Pramas on 4E and New Gamers

[pawsplay]

Never said it wasn't. My contention is the steepness of the learning curve in the beginning. Personally I think the tactical and rules mastery learning curve for D&D should be similar to a bell curve, minimal at level 1, peaking at level 15 and introducing very little as it progresses to 30. If more experienced players want more complexity they can start at a higher level while there is little to no barrier for those new people who want to jump on board without having to find an experienced player to teach them. It would be similar, though not exactly the same as the colored D&D boxed sets from years ago.

Hm, the interest level is higher at the beginning, so I would posit the most learning should occur at the front end and rapidly taper off, so that a masterful player spends their time on creative work rather than continuing to wrestle with the system.

 

[hong]

Which is where the differences lie. Computers can do way more work than the players or DM has to do, especially crunching numbers and whatnot. Don't need 800 pages to explain that. Just jump right into the CRPG and go.

They also have lists of special powers, class abilities, combat moves and whatnot that put to shame the abbreviated lists in the 4E PHB.

 

[Filcher]

I have read it. That guy is not even half believable. At least to me. And not because I disagree with his tastes. That's not an issue and perhaps not even true.

I also have a hard time believing this review (though I'd love it if it it were true.) He claims he's never played D&D before, but spends a lot of times hanging out on the WotC forums, reading other people's posts about 4E.

Huh?

That'd be like me trolling forums on C&C, but otherwise having no interest in the game.

 

[nothing to see here]

3- Chris is right. They are going back to the well again to sell more books to the already converted. Problem is... 40% of the audience HATES it, many of whom will decide not to adopt. I hate it, and for the first time in 28 years of consitant gaming, will be returning an official D&D product to the store. Lets face it. It's not like there isn't enough 3.5 stuff out there to last me and my friends (who all hate it to varying degrees) the rest of our natural lives. This means WOTC will actually sell less books, and they will end up further fracturing an already fractured market....



...My money says 90% chance Huge Failure.

8% Chance, Moderate Failure (This would mean that I have missed someting in my reading, and that given time at the table, will wake up and come around...but I doubt that)

2% Chance, Moderate Success. This means that a large segment of the base abandons and sticks with 3e, but something about 4e and the whole online approach really appeals like crazy to a younger audience. I doubt that too. Virtual tabletop will never be as cool as WOW to the young whippersnappers of today.

So there you have it... If you LOVE 4e... Great. I am glad you do. But it doesn't change the fact that WOTC has made a HUGE business blunder here, and the likleyhood is that 4e is headed for huge failure.

I commend you for your remarkably specific percentile projections (8% moderate failure vs 2% moderate success...why not 7%/3%?). And I actually agree with you that the 90% tactical combat / 10% everything else split in 4e is a serious drawback in an otherwise fine ruleset.

But outside of that you fall into a couple of falacies common on message boards.

1) There is no evidence that 40% of DND players HATE DND, nothing even hints at such a thing.

2) While you're entitled to your own tastes the fact that you are returning your book does not guarantee that WOTC will sell less or that the market will become fractured.

As for the wider argument. DND will always be marketed PSYCHOGRAPHICALLY to 'geek' personalities who are fascinated by complex systems mastery. In this regard, the 4e combination of rules complexity + clear layout I consider to be a masterstroke.

 

[xechnao]

*Blinks*

Woah..that's one aspect that I've never seen...

What makes him "not believable"?

Consider this a botch of my part. I read it more carefully and he makes it clear that he is not new to rpgs. My first speed read, while influenced from your post here got me the impression he had never played rpgs before. Instead it is just a D&D's older edition vs 4e that he is talking about.

 

[Imaro]

@ Hong

Most of the CRPG's I've played always start with a type of tutorial fight where you learn the basics of the game, and are even given tactical advice (especially in the later Final Fantasy games) again a bell curve of complexity, Not a situation where you need to understand everything (or almost everything) about the combat system to use or pick your powers. YMMV of course

 

[med stud]

Which is where the differences lie. Computers can do way more work than the players or DM has to do, especially crunching numbers and whatnot. Don't need 800 pages to explain that. Just jump right into the CRPG and go.

...if you want to suck. There are huge amounts of strategy guides for essentially any CRPG there is. From the dual classed wizards of Baldur's gate to the low Endurance, high Agility snipers of Fallout 2 that are planned out from level 1 to level 30.

If you go into Diablo II without a solid plan for leveling and equipment you most likely won't manage Hell- difficulty.

In Elderscrolls: Oblivion, you should put skills you seldom use as primary skills, as leveling up puts you at a disadvantage due to it's moronic system of leveling opposition with your character.

The games above are just the ones I came to think of as I wrote. Note that these are single player games. If you go into competitive games, things start to get really crazy.

 

[xechnao]

I also have a hard time believing this review (though I'd love it if it it were true.) He claims he's never played D&D before, but spends a lot of times hanging out on the WotC forums, reading other people's posts about 4E.

Huh?

That'd be like me trolling forums on C&C, but otherwise having no interest in the game.

Ahh. That makes my first impression even more valid then.

 

[Imaro]

The tactical complexity of the MM- monsters isn't exactly Sun Tzu... They are very basic ways of how to utilize your assets in an efficient way. Against tactically inclined players with a good grasp on the rules, those tactics will get ripped to shreds.

It's nice that they are there, I suppose, since many RPGers don't come from a background of tactical games. But it's not like you will steamroll any opposition using the MM tactics unless the players are being very untactical.

But again, we are talking about new players...they may not be Sun Tzu but they are a definite advantage in the DM's favor.

 

[hong]

@ Hong

Most of the CRPG's I've played always start with a type of tutorial fight where you learn the basics of the game, and are even given tactical advice (especially in the later Final Fantasy games) again a bell curve of complexity, Not a situation where you need to understand everything (or almost everything) about the combat system to use or pick your powers. YMMV of course

The very first fight in Keep on the Shadowfell is against 5 kobold minions and a couple of tougher kobolds. It's barely a 1st level encounter. IOW, this is something that a 1st level party should easily defeat, although it won't be completely trivial.

That's your "tutorial".