RSDancey replies to Goodman article (Forked Thread: Goodman rebuttal)

[xechnao]

Still it succeeds better than any other RPG, and I would add that 4E is more friendly than 3E was.

Cause of the hardcore fanbase. The reasons are historic, not functional. 4e is important because of this and the marketing power that comes with it. And even in the case 4e is more friendly than 3e, it is not friendly enough.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And I repeat. They should change this. They could make a tabletop equally interesting regarding archetypes and tactical or strategic gameplay but with a rules interface that could avoid the need of half the rules referencing that the game has now. The set up of the gameplay should have the less baggage possible. Make this the business plan priority of the new edition. Selling add-ons such as miniatures should not be the primary goal cause this way the future of the game wont be so long. Do not care about legacy and sacred cows that come in the way. If it would be simpler with a different set or organization of character attributes for example then change them. Think of gameplay and tabletop first, then of dungeons&dragons and whatever side product revenue you want to be making out of the market.

The thing is, there is another side of casual play that gets lost here. And that is cool stuff. People want to do cool stuff, like shooting laser beams out of their hands and mind control. As good as AD&D was, this was one of the places it was a let down. AD&D couldn't compare to White Wolf or videogame RPGs in providing kewl powers. Me and my friends houseruled kewl powers into AD&D when we were playing it, and I don't think you could call us anything but casual players.

Simplification is good and all, but you can't simplify kewl powers out of the game either.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Cause of the hardcore fanbase. The reasons are historic, not functional. 4e is important because of this and the marketing power that comes with it. And even in the case 4e is more friendly than 3e, it is not friendly enough.

4E has:

1. A hardcore fanbase that is easy to find. A new player will have a far easier time finding a D&D/4E player. Biggest impediment to tabletop RPGs is finding people to game with.
2. The rules really aren't that bad. The base combat rules and the complexities of a 1st level 4E character isn't that much of a rules investment. Learning how to play your character(and just your character) isn't much harder than learning Settlers of Catan, and its something you can learn while you play.
3. Brand recognition. Everybody's heard of D&D.
4. Balance. A new player can throw together a character while not knowing what they are doing and still have decent results, even if playing in a game with pros.
5. Kewl Powers! 4E characters have kewl powers, and they have them starting at level 1.

 

[xechnao]

Simplification is good and all, but you can't simplify kewl powers out of the game either.

I get it that the kewl powers you are talking about are about the setting and the archetypes that come with it. Why cant you implement kewl powers in a way that takes no rules cross-referencing? Why cant you implement kewl powers in a direct and elegant way? If you want to fire laser beams you just want a sci-fi war setting. If you want to throw fireballs you just want a fantasy setting.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I get it that the kewl powers you are talking about are about the setting and the archetypes that come with it. Why cant you implement kewl powers in a way that takes no rules cross-referencing? Why cant you implement kewl powers in a direct and elegant way? If you want to fire laser beams you just want a sci-fi war setting. If you want to throw fireballs you just want a fantasy setting.

Because if you make it too elegant than it doesn't really go anywhere. Look at the dumbed down accusations of 4E, and that all powers do the same stuff. I disagree with that, but its the same thing. A casual player needs differences and complexities, because they haven't yet gained the roleplaying sophistication to add it in themselves.

In other words, they need the game to provide kewl powers for them, and to make these things mean something in game.

 

[xechnao]

Because if you make it too elegant than it doesn't really go anywhere. Look at the dumbed down accusations of 4E, and that all powers do the same stuff. I disagree with that, but its the same thing. A casual player needs differences and complexities, because they haven't yet gained the roleplaying sophistication to add it in themselves.

In other words, they need the game to provide kewl powers for them, and to make these things mean something in game.

These are complains of the hardcore fanbase invested and trained in 3e. I doubt that they make any real sense as you put it here. OTOH 4e is have an encounter based design and people may find that encounter after encounter things do not change much and the game feels repetitive. Their options or their powers feel repetitive. This is not about kewl powers though: it is a design matter. 3e wanted in theory to respect a continuous gameplay development approach but perhaps it failed in practice. Nevertheless it seemed different on this matter. This is where I think these complaints may be coming from.

EDIT to add: The grind also some are complaining about seems to be a factor that does make it worse.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

These are complains of the hardcore fanbase invested and trained in 3e. I doubt that they make any real sense as you put it here. OTOH 4e is have an encounter based design and people may find that encounter after encounter things do not change much and the game feels repetitive. Their options or their powers feel repetitive. This is not about kewl powers though: it is a design matter. 3e wanted in theory to respect a continuous gameplay development approach but perhaps it failed in practice. Nevertheless it seemed different on this matter. This is where I think these complaints may be coming from.

EDIT to add: The grind also some are complaining about seems to be a factor that does make it worse.

You miss my point. You seem to be asking for further abstraction and simplification, and I'm saying that for the new/casual gamer there is a point beyond where going simpler and more abstract becomes counter-productive.

 

[Faraer]

A casual player needs differences and complexities, because they haven't yet gained the roleplaying sophistication to add it in themselves.

RPGs have often implicitly or explicitly presented this idea that roleplaying is something difficult or advanced that you add on after mastering the rules. I think the opposite is true -- imagination and storytelling is a basic human trait, while following game rules of the complexity of traditional RPGs is a learned and relatively difficult one. Most RPGs are as pointlessly complex as they are first because of their origin in wargaming, and second through the vicious circle of the sell-lots-of-supplements-to-a-small-devoted-audience business model. 200- or 300-page rulebooks will put off most normal people from playing -- that, unlike imagining fictional events, is outside their experience.

No one is going to think you need fiddly rules to do cool stuff unless you teach them.

 

[xechnao]

You miss my point. You seem to be asking for further abstraction and simplification, and I'm saying that for the new/casual gamer there is a point beyond where going simpler and more abstract becomes counter-productive.

I got what point you are trying to make. I just do not see it.
The new-casual gamer needs to be inspired and as directly as possible comprehend and understand the game without any effort that may seem unattractive to him. If the game is interesting and offers him something that he cant attain somewhere else he will pick up the game. But if he has to make any short-run effort, then the more short-run effort he will have to make the more the value of the game will be dropping and the more probable will be that he will find another value to invest his time (wow for example).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think you aren't giving people enough credit. 4E isn't hard to pick up. Hell, I'd argue that 3E wasn't too hard to pick up, though it was hard and required a steep investment to get the same results as experienced players.

I think you are putting "inspiration" on a pedestal here, and particularly putting too much on fluff. Mechanics say more than fluff, because actions speak louder than words. Its one thing to say or imagine something, and its another to actually do it. In game mechanics terms, to take an action and see it have an effect on the game world. Mechanics provide that.

To add to this discussion, one thing casual play absolutely must have is the ability to accomodate a bad DM. This is important for spontaneous game generation, where a group of kids gets together, buys a few books, and starts playing without any outside input. Or, when a fresh faced player walks into a semi-public event like RPGA. A game that can produce acceptable results with a mediocre or inexperienced DM is a better fit for serving casual players.