Essentials: which new players?

[ourchair]

I picked your quote 'cuz I agreed with you and liked the (/BA psych degree talking) line, not because I disagreed with you. Less confused?

I also agree with you and think it's totally true that an experienced DM can guide a new player through the game with the pre-existing 4e books. But, there's two problems with that approach:

1) For the player who might find the PHB class structure too complicated, there's no simpler alternative. You certainly have the right to decide you don't want "that sort" in your game, but in my experience, you're keeping out some great players simply because they have a different aesthetic sense of "fun."

2) Who guides someone into the game if they don't have a friend who already plays? Who introduces the 14-year old kid? If the only way to play D&D is to be taught to play by someone who already does, it's never going to be more than a niche hobby. And the reason its still around is that, at one point in the '80s, TSR decided it could be learned "out of a box." Did those people learn as well or as quickly as those who were shepherded into it? Of course not, but they DID learn. Many of the game's current players come from that era.

Yes.

The PHB and DMG frequently make an unspoken assumption that you've at least seen how an RPG plays, and I think that you are absolutely right: Presentation matters.

I think Essentials, on top of the new mechanics, is revised presentation. Now, they could easily just say, here's a PHB, DMG and MM with revised presentation, errata'ed rules and pretty new art, but D&D is suppose to be a business that makes WotC money, and that kind of thing wouldn't be a justifiable purchase for some existing players, and the PHB, DMG, MM format which turned off newbs the first time around would simply be turned off the second time around.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

JohnSnow, there's no need to specifically emphasize places where I've wandered off into opinion land. I think it's pretty clear in the text. Heck, "feel" was the operative word in the part you bolded. I'm not trying to pass off my experiences for data. But, until I see some data, I'm entitled to base my interim conclusions on my experiences. But I'm a scientist by inclination even more than training, so I'm happy to revise conclusions when evidence is presented.

On your latter comment, have you ever hear of experiential market research? I took classes on it in business school. It's best understood as: "Recruit a bunch of people, hand them a product, and watch them play with it. Take notes. Lots of notes. Then ask questions. Lots of questions." This is market research the way it used to be done. And, done right, it generally works.

You will learn WAY, way, more than you can from a simple survey.

Sure. I was using "survey" in a sort of handwave-y sense encompassing various kinds of self-report and interview. But something that is common to all of them, including the observational/self-report market research methodology you describe, is a high degree of variability. Not only are you contending with human behavior, human self-perception, and the wildly divergent characteristics of your subject population, but also the human vagaries of your researchers. You put 5 researchers in the same room and tell them to take notes on someone's behavior, and you'll get a bunch of notes that look like they are describing somewhere between 3 and 5 completely separate events in disparate rooms. Now, you can control that by giving them very specific directives and goals to build up your inter-rater reliability, but the more of that you do, the more you bias what they are going to see.

If they're all looking for the same things, they will tend to see the same things. And they will also tend to ignore the same things. Experimental design can always bias results, but it's an especially common problem in any study of human behavior, because our assumptions are so ingrained.

When you construct a methodology for these kinds of studies, you have to make a great many assumptions. If you're not very careful, those assumptions bias the result. Heck, I've seen assumptions bias the results in experiments on slime mold behavior, and there's not quite as much variability and noise there as you get with humans, nor as much risk of confirmation bias, IME.

Some players just like going outside the box. It doesn't mean they're dumb - just that their brains work differently.

On that last point, we are entirely in agreement. I've simply been exposed to different trends on how "the way their brain works" tracks to demographics. Age, previous PnP experience, previous non-PnP gaming experience, and other factors all influence these things more strongly, IME, than less nuts and bolts notions like creativity or tactical experience. Those things are factors, sure, but not as strong for my money.

Also, on the topic of outside the box, one of the best pieces of advice I ever saw for 4e came from these boards. I think it was Piratecat, but don't quote me on that. He gave his players a power card (encounter, I think?) that said "Do something cool." If you have that sitting there looking at you while you play, I find that even the very tactical, power-oriented players use it now and again, as long as the DM isn't an ass about it.

 

[JohnSnow]

Does it, or did we just look at the experiences along different lines? I sliced it by newbie/lapsed, you went by analytical/creative. We looked at different things, too. I didn't even mention dailies vs at wills, just 'fighter powers.' You didn't mention surges or how CON affects hps. (every veteran gamer I've seen roll up his first 4e character got the hps wrong, or at least had a moment where he questioned "CON? or CON /bonus/?" - myself included).

Well, I sliced it by lines that I felt had some relevance in my game. I know my players.

I didn't mention surges or CON and hit points because it didn't really come up. The newbies accepted it, just as yours did. The vets and lapsed players reaction was basically "Cool! More hit points!" Yes, there was some confusion among the vets on Con bonus vs. Con Score, but no resistance.

As I break down what you posted along newbie/vet (not lapsed, BTW?), I see:

You had 4 vets and 2 newbs.

Two vets had no problem with powers - but were playing spellcasters. A third specifically played a swordmage because he balked at a fighter with dailies. The fourth (and the 'creative' paragraph is very hard to parse, you specify 3 players, but mention at least 4 classes they played initially), aparently the Paladin player, though, having 'no problem' with Dailies, didn't use them as a paladin (a class that has always had some spells in spite of being fighter-like), then switched to rogue and exclusively used at-wills. That's not really inconsistent with the experiences I've had with lapsed or ongoing players. They have no problem with powers when playing casters, but some when martial powers come up.

You don't mention whether the last player was a lapsed or new gamer.

While I'm sure our subjective experiences were different, I'm not so certain the phenomena we were observing were /that/ different.

Perhaps. My whole point was that I had plenty of players, both old and new alike, who resisted the notion of martial classes with powers. I didn't run into the same problem with spellcasters. That leads me to believe that a demographic exists that would like fighters, rogues and rangers that don't use the 4e power system. If you weren't disagreeing with that, then I guess we're not arguing.

I think there's a value in offering different levels of class complexity to cater to differing player preference. I see a lot of folks arguing that "new players" don't care about it, and that it will only appeal to lapsed gamers. I, respectfully, disagree. Sure, it appeals to lapsed gamers. But I also saw at least one new gamer take issue with powers for martial classes.

Oh, and the final gamer in my list was a lapsed player.

So give them a smaller box? Thus more opportunity, and impetus, to go outside it.

That's not snark, I mean it. I have seen the phenomenon where a player will get sufficiently caught up in the options on his power cards that he'll forget he can do things not on them.

Yes, give them a smaller box. For some players, giving them a list of codified powers will drive them away from being creative.

I like the notion of a "Do Something Cool" card. Maybe that would help. But I think the players who embrace "martial powers" often like them because they prefer the guarantee of the power to being subject to the whim of the DM. And that's totally cool - they're the reason powers exist. But some people find that box confining, and they're having LESS fun. Sure, they could go outside the box, but the broader the box, the less comfortable people feel exiting it.

It's bizarre, but I generally think it's more important to recognize and work with human nature than to try to change it. And for the players who want simpler classes, the martial ones in essentials seem like a good start. Players who want complex classes can be steered to spellcasters. And if what they REALLY want is a fighter (or ranger or rogue) that works like the wizard, they can be directed to the PHB versions. Which already exist in plenty of complexity.

I guess I just don't see what the downside is of offering simpler martial classes in the D&D Essentials products.


(Note: I'm not saying they shouldn't ever offer spellcasters along the lines of the knight, thief or slayer; just that the martial ones seem like a good place to start and at least fulfill the goal of having SOME classes that are less complex than others.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps. My whole point was that I had plenty of players, both old and new alike, who resisted the notion of martial classes with powers. I didn't run into the same problem with spellcasters. That leads me to believe that a demographic exists that would like fighters, rogues and rangers that don't use the 4e power system. If you weren't disagreeing with that, then I guess we're not arguing.

I certainly agree there's a demographic that's been insisting that the martial power source be treated differently than the others. I just think that demographic is mostly lapsed players and 3.x holdouts. I also have a strong suspicion that it's mostly not about wanting to /play/ a simpler or more distinctive martial character, but about wanting to play along side martial characters on an uneven playing field. That 4e has been percieved as stealing away some of the specialness of casters.

I think there's a value in offering different levels of class complexity to cater to differing player preference. I see a lot of folks arguing that "new players" don't care about it, and that it will only appeal to lapsed gamers. I, respectfully, disagree. Sure, it appeals to lapsed gamers. But I also saw at least one new gamer take issue with powers for martial classes.

I also don't agree that 4e is in anyway too complex for new or lapsed players. It's actually very simple and mechanically consistent. That new gamer had been married to an avid gamer for some time, though, so may have picked up some preconcieved notions common to long-time D&Ders.

And, that's one out of two. I gamed with 3 completely new-to-the-hobby players last night. No issues with martial powers. Not even much awareness of power sources, really.

I guess I'm just saying that I've seen a clear pattern, and what you related hardly challenged that pattern, just presented a different one that I don't feel qualified to comment on (I'm not confident judging 'creativity' - perhaps because I'm 'analytical.')

Another thing I think I should clarify is that I don't think /all/ lapsed players balk at martial powers, rather, the vast majority of those who balk at martial powers are lapsed or long-time gamers. The ones, I guess, who harbor some sort of 'prejudice' (too strong a word, but I can't think of a better one) against the martial power source. Those coming with a clean slate accept martial powers blythely, unless they just have a problem with powers in general (like them making too big and structured a box to climb out of).

I mean, I'm a long time avid gamer who quite likes martial powers, I wouldn't want to be a counterexample to my own supposition.

Oh, and the final gamer in my list was a lapsed player.

Who aparently likes martial characters.

And for the players who want simpler classes, the martial ones in essentials seem like a good start. Players who want complex classes can be steered to spellcasters. And if what they REALLY want is a fighter (or ranger or rogue) that works like the wizard, they can be directed to the PHB versions. Which already exist in plenty of complexity.

I guess I just don't see what the downside is of offering simpler martial classes in the D&D Essentials products.

There are several, all the result of the /way/ they've been made simpler. They could have been made simpler in the same way as the Cleric Domain choice: same 4e structure, but picking a 'build' ('sub class') pre-picks all your powers, which you can later switch out as you become more comfortable with the system.

Instead, they've been put in a different level progression and on a different resource-management footing. The downsides are:

- Loss of class balance. The 4e classes are robustly balanced because they have comparably powerful abilities in virtually identical mixes of availability levels. They are quite distinct in the nature, function, and feel of those abilities, but they're mechanically on a level playing field. The Essentials classes aren't. Which class ends up over- or under-powered depends on features we haven't seen yet, and could vary greatly depending on the pay style of the individual DM and group.

- Loss of encounter balance. 4e classes all have similar resource management, so the degree to which a lone encounter durring a day needs to more challenging than a given encounter in a multiple-encounter day is independent of party composition. Since Esaentials martial classes have no dailies, they can't 'pull out all the stops' and contribute to the same degree as other classes in a one-encounter day, but continue on at full effectiveness in very 'long' days. Conversely, the Mage can swap out all but his at-wills every day, so, with a little foreknowledge or bad luck could be perfectly or badly prepared for a day's challenges, while, with any other class, you can consider the PCs capabilities when designing an encounter form them. Depending on the mix of classes, the DM must adjust how he balances encounters, and how many encounters he uses in a day to keep things more or less balanced.

- And, ironically, increased complexity. 4e character have one level progression chart. When new players level up, you can tell them, "you're second level, you each pick a level 2 utility from you class and a feat." Essentials character sub-classes each have a different level progression. 4e characters all use the same power mechanics. Essentials classes have (so far) two distinctly different mechanics for their class abilities.

(Note: I'm not saying they shouldn't ever offer spellcasters along the lines of the knight, thief or slayer; just that the martial ones seem like a good place to start and at least fulfill the goal of having SOME classes that are less complex than others.)

I understnd. It's just that making all the martial classes the simplistic ones is consistent with pandering to lapsed gamers and hold-outs who rejected 4e. Having a simplistic warlock or sorcerer - say, having the complexity line drawn (as it is in 4e) by role instead of class - would not have been consistent with that aim, but would have been consistent with the stated aim.

 

[Greg K]

I certainly agree there's a demographic that's been insisting that the martial power source be treated differently than the others. I just think that demographic is mostly lapsed players and 3.x holdouts. I also have a strong suspicion that it's mostly not about wanting to /play/ a simpler or more distinctive martial character, but about wanting to play along side martial characters on an uneven playing field. That 4e has been percieved as stealing away some of the specialness of casters.

Well, among the groups that I know, you would be wrong. It is just the idea of Martial encounter and dailies does not sit well. I have seen skilled fighters use feints to create openings to successfully repeat attacks like spinning back kicks against a skilled opponent. I have seen them spam attacks like sweeps, throws and, again, spinning back kicks against a lesser skilled foe. We just want the option of our characters to do similar things. And, we don't intelligent foes to automatically fall for things like "Come and get it".

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Instead, they've been put in a different level progression and on a different resource-management footing. The downsides are:

- Loss of class balance.

we don't know, actually we are said that they are balanced, and it should be possible that they are balanced, since a ph1 fighter could take different dailies some that do more damage some that inflict more condition some that are reusable until they hit it seems that is possible to balance the loss of dailies with other effects

- Loss of encounter balance. 4e classes all have similar resource management, so the degree to which a lone encounter durring a day needs to more challenging than a given encounter in a multiple-encounter day is independent of party composition.

since character could use dailies at the wrong moment this should not be a big problem, the fact that a mage can change encounter power seems to me a marginal problem since at most the mage could pick up a spell that do more damage to a specific target but nothing unbalancing

- And, ironically, increased complexity. 4e character have one level progression chart. When new players level up, you can tell them, "you're second level, you each pick a level 2 utility from you class and a feat."

at second level it's the same for all essentials characters
maybe the problem is at successive levels when they are getting a class feature instead of dailies, but nothing more different than what happen in the phb at 1st level when each character class has completely different (in number and mechanics) class features

I understnd. It's just that making all the martial classes the simplistic ones is consistent with pandering to lapsed gamers and hold-outs who rejected 4e. Having a simplistic warlock or sorcerer - say, having the complexity line drawn (as it is in 4e) by role instead of class - would not have been consistent with that aim, but would have been consistent with the stated aim.

this was also explained (the reason to why they did this) in part it's also for lapsed player, but I think they have a point when they point out that magical power is more easily framed as something special, while it's easier to think of a fighter that take a special stance or a thief that play a trick on his enemies

AND know you cater to 4 different tastes in character use instead that only one

so I thinki that they are going for multiple target with the essential line

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I guess I just don't see what the downside is of offering simpler martial classes in the D&D Essentials products.

Isn't it enough that they're re-introducing the dreadful D&Dism that martial classes r dumb?

I'm only kidding a very little bit there. "Play a Fighter if you don't want to manage many resources or have many tactical options" has always irritated me. The 4e Fighter and Warlord finally made playing a dude with a sword interesting. IME, lots of people gravitate towards smart and/or tactical warriors. They're certainly common enough in the literature, but historically ill-served by the game unless you wanted Bladesinger baggage or other such truck.

If they wanted tactical simplicity to be an option, they should have spread it out among various archetypes. Take your Wizard archetype and create a complicated Mage, simple Sorcerer. Take your Fighter archetype and create a complicated Soldier, simple Warrior. Instead, they returned to the old and tired D&Dism that spellcasters get to be mechanically interesting and martial classes get to be (mostly) mechanically bland. I do like the Thief, though, but that feels like an accident or aberration based on the other things they've presented.

But that flavor issue aside, they tossed aside a game structure for the martial classes that made 4e more intuitive to a broad swath of potential D&D players in a way that previous editions simply were not, IME. You take your prototypical WoW or GBA tactics player and set them in front of 4e, and all the classes make sense. You take your prototypical WoW or GBA tactics player and set them in front of 4eE, and casters make sense, but guys with weapons don't. This is particularly galling in light of how interesting and relatively tactical it is to play such classes in MMOs and such. Warriors and Rogues in WoW, for one example, are complicated compared to other classes, especially in terms of resource management. Having D&D swing entirely the opposite way again makes one more stumbling block in the way of crossing more of those people over. IME, they are the fertile recruiting ground. YMMV.

In any case, I just don't think it serves the game or the potential playerbase to divide "simple" and "complicated" along those particular lines.

 

[Garthanos]

Isn't it enough that they're re-introducing the dreadful D&Dism that martial classes r dumb?

In any case, I just don't think it serves the game or the potential playerbase to divide "simple" and "complicated" along those particular lines.

Hehheheh.. you keep saying these things - but I cant give you any xp... dammit..

 

[heretic888]

Well, among the groups that I know, you would be wrong. It is just the idea of Martial encounter and dailies does not sit well. I have seen skilled fighters use feints to create openings to successfully repeat attacks like spinning back kicks against a skilled opponent. I have seen them spam attacks like sweeps, throws and, again, spinning back kicks against a lesser skilled foe. We just want the option of our characters to do similar things. And, we don't intelligent foes to automatically fall for things like "Come and get it".

Hi Greg,

There are three points I would add here.

1) All of what you described could be seen as at-will attack powers. I'm sure you have also seen particularly difficult or complicated maneuvers that any given "fighter" (I'm assuming you're talking about mixed martial artists here or something similar) has a chance of pulling off only about once every "encounter" (or fight). In fact, I have an extensive background in the martial arts and self-defense crisis management procedures and I know that there are direct analogues to "encounter powers" in real-life.

Daily powers are a bit tougher to nail down, but I would like to fantasy literature and fiction for inspiration here, since this is what 4E is trying to replicate.

2) Not every action the characters take has a direct analogue to a dice roll. Presumably, the Fighter could have been attempting his awesome Spinning Sweep maneuver for the entire encounter, weaving in between his regular attacks, but only when the player activates his encounter power with a dice roll does the character have a decent chance of succeeding.

Incidentally, a LOT of Fighter encounter and daily powers have the reliable keyword. I think that represents just what you describe above.

3) A lot of people really, really need to read Martial Power 2. Just because a big strong guy swings a weapon does not mean he is using the martial power source. The martial power source is the province of larger-than-life heroes and villians. If you'll notice, virtually no monsters have the "martial" keyword in their attack powers.

I think the problem with a lot of people not "grokking" martial powers has more to do with how they are explained or described to them, rather than the nature of the powers themselves.

..... for that matter, I don't buy this "its magic" argument for explaining arcane and divine powers, either. "Its magic" explains why the Cleric is calling lightning bolts or the Wizard is hurling fireballs. It does not adequately explain why they can only do this stuff once every five minutes or every 24 hours (the latter especially does not fly with most popular fantasy fiction that isn't D&D-derived)......

 

[The Little Raven]

they tossed aside a game structure

NO.

They created a new design structure to exist alongside the original one. They are creating more options for the sliding scale of player-types (from the super-tactical fiddly players to the simpler, point-and-shoot players), so that no matter what your preference, you've got something to play that is on par with everything else without having to have the same level of simplicity/complexity.