D&D 3.x Here's What I Wish I Could Fix About 3E/4E

[Hussar]

I'm confused though. More than a few people came into DnD through 2e. No basic set, no 1e, just straight to 2e. 2e was hardly any less complicated than 3e for character generation. Why is there now so many calls for a Basic DnD?

 

[Whisper72]

I'm confused though. More than a few people came into DnD through 2e. No basic set, no 1e, just straight to 2e. 2e was hardly any less complicated than 3e for character generation. Why is there now so many calls for a Basic DnD?

First of all, IMHO, 2nd Edition was simpler, I am speaking about the core rulebooks only here. DnD3E is a very well designed, integrated set of rules. The problem with this, is that it is difficult to 'tear' it apart if you do not know what you are doing. In terms of page count, density of words etc. 3E is a lot more 'stuff' to take in then 2nd Ed was.

Furthermore.. it is surely possible to learn any edition. Usually this is through the aid of a DM who is already experienced.

The problem, as depicted in the many threads on 'the state of the industry' is, according to some, that for the hobby to be more profitable and support more publishers, there simply need to be more players. A lot more. This growth of the market cannot be achieved through the 'natural' growth of new players joining existing groups, but there needs to be a way to reach those who have as yet not had any exposure to roleplaying. No friends who RP, nobody to learn it from. To get these people into the game in sufficient number to 'matter', needs a new approach, and many think (myself among them) that a good 'basic' game would be an excellent tool for just this purpose.

It also (sorta) ties into the 4th edition debate. For WotC, with the core rulebooks and especially the PHB and other player related material, being the main cash cow, there is a strong economic necessity to release a new edition every x-amount of time, as the market will have largely been 'flooded', all players pretty much having the books they need. The only way to get more bucks out of the current edition, is to get more new players into the game who do not have any books yet, and need to buy them, hence the idea that the 'basic set' must be a stepping stone to 'graduating' to the core rulebook set. If the hobby grows more, then the release of 4th edition will be farther away, something I for one would applaud....

Thus, the issue is not so much that people cannot learn the rules in other ways, but a matter of scale. If you want to grow the hobby in large volumes in relatively short time, then the 'old' method where a sort of 'mentor' model exists, is simply 'not good enough'.

 

[Hussar]

The problem, as depicted in the many threads on 'the state of the industry' is, according to some, that for the hobby to be more profitable and support more publishers, there simply need to be more players.

I'm just going to step in here for a second and point out that I disagree with an assumption made here. The assumption here is that a profitable industry will support mor publishers. Wouldn't it make some sense that an industry would be just as profitable with less publishers?

In other words, instead of trying to float dead weight, why not let it sink and allow the better publishers to get on with what they are doing?

To me, a better, by far, "gateway game" for DnD is the minis game.

Character generation is not that terribly difficult if you are limited to core. It really isn't. And, there is a fair bit of hand holding throughout the books to get it done. The character sheet in the back of the PHB helps if nothing else does. Fill in the blanks and you have a character.

The difficulties, IMO, in DnD come in combat. The majority of the rules of the game center around combat. Most of that pagecount is based around combat.

Well, DDM teaches new players how to do combat. Switching from DDM combat to DnD combat would require very little rethinking. Most of the elements of one are present in the other. Products like the Adventure Locations are a much better method for drawing new players than trying to bring in entirely new players cold.

Here's how I see it being done. Draw in casual players with DDM. It's a fun game that isn't a huge time commitment - similar to the CCG's in that respect - that includes a number of elements of DnD. Bring out additional material in the form of Adventure Locations like Fane of the Drow and market it towards the DDM crowd.

The DDM bunch buys it up, checks out the fairly simple adventures included in the game and gives DnD a shot. If they don't like it, they go back to DDM or they get into DnD or both. Either way, WOTC wins.

Look at Warcraft. Start with a popular RTS game and then develop a MMORPG out of it. WOTC has the popular minis game, now its time to develop the other end of things.

Just my 2 cp

 

[Delta]

The problem with "starting packages" is that they fail to teach the new player what goes on in actual character creation (choice of feats, skills, domains, spells, etc.) It would be one thing to present a limited set of feat, skill, spell choices at 1st level... then there is an obvious path to expanding those kinds of choices later on. But removing the choices entirely for the new player (via starting packages) short-circuits that learning process.

Cognitive science would argue that the appropriate number of options at each step is seven, plus or minus two. To be the most inviting to all new players, the options should be set at the low end, i.e., around 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

 

[Umbran]

Why?

Because first impressions matter.

Players have theoretically all the time in the world to make a 1st level character. It's decisions DURING the game that slow it down and complicate it.

It has been seen quite clearly in other markets - ease of adoption is crucial to expanding your user base. If the user does not quickly and easily get into fun and interesting things, into the meat of your product, you vastly decrease your chances that they'll adopt it.

Imagine, if you will, you describing one of your best action-adventure war stories to someone. They think, "Hey, that sounds fun! I wanna do that!" But when you first set them up, they spend hours with you pouring over a book, and making choices about mechanics they don't yet understand. Their first contact with the game is paperwork and arcane rules, not cleaving orcs. That's likely a lost sale.

For most initial experiences the faster you can get from, "What kind of hero do you want to play?" to the first, "The orc laughs at your puny shortsword! Roll initiative!", the better.

 

[Sammael]

For most initial experiences the faster you can get from, "What kind of hero do you want to play?" to the first, "The orc laughs at your puny shortsword! Roll initiative!", the better.

The fastest way to accomplish that is to use sample characters, which is what the Basic Game does. Making a character from scratch cannot be a fast process if you are not at least familiar with the system in question. I'm not sure any of the major RPG systems available right now feature easy character creation. In fact, I'd say D&D still has an edge over WoD and GURPS as far as speed of 1st level character creation goes.

 

[Umbran]

The fastest way to accomplish that is to use sample characters, which is what the Basic Game does.

Correct, but sticking it off into a separate game is perhaps not the right approach.

It is my understanding (and someone is free to try to correct me on this) that most new players learn the game from a more experienced player. It then seems silly to have the more experienced player buy a completely separate product that they won't use except for training new players - it is too limiting a case to make for a solid stand-along product. Rather than pay an extra 30 bucks, people will try to wing it, leaving us approximately where we are now.

My thought is that the DMG ought to contain better suggestions for introducing new players to the game. Educate the DM on good ways to speed the process up. Give a couple pages of 1st level PC statblocks. Maybe discuss running the player thougth a couple of sessions of one-shot "throw away" adventure so they get to understand the mechanics before their decisions start having long-term impact, and so on.

The first edition of Shadowrun had a good idea here - present a whole bunch of archetypal characters, and an initial encounter: the "Stuffer Shack" - a rather flavorful and chaotic combat between PCs and gang-bangers in a convenience store, which gives players experience with the mechanic, and gives the GM lots of space to fill in the flavor of the game. Every time I introduce new players to Shadowrun, I use the Stuffer Shack. When I'm starting a new campaign, I have older players looking forward to playing through the Stuffer Shack with the inexperienced folks. It's like a tradition.

 

[Nomad4life]

This is a historically significant thread; we’ve already learned that 4E is broken before it’s even been announced!

 

[JVisgaitis]

It is my understanding (and someone is free to try to correct me on this) that most new players learn the game from a more experienced player.

I don't think that is the case. There are a lot of people that want to get into the hobby, but have no friends that play the game. That's why the have an intro set. It lowers the barrier of entry.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think that is the case. There are a lot of people that want to get into the hobby, but have no friends that play the game. That's why the have an intro set. It lowers the barrier of entry.

The existance of the intro set does not prove that lots of those people exist. It proves that WotC wanted to make some effort to catch them if they did. But given what I've been told of the set, and how rarely I see it on the shelves, it doesn't seem to me like WotC wants to spend too much effort on this, which suggets to me they are unsure of the efficacy of that route.

I've never seen any data on people who were not already players. That kind of research is notably more expensive that reaching current players, so I don't think WotC has done much of it. Until someone shows me some numbers, I have to work with the anecdotals, and that suggests to me that the current path of entry is a sort of apprenticeship model. Mostly, folks learn rpgs from someone who already plays them.

So, given that WotC has limited resources, we have the basic question - which path is more efficient? Do you spend development time and resources on products designed to lead folks in as "low-touch" (meaning there's no contact with a person to answer your questions and lead you along), or spend your dev resources on helping your current players be your "high-touch" salesmen?