Pramas on 4E and New Gamers

[DaveMage]

I feel that with one or two obvious exceptions, 3.x was not too complicated to play (yes, grappling sucked, and using attacks of opportunity as a balancing measure for every special attack also sucked), but the real problem area, in my experience, was the amount of prep time involved. It took a long time to build NPCs that would last for one encounter and then be forgotten, and there were other elements that were hard, though not impossible, to simply wing in-game. Now personally, I cheated quite a bit of the time. I would come up with an NPC concept, fake the BAB, AC, saves, and skills. I'd add a feat or two if I thought it would be useful, and I rarely bothered with skills, because they are rarely used in combat. This worked to an extent, but that's only because I didn't have players who were trying to reverse engineer my NPCs in-game most of the time (I have had some players who would do just that, however).

Yep. The main problem with 3e is the time it takes to prepare for and play. The prep time problem is greatly reduced with prepublished adventures (thanks Necro, Goodman, and Paizo!), so the only problem for me is the time it takes to play...which apparently wasn't solved in 4E. (Rounds go quicker, but overall combat seems to take the same amount of time according to those that have played.)

I would think an enterprising writer/designer - say, you, for example - could design a quick fix for 3.x NPCs & Monsters to bring them up or down a few levels to adjust on the fly - just by adjusting attacks and hit points. It certainly wouldn't be a perfect system, but it could be a functional one.

 

[Kichwas]

One thing I don't see how to overcome, though, is that D&D 4E is "hardcore balanced", in the sense that if you don't use teamwork, aren't equipped right, and didn't choose smart abilities and don't use them intelligently, you're likely see TPKs very frequently. Then again, BD&D saw constant TPKs, so maybe it's not a big deal.

This should get split into a separate thread...

But...

Keep in mind that in the old days it took less than 5 minutes to make a complete new PC. You could have your toon die on your turn, and by the time the table ran back around to you be ready with Ruin Explorer the 2nd, a new toon of a different class, race, stats, and gear.

Now you have to sit down and analyze all your choices, and pretty map out a 'build' to level 20 so you know your choices will make sense, and figure out all sorts of little numbers all over the sheet. Its been like this since 3E, but... without the kind of teamwork iconoclastic people are not capable of handling, the new 4E is going to have a lot more PC kills, but a lot longer time in coming back from them.

 

[rounser]

See, now I disagree that it should be. Could you imagine the screaming from fans if they stripped 3e down to the point of Basic D&D? Or even Basic/Expert?

No, you keep the core rules nicely complicated and come out with boxed sets in addition and then try to draw on existing gamers (but not RPG gamers) for your new blood.

It's not an "either/or". It's just a problem with no easy solution. Swinging to one extreme end of the pendulum as you've suggested there is not the answer, IMO, and nor is hanging about in the centre (where everyone loses). If there is a good one, I don't think I, Pramas, you or WOTC have thought of it yet.

There's also the issue of 12 year olds not wanting to be talked down to, thank you very much. If you produce a "Basic Boxed Set" in the true sense of the word like 3E did (the OD&D Red Box wasn't really that, it was just levels 1-3 for the full game), they'll see it for what it is - watered down - and ignore it for the Real Thing.

I think that's part of what you're pointing out above. But on the other hand, going hardcore isn't going to work either. Those 12 year olds will need someone to introduce it to them.

I think that D&D's biggest quandary is that it expects the players to be part novelist, part level designer, part computer running rules software. Rare is the person who's good at all three, and rare is the ruleset which can compensate for the fact that it's players might be lousy novelists, lousy level designers and lousy computers...and still remain fun, and worthy of your time and effort. And, as Pramas points out, readable...and as I'd point out, inspiring.

That's one heck of a lot of stuff for one game to live up to. But that's P&P RPGs, and D&D is the industry 900 lb gorilla of these, and the default.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's part of what you're pointing out above. But on the other hand, going hardcore isn't going to work either. Those 12 year olds will need someone to introduce it to them.

And the 12 year olds do. They have DDM and Magic. Both of which can teach the mechanics, but, in the end, cannot serve terribly well as a vehicle for cooperative play.

That's why you would switch from DDM or Magic to D&D. Mechanics? Not a chance, both DDM and Magic are mechanically easier than D&D and MUCH faster to play. What you cannot do in either one though is get the cooperative play that you get in D&D. The idea of everyone being on the same team.

Way back when it was true as well. Monopoly provides a great play experience, and, you can to some degree role play. Same with Diplomacy. But, what you don't get is the cooperative aspect.

So, teach the mechanics first with DDM or Magic and then hook them on the idea of being able to work together and grow togother like in a MMORPG, but with much more freedom of action.

I've long thought that the gateway to RPG's is not and shouldn't be D&D.

 

[rounser]

And the 12 year olds do. They have DDM and Magic. Both of which can teach the mechanics, but, in the end, cannot serve terribly well as a vehicle for cooperative play.

But they're both gateway-only-through-other-people, network things too.

How did I learn M:tG, by reading the rulebook? I didn't. I got ripped off on cards by some people who were playing, ditching more than a few of their shoddy ones on me (which I only realised in retrospect), and they taught me the game. That was the path that eventually saw me get to the oz nationals twice, back in the day, but I never read those rules until I was already embedded in the game through someone who taught me it.

Given that both DDM and M:tG rely so much on a network of people already playing them, I don't think they're the gateway you're looking for either.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm sure that WotC will support new players and DMs with great on line content at launch, like lots of pre-made 1st level characters on actual WotC character sheets. They'll have easy encounter based dungeons on line. They'll have a few interesting monsters. Oh, and they'll have some 2D characters they bought from fiery dragon as an entry into using minis.

Yup, I'm sure that WotC's great marketing and online teams are all over this and that new players will get lots of support.......or not.

There are lots of ways to introduce new players and DMs. These manuals are not one of them. Neither is having no on line content to help new players and DMs. No real shock here...

 

[Intense_Interest]

But WOTC have given you an incomplete game anyway. There's no rules for making traps, for goodness sake. You will be buying more books anyway to get a full campaign out of this thing, unless you turn homebrew game designer.

Why not get a complete 1-10 game, a complete 11-20 game, and a complete 21-30 game?

Because WOTC doesn't want to give you a complete game. They want to sell you more books. That's another "shooting self in foot" moment for this edition, except from the perspective of if you're balancing the books at Hasbro.

Thats a pretty direct Shifting Goalposts there. You can't argue that D&D broke things up to make money in one way and therefore should have broke things up in a different way.

Traps, Classes, and Monsters are not at all comparable to leveling a character 1 to 30.

1- Trap-making and other sub-systems that scalar rather than modular (creating a level 12 trap is the same basic rules as a lvl 8 and a lvl 25).

2- There is a hard-coded genre convention of power accumulates until you die/retire. Trap design isn't even necessary to play the game well, much less at all.

 

[MichaelSomething]

C) D&D is an easy game to get into, but it can be ramped up in complexity (perhaps with the right splatbooks) without too much additional effort.

When given two extremes, the best option is inbetween them Now, if only we can make that the case...

It seems that D&D is viewed as the RPG most newbies get into yet also not naturally welcoming of said newbies.

 

[Storm Raven]

Honestly, I think the mistake that's being made here is that D&D is the gateway game. Has it been the gateway game for a long time? Personally, I don't think so.

So what is the gateway game?

 

[rounser]

Thats a pretty direct Shifting Goalposts there. You can't argue that D&D broke things up to make money in one way and therefore should have broke things up in a different way.

I don't agree, at least so far as my own personal preference is concerned. If you give people a book that supports levels 1-10 in a complete and detailed fashion, I'd personally far prefer that to a game that tries to do 1-30, does none of them very well, and leaves you hanging for the "make your own trap" rules and a bunch of popular races and classes and monsters, so you have to buy more books to complete the game anyway.

If the page count forces a compromise, the splitting into level ranges is IMO a better one than the one we've got. A campaign can't be level 25 and level 5 at the same time (or if it is, it's an extremely unusual one). You're either playing a game around level 5 or level 25, and it would be preferable that both are complete and replete with options.

4E suggests that the allowable page count can't do that - or that the bean counters don't want it to do that, so you get on the "buy more books in hopes of one day getting the whole game" treadmill.