Game vs Game System

[The Little Raven]

also since the cleric and magic-user spell lists are in the control of the DM moreso in those editions than newer ones.

Statements like this always make me go "Huh?"

How is it easier in 1e/2e to say "No." than in 3e? The only reason you could deny people spells in 1e/2e was because you were the DM, a fact which remains exactly the same in 3e.

 

[Reynard]

Putting a town in the DMG allows them to sit down, and jump right into the game, and learn as they go along. Previous DMGs required you to do worldbuilding before you could start playing, since you had to figure out their starting location and all that.

All untrue. First of all, puttinga town in the DMG (not a bad idea, mind) does not obviate the need to read the rules or understand how the game works. Second, "worldbuilding" is entirely unnecessary to playing D&D. I happen to like worldbuilding, and I like playing in games in which the DM has done some worldbuilding, but it is wholly unneccessary. The PHB conventions on classes and races and a dungeon are all the "worldbuilding" that's necessary. If the intent of 4E was really to teach ne wplayers the game, the PHB would open with a choose your own adventure/solo adventure and the DMG would open with a scripted adventure for the DM and his 4 or 5 buddies. It sounds like the books will make an effort to provide some guidance, but if you really want to get people to play without being inducted -- the traditional way of learning D&D -- you need to do what the Red Box did.

 

[The Little Raven]

All untrue. First of all, puttinga town in the DMG (not a bad idea, mind) does not obviate the need to read the rules or understand how the game works.

Yeah, I never said otherwise. I said that worldbuilding was necessary for a new DM, since the DMG doesn't provide ready-to-use examples of things like starting locales.

Second, "worldbuilding" is entirely unnecessary to playing D&D.

Then please, explain how a brand new DM can pick up 3.X and start playing without developing a starting locale (including supportive NPCs, like quest-givers, McGuffins, shopkeepers), an adventure locale, and whatnot.

As none of the three core books provide anything for you to just run with, a new DM would be forced to either (a) buy a setting/adventure in order to get that stuff or (b) develop it himself.

D&D has always had the bad habit of wanting "new players" to spend more money to get into the basic game than experienced players (new players would be buying the "Starter/Basic" set, then the 3 core books; experience players are only buying the core books), and they seem to be wising up.

If the intent of 4E was really to teach ne wplayers the game, the PHB would open with a choose your own adventure/solo adventure and the DMG would open with a scripted adventure for the DM and his 4 or 5 buddies.

No, that's now how you teach a game. You teach a game by explaining the rules/systems and providing examples. You teach a DM things about how to build communities, then give him an example community. You teach him how dungeons work, then show him an example dungeon he can use. Just giving a stripped down adventure in place of a game system does nothing to teach the game, since you're removing the rules.

It sounds like the books will make an effort to provide some guidance, but if you really want to get people to play without being inducted -- the traditional way of learning D&D -- you need to do what the Red Box did.

Sounds completely different to me. This is the first time that D&D is actually trying to directly tackle "teaching new players" the game, instead of throwing a collection of tables at them and expecting them to put it together with their own worldbuilding involved.

 

[Reynard]

Every rules system has made it possible for a mid-to-high level fighter to beat a lion or tiger in hand-to-hand combat. As this is a virtually superhuman feat, it follows that every edition of D&D mentioned above has made it impossible to use the rules to play a realism-based, grim-and-gritty game. Contrast this with RQ, or RM, which (in their skill and combat systems, if not their magic systems) virtually enforce such a playstyle.

2E: 5th level fighter in chainmail with a shielf and a sword with 25 hit points versus a tiger with 25 hit points. The fighter hits the tiger 20% of the time. The tiger hits the fighter 40% of the time. The fighter deals 1-8 points of damage. the tiger deals a total of 5-20 points of damage. That is going to be one hell of a grim and gritty fight -- and you know how I accomplished it? Low magic, 3d6 straight up for stats. ta da! But, if I want that same 5th level fighter to be a HERO, then I give the player a point buy for stats and give out "mythic" items like magic swords and giant strength belts and all that other school stuff. Now he is taking on small dragons and demons on his own. AD&D is supremely easy to modify by simple inclusion and exclusion, by controlling the rate of advancement and by controlling the treasure output.

Furthermore, every rules system has had very well-defined character improvement rules. In earlier editions it was primarily gold, with monsters adding a little extra XP. This meant the game strongly supported Conan-esque looting style play, but not (for example) LOTR-type questing.

2E again. Lots of rules for giving characters XP for doing stuff their class should be doing, plus rules for giving "story" XP. In fact, even 1E and the RC talk about story XP. Not to mention that the LOTR quest involves a whole heaping of magical treasure, which does in fact grant XP -- and it isn't like anyone but the hobbits "levelled" as it was.

In short: D&D is no more generic as a fantasy RPG engine than is RQ, RM, Pendragon, T&T or TRoS. Which is to say, not that generic at all.

I thinkt hat is a very narrow viewpoint and I think that if you looked at all the things D&D was capable of, you'd find that it is a robust toolkit that allows you to play whatever kind of fantasy you want.

There is no real reason to think this is true. If a large number of users want a certain sort of play, then what will be most useful to them is a game that supports that play style.

But what will be most useful to the largest number of players is a game that does not inhibit certain styles of play.

An RPG which aims at the (in my view, unattainable) goal of utter genericness is likely to be sufficiently incoherent that many people will not find it fun to play at all. There is some evidence, at least, that AD&D 2nd ed suffered from this problem.

And what evidence would this be? I have never heard it suggested that AD&D 2E's system was the problem -- it was a combination of bad business decisions and a changing marketplace and one individual's incompetencies.

For the reasons Skeptic has given above, I think that the increasing recognition by the 3E and 4e designers of the reality of D&D - that its rules primarily support and are primarily used for gamist play - has been a good thing, not a bad one.

We can only assume that WotC has done the kind of market research that gives them accurate information, and therefore while you are right, it speaks more of a changing marketplace than anything else. D&D appeared at a very specific time in a very specific culture. It was a rpoduct of a world without powerful computer games or, really, anything that did what D&D does. It is a dinosaur. it is on its way out. TTRPGs cannot compete for the mindspace of the generation raised on XBoxes and high end PCs. The hobby will never die, but as an industry it is on its last leg.

 

[Reynard]

No, that's now how you teach a game. You teach a game by explaining the rules/systems and providing examples. You teach a DM things about how to build communities, then give him an example community. You teach him how dungeons work, then show him an example dungeon he can use. Just giving a stripped down adventure in place of a game system does nothing to teach the game, since you're removing the rules.

...

Sounds completely different to me. This is the first time that D&D is actually trying to directly tackle "teaching new players" the game, instead of throwing a collection of tables at them and expecting them to put it together with their own worldbuilding involved.

You never played the "Red Box" did you?

 

[Henry]

Statements like this always make me go "Huh?"

How is it easier in 1e/2e to say "No." than in 3e? The only reason you could deny people spells in 1e/2e was because you were the DM, a fact which remains exactly the same in 3e.

3.5 Player's Handbook: "A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells... and plus three 1st level spells of your choice."

1st edition DMG: "While the intelligence of the player character will dictate how many and which spells can be and are known... each and every spell, except those which 'master' was generous enough to bestow upon the character, must be found somewhere and recorded..." choice of starting 1st level spells was randomly determined, and only allow choice if the DM felt his or her campaign was especially difficult. Spelled out in the rules. The cleric's section goes out of its way to say that any spell over 2nd level means the cleric can be denied them from his god for various reasons.

That's why I say it, at least. The default assumption in earlier editions was that it was DM's perogative; in 3E, the default choice is that it's player's perogative. You can still pull "DM's authority, as you say, but the rules make the default assumption a different one.

 

[The Little Raven]

You never played the "Red Box" did you?

Enough to have noted in my very first post on this thread:

Most editions of D&D weren't geared towards new gamers and DMs, though (BECMI and it's Rules Cyclpedia are a notable exception).

 

[Reynard]

Enough to have noted in my very first post on this thread:

I asked because you didn't seem to think that such a thing was a good idea or even possible, when it is both and worked to great effect for a whole generation of D&D players -- in a completely playable game, not just a one off "Okay, we've learned the rules, now what?" version of the game.

There are exactly two ways to get new people into the hobby: induct them through existing players, or give them the tools to induct themselves. A town isn't going to do the latter. you need to actually teach them to play the game while they are playing the game. they can skip those 20 pages at the beginning of the book from then on and concentrate on mastering the game later. But if you expect them to go straight to mastering it, you are going to fail.

 

[The Little Raven]

I asked because you didn't seem to think that such a thing was a good idea or even possible, when it is both and worked to great effect for a whole generation of D&D players -- in a completely playable game, not just a one off "Okay, we've learned the rules, now what?" version of the game.

That was also when we had the ridiculous "Advanced" title slapped on to D&D to deny royalties, and the "Advanced" label was renowned for presenting a challenge to new gamers: where's the basic version I start with, since I'm too new for the "advanced" game... wait the Basic version is totally different... WTF?!

And no, I don't think a separate product to introduce people to the game is a good idea, again, because you make new people spend more to get into the game than you would an expert. It's the opposite of almost every other hobby in the world, since experts generally own more equipment/doodads for their hobby than someone new to the hobby.

Removing the barriers to entry by making the core books geared towards teaching new players the game is probably the best step towards growing the audience that D&D has ever taken.

There are exactly two ways to get new people into the hobby: induct them through existing players, or give them the tools to induct themselves.

D&D has a history of the former, and a history of making the latter unimportant. The DMG doesn't teach you how to DM, it merely gives you tools. That's like giving someone a bunch of programming libraries to use to build software, but not teaching them the basics of the programming language or providing examples of how to implement those libraries. Sure, some people will sort it out themselves, but the majority will not.

A town isn't going to do the latter.

The more work a new DM needs to put into the campaign before he can start playing, the less likely he is to become a new DM. Best way to teach someone is to show them how to do something, and the best way to show them how to do something is to provide examples.

But if you expect them to go straight to mastering it, you are going to fail.

Precisely. That's why you provide examples, so they can understand the theory and how it's implemented.

 

[Reynard]

And no, I don't think a separate product to introduce people to the game is a good idea, again, because you make new people spend more to get into the game than you would an expert. It's the opposite of almost every other hobby in the world, since experts generally own more equipment/doodads for their hobby than someone new to the hobby.

Removing the barriers to entry by making the core books geared towards teaching new players the game is probably the best step towards growing the audience that D&D has ever taken.

I think this is where we are getting our wires crossed. i am not suggesting a "basic Set" (even if I think it is a good idea). I am suggesting that if the intent is to draw in new players with the traditional 3 book, $100 buy in model, using those tools that worked so well in the Red Box at the front of both the PHB and the DMG would be well worth the "lost" 20 pages or so, and far more worthwhile in that endeavor than a "starter town". I mean, if you are going to put a "starter" anything in the DMG, shouldn't it be a "starter dungeon" (unless, of course, your goal is to get those new players to go spend another $20 on the first module out the gate, the one that actually shows what playing the game is like).