwrapping' of the new Red Box, and it included a 'pick your path' mini adventure that was integrated with character generation. And idea clearly targetting the 'new new' players.

 

[Garthanos]

The boxed set I got way back when, two printings before the famed Red Box, had a straight module in it, not a pick-your-path. Someone posted an 'unwrapping' of the new Red Box, and it included a 'pick your path' mini adventure that was integrated with character generation. And idea clearly targetting the 'new new' players.

Oh yes very clearly it just isnt clear whether that is the best kind of introduction to a game so completely entrenched in team work as the latest edition of the game. Shrug I am just thinking that a group with more real play is a vastly superior introduction to 4e.

One of the arguments about essentials is it really an introduction to our game... or just a backslide? not properly presenting the team element is in my opinion just another backslide.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm less than enthused about Essentials, and it definitely is backsliding on some counts. I don't think the pick-your-path adventure/chargen is one of them, though. It's not some retro thing, and I can see how it could get a lone buyer of the game - maybe an impulse buy or a gift - into it enough to go and look for other players, rather than just reading it, not quite getting it, and leaving it on a shelf between Monopoly and Scrable.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

without the solo adventure in the original Red Box I don't know if I would have understand enough of the game to DM my first adventure for my friends back in 1984.....

 

[UngainlyTitan]

without the solo adventure in the original Red Box I don't know if I would have understand enough of the game to DM my first adventure for my friends back in 1984.....

Agreed, I picked up the red box cold with only the vaguest idea of what an RPG was based on eighties computer magasines discussing text adventure games.

 

[corwyn77]

Yeah, I had this crazy idea once that five schools might be an ideal number:

1) order, healing, and light spells
2) illusion, knowledge, trickery, air, and water spells
3) power, death, and corruption spells
4) chaos, creativity, fury, warfare, lightning and fire spells
5) life and nature spells

I can't think of good names for the schools, but otherwise they seem really intuitive to me. Maybe you could even assign colours to them? Hmm...

I assume that's a specific reference but it escapes me.

I also never really liked the grouping by ... source?

I like the effect-based schools in Harn:

Fyvria: nature, life, healing, death (necromancy)
Lyahvi: Light, illusion, air
Jmorvi: Earth, metal, weapon/armour enchanting
Odivshe: Water, Cold, Darkness
Peleahn: Fire, Force, Speed
Savorya: Spirit, Mental control
Neutral: General Enchantment, Divination and Knowledge

 

[Scribble]

Oh yes very clearly it just isnt clear whether that is the best kind of introduction to a game so completely entrenched in team work as the latest edition of the game. Shrug I am just thinking that a group with more real play is a vastly superior introduction to 4e.

One of the arguments about essentials is it really an introduction to our game... or just a backslide? not properly presenting the team element is in my opinion just another backslide.

It's not about truly teaching you the game though. Like others mentioned that's kind of a trial and error process.

This is just the hook- It's about giving a potential new player a grasp of what the fundamentals of gaming are. The basics of what a character does, and what kind of game it is.

With this, new player can be drawn into the world of D&D and role-playing, enough that he actually wants to bother getting a group together to figure out the rest.

 

[shamsael]

(ie 3.9)

My reaction to the preview classes so far was more like Rules-Compendium.5

1) order, healing, and light spells
2) illusion, knowledge, trickery, air, and water spells
3) power, death, and corruption spells
4) chaos, creativity, fury, warfare, lightning and fire spells
5) life and nature spells

Matter
Thought
Entropy
Energy
Time

 

[Jhaelen]

What exactly am I wrong about?

I think you're wrong assuming there's a 'wrong' way to play an rpg - as long as you're having fun! I also think you're wrong that it is not possible to describe an rpg in a way that will allow someone reading the rules to play it 'right'.

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

Unless I misunderstood your post you've been implying to throw the baby out with the bath water: Since it's impossible to teach an rpg in an intuitive way, no attempt should be made.

My introduction to rpgs was through the 'Fighting Fantasy' books. So I happen to think it's a pretty good way to get introduced to rpgs.