Pramas on 4E and New Gamers

pawsplay said:
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.

See I disagree here, there is something called information overload, where it's just too much to really grasp and understand the finer points of something being read or explained. I believe giving the basics as a very well understood foundation, then building upon them is a better approach. This may be harder to do with 4e's exception based design, but I will readily admit I am not sure.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Imaro said:
@ 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
To pick your powers, just pick them. Really. Some of them aren't that great but none of them are crap. To use them... I can't see the problem. Tide of Iron -> attack, move enemy, move after. Scorching burst -> attack, deal 1d6+Int-modifier in nine squares.

This is where an attack is a roll of 1d20+modifiers vs the enemy's defense.

You move your character like you would in a boardgame.

---

Really, on the complexity of combat: There is a thread on rpg.net where some guy runs his seven-year old son through KotS using the full rules. The seven-year old is using all five pregens at once. He goes through the encounters. That's how complex it is at it's basic. Then, of course, if you have someone like SlayersBoxer on the other side of the screen, using his units to their fullest, exploiting every opportunity to deal maximum damage, things get more heated. But then it's like every game of tactics there is...
 

hong said:
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".

Don't have KotS, ran the "adventure" in the back of DMG and those were equal level fights with tactics described. If anything the first couple of fights should be below the PC's XP total. I love how you keep totally avoiding the point of all this. I understand you love 4e, I like it to (as a tactical rpg) but I'm not blind to some of it's shortcomings...again how is 4e (not a $30 add-on module) a good entry for new players. On a side note I saw a thread that had quite a few parties being TPK'd by the second encounter in that module, even more on the Irontooth one. No one really described it as easy.
 

Imaro said:
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.
If the players have some talent in tactical thinking, they should beat the MM- tips. If they have no talent, well, then the DM will have to adjudicate the difficulty.

If neither the DM or the players are better than the MM- tips... Then they probably end up on some rules forum, making stupid complains and propose headless houserules to solve nonexistant problems.
 

Imaro, I feel you are heavily overstating the difficulty of playing first level 4e D&D. We are likely to never see eye to eye on whether 4e is decent at bringing new players in gently, because your image of first level play seems much more... brutal than mine.
 

AllisterH said:
Heh...How about a post from a new player?

New player picking up 4e

So, now where does this admittedly small sample fit into the discussion?

He's talking about trying out the KotS complete in itself 96 page adventure for characters levels 1-3 right? This was posted on June 3, before the core books even came out. He says that it was easy to run and get players into but does not address the core books at all.

Pramas' blog and this thread is about the core books on their own and how accessible/inaccessible they make the game for new players who come to them or are given them straight off the shelf.
 

Anecdotal opinion from a 4E supporter:

I played 4E several times at the D&D Experience. First time though, I was confused as all get out when I played the cleric, even uttering aloud, "I can't even heal!" (Chris Perkins was running the game and got a little irate.)

...but I was confused because I was coming to the game with a ton of 3.5 baggage. I thought I knew how PCs were supposed to behave.

I think that someone without 3.X experience would have had a much easier time, and been a much better asset to the party that night.
 


Ydars said:
Lets put a few facts into this argument;

It is obvious that WoTC think that Chris Pramas is right; or else why else produce this version of the game.
I'll give you part of that. The PHB is written partially like a reference book, rather than a tutorial. Some of Pramas' points are a bit exagerated on that score, but not insane.

But Pramas is still dead wrong on the desirability of newb classes. This thread could grow from 25 to 225 pages, and newb classes would still be terrible game design, and on that issue Pramas would still be wrong.

*plants his flag on his hill and digs trenches*
 

Ydars said:
Lets put a few facts into this argument;

It is obvious that WoTC think that Chris Pramas is right; or else why else produce this version of the game.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217120000


More specifically, they even told Retailers that the PHB/DMG/MM release was to pull in the veterans and they would start focusing on bringing in the new gamers when the starter set comes out.

I definitely wouldn't take non-Pregen beginner PCs through an adventure.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top