The Problem with 21st century D&D (and a solution! Sort of)

[Lalato]

So if an "imagination" component were added to the board games they would serve as a basic introduction to D&D and RPGs in general? I'm honestly asking because I find the idea intriguing.

 

[pemerton]

Not really, or at least they only give a feel for one (albeit major) aspect of the game: tactical combat and, I would think, some semblance of a dungeon-crawl. But that is nothing new and nothing that can't be experienced with other board games or computer games.

What is lacking is the play of imagination - and that, imo, is what makes RPGs special. A lighter version of D&D would allow people to experience the play of imagination D&D-style without the density of numbers and statistics.

Now I would guess that the vast majority of long-term D&D players like numbers and statistics and aren't intimidated by them. But for those of us with non-gamer spouses and friends, we know that there are plenty of folks out there that would enjoy the imagination part if they didn't have to wade through so much nerdage.

Agreed. Furthermore, it might be possible to be a hardcore RPGer and yet not particularly care for the accountancy aspects of traditional games. A "basic game" could appeal this consituency (assuming that it exists).

 

[Glade Riven]

Not really, or at least they only give a feel for one (albeit major) aspect of the game: tactical combat and, I would think, some semblance of a dungeon-crawl. But that is nothing new and nothing that can't be experienced with other board games or computer games.

Actually, that's perfect. Now I'm going to have to pick up Ravenloft or something. Combat is the hardest thing for many new players to wrap their heads around.

What is lacking is the play of imagination - and that, imo, is what makes RPGs special. A lighter version of D&D would allow people to experience the play of imagination D&D-style without the density of numbers and statistics.

Now I would guess that the vast majority of long-term D&D players like numbers and statistics and aren't intimidated by them. But for those of us with non-gamer spouses and friends, we know that there are plenty of folks out there that would enjoy the imagination part if they didn't have to wade through so much nerdage.

Imagination can be applied to anything. Entire narratives have been constructed based off of a Monopoly or Risk game. The problem of "nerdage" has more to do with D&D culture (and how the culture is viewed) than the game itself. That stigma started in the '80s and got worse in the '90s.

The plug-and-play power system for 4e makes it easy to pick up. Players don't have to read the whole stupid book or understand level 32 powers when the game starts at first level. They may not quite know what a "warlord" is in 4e context, but the class names are usually dead give-aways. And if they've played the board game, then they understand the basic premise of combat (which is the trickiest part to teach). Imagination is already brought.

Roll Dice. Add Modifier. Ask the DM if the number is high enough to succeed at what you were trying to do. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

 

[Hussar]

So a basic game, rules "light" to give people a general feel for D&D...wait, isn't this what the board games do?

Really, I think that something like a Euro-style board game is precisely the sort of "bridge" game that would work great.

Imagine something like Titanic Game's Stonehenge where you have 4 very different games in the same package. Apply that to a game where the intent is bridging the gap between traditional games and RPG's.

Game 1 - something extremely rules light in the vein of Dread. A Jenga Tower style rpg where you do everything narratively and if the tower falls over, you all die. Perfect for introducing team play, narrative play and the idea of mechanics applying not just to what the rules say they do, but to anything you want them to do.

Game 2 - Down to the Dungeon. Now you have character creation. Something in the vein of Descent where you build a character from a very limited menu and go down into the dungeon and kill stuff. Heck, add in a seat for the Dungeon Keeper who is playing against the other players.

Game 3 - Some sort of cooperative game where you build characters, but the board is also Euro-style built with the board changing every time you play. Now, maybe you trek across the wilderness to each dungeon. Possibly something Arkham Horror style where it's not players vs each other, but rather players vs the board.

Game 4 - Something that synthesizes all the above into a stripped down 4e game. Skill challenges are handled by the Dread Jenga Tower mechanic, characters are created using the rules from Game 2, that sort of thing.

Stuff all that into a box and call it something cool because I absolutely suck at naming stuff and there's what I want as a Basic set. 3 standalone games that can be played in 2-4 hours that work up to a campaign game once you've managed to hook them into the basic ideas of what rpg's are about.

 

[pemerton]

So if an "imagination" component were added to the board games they would serve as a basic introduction to D&D and RPGs in general?

I don't know the board games well enough, but I think they might be a bit too focused on meaningless combat for my taste.

The imagination component I think is important for an RPG is the idea that the player is controlling a PC who is his/her primary vehicle for engaging the gameworld. To use some Forge terminology, it's about exploring a shared imaginary space.

Now, because computer games can support this pretty well, I think I would want to add something to make the proto-RPG special, namely, the idea that what is in that space, and how it reacts, is responsive to the way that the players - using their PCs - engage with it. So if the game is an exploration game, it's very sophisticated and responsive exploration. Or - if as I prefer to play - the game is not primarily an exploration game, but uses exploration as a means to a different end, then the gameworld and the way it unfolds and responds reflects that other end (in my case, the expression of thematic concerns).

I don't know enough about board game design or play to know how this might be done. I do know that a game like Talisman - even quite sophisticated Talisman - isn't going to cut it.

Imagination can be applied to anything. Entire narratives have been constructed based off of a Monopoly or Risk game.

This may be true, but I don't want my RPG to be a game where the narrative is not a part of the play (which is the problem with Talisman, or with even flavour-heavy CCGs). What makes it an RPG is that play involves engaging the unfolding narrative - the shared imaginary space.

 

[pemerton]

Game 1 - something extremely rules light in the vein of Dread. A Jenga Tower style rpg where you do everything narratively and if the tower falls over, you all die. Perfect for introducing team play, narrative play and the idea of mechanics applying not just to what the rules say they do, but to anything you want them to do.

What would RPGs look like if something like this was considered mainstream RPGing? - not just the primer, but the real deal!

For the reasons you gave upthread, I think that if RPGs are to survive they have to move beyond time and accountacy-heavy exploration-and-combat-fests. Not that there isn't room for the latter (it's what I like to play, after all). But if that's all there is, what is going to draw in new players?

RPGs, if they are to flourish, need to promote what's special, not what's ubiquitous. To me, this means promoting the shared experience of shaping a world around the players' concerns, and having them respond to it using their PCs as protagonists. The stuff like managing equipment lists, mapping dungeons, and learning what colour boots are preferred in the Kingdom of Fancy Footwear, is precisely the stuff where RPGs don't add anything that you can't get from a computer game and or a second-rate fantasy novel.

 

[Ourph]

Not really, or at least they only give a feel for one (albeit major) aspect of the game: tactical combat and, I would think, some semblance of a dungeon-crawl. But that is nothing new and nothing that can't be experienced with other board games or computer games.

I think you are underestimating how much playing a game without the RP aspects of RPGs actually leaves kids WANTING the full RPG experience. I know the thing that got me hooked immediately on D&D as a kid was realizing that I could make choices in D&D I wasn't allowed to make when playing Dungeon! or my Fighting Fantasy game books. I could interrogate the Hobgoblin instead of just killing it. I could trick the old Wizard into telling me where the secret MacGuffin of Doom was kept instead of either bribing him or proceeding along the northward path.

I think a game like Castle Ravenloft or Wrath of Ashardalon with a properly worded and illustrated advertising insert telling kids, "Hey, D&D is just like this, but with more choice!" is the perfect introduction to D&D for the 12 and under crowd.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well-designed board games have things to teach RPGs, but a basic RPG is not a board game any more than it is a film, play, novel, computer game, etc.

If someone wants to make a really good board game that "invokes" the D&D experience, then that can be done. Maybe already has. Heck, even the old Dungeon is pretty fun for awhile, and it is nowhere near Euro-design. But if that is the goal, then stick to that. If you try to make it an introduction to D&D, you'll just fail at the board game part. Make it a good game in its own right, "invoke" the right feel, and some people will enjoy the feel enough to want to experience in some other media. You could theoretically do the same thing with a good D&D film, but experience thus far suggests this is not a good use of resources.

If an almost 11-year old can grasp some of the nuances of Agricola after a mere 4 to 5 games, then I'm sure the same kid can handle some quite sophisticated roleplaying constructs. Since my almost 11-year old has, I assume that the "12 and older" note on the tin is not unreasonable, on average. The Agricola rules are terribly written and presented (the one black mark on an otherwise excellent game). If not for the internet, I would have missed stuff in it. I'm not sure my kid would have stayed with it. But she didn't need to read it--merely listen to my explanation and play it. However, Agricola the game is one that make explanation easy. Things fits together in ways that make sense. And it does not condescend to its users.

This is one of the reasons that D&D took off when it did (one of many). Whatever else Gygax and early company does, and however confusing some of it can be, the game never condescends. There is a rule of thumb in software design that I think could profitably be adapted to roleplaying games: In software, roughly, make it right, make it fast, make it friendly--in that order. That is, there is no point in making a feature user-friendly if it doesn't work or runs so slow that no one will use it. I suspect that if a game was made "right" first, then "handling time" was addressed, and then one tried to make it as user-friendly as possible within those first two contraints--we'd get something better than what we have.

"Premature optimization is the root of all design evil."

 

[Hussar]

There is another point to remember as well here too. Creating new players isn't really the goal of game producers. Creating new game consumers is the goal of game producers. As was mentioned up thread, there are many RPG gamers who are casual players and likely don't buy many, if any, gaming books.

How much incentive is there to try to get that guy to buy? How much do you have to invest to get that casual player to start buying books? I have no idea, but, at the end of the day, the decision has to be made as to whether or not it's actually worth it. I've long maintained that 4e is the RPGA edition - aimed squarely at RPGA players in the hopes that the basic product will appeal to those gamers primarily and be enough to carry the line.

Do gaming companies need to attract large numbers of new blood if they already have a stable population of consumers who buy enough of the books to make them profitable?

 

[Mercurius]

So if an "imagination" component were added to the board games they would serve as a basic introduction to D&D and RPGs in general? I'm honestly asking because I find the idea intriguing.

Perhaps, yes. Or maybe there needs to be a bridge between the board game and the RPG, which is where I think a good basic set would come in (Hussar's idea is intriguing in this regard). I don't think there is anything wrong with Castle Ravenloft for what it is--a D&D themed board game--but it only carries a small part of the D&D experience, and it doesn't carry any of what sets an RPG apart from everything else. And once you get into what sets an RPG apart you are, well, playing an RPG and not a board game.

Again, the play of imagination--or as pemerton put it, the "shared imagination space"--is what makes RPGs unique and, I would argue, truly special and inspiring. The combat and adventure is what makes it fun, but participating in a living world of imagination is the true gift of the RPG.

Agreed. Furthermore, it might be possible to be a hardcore RPGer and yet not particularly care for the accountancy aspects of traditional games. A "basic game" could appeal this consituency (assuming that it exists).

As to the former, yes, which is where the more "artsy" rules lite RPGs come in and why a game like Savage Worlds (which is really lite-to-medium) has a strong fan base.

Imagination can be applied to anything. Entire narratives have been constructed based off of a Monopoly or Risk game. The problem of "nerdage" has more to do with D&D culture (and how the culture is viewed) than the game itself. That stigma started in the '80s and got worse in the '90s.

True, and as a high school teacher I'm still surprised how strong it is today among non-nerdy kids. I am also surprised at how when I sit down and explain what an RPG is to one of these kids, their eyes spark with interest - both because I'm a "cool teacher" in their eyes and they respect me (for some reason!), but also because the idea of an RPG is inspiring to them, once they hear what it actually is beyond their preconceived notions.

That said, by and large those preconceived notions are reinforced when a newbie is handed a character sheet with an overwhelming number of statistics. I'm not saying that D&D as a whole should be simpler, but that I would advocate a modular and bifurcated approach with a basic, core game, and a more complex advanced game. The latter "fits over" the former, although one could theoretically still play basic characters in an advanced game...it is just a greater or lesser degree of detail (and thus accounting).

The plug-and-play power system for 4e makes it easy to pick up. Players don't have to read the whole stupid book or understand level 32 powers when the game starts at first level. They may not quite know what a "warlord" is in 4e context, but the class names are usually dead give-aways. And if they've played the board game, then they understand the basic premise of combat (which is the trickiest part to teach). Imagination is already brought.

Roll Dice. Add Modifier. Ask the DM if the number is high enough to succeed at what you were trying to do. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

Yes, but you are underestimating, I think, both the apparent complexity of the game to a newbie and "non-nerd", and also the actual complexity of the feats and powers and all of the conditions.

When I hear long-time D&D players downplay the complexity of the game, especially 3.5 or 4E, I am reminded of a computer geek who just doesn't get that not everyone knows how to program code or even what HTML is; or a car mechanic who doesn't realize that the average person doesn't know the difference between an alternator and a carburetor and then gets annoyed at you for it.

There is no way around the fact that to most people, RPGs are complex, and while complexity isn't bad, the entry has to be relatively simple and easy.

I kind of have to laugh at Bill Slaviscek's attempt to market Essentials as getting on the highway at the 1st Avenue instead of 10th; that is just hogwash. In reality, Essentials is like getting on at 7th or 8th Avenue (or even if the Red Box gets you on at 1st, it isn't exactly the same highway!).

I think you are underestimating how much playing a game without the RP aspects of RPGs actually leaves kids WANTING the full RPG experience. I know the thing that got me hooked immediately on D&D as a kid was realizing that I could make choices in D&D I wasn't allowed to make when playing Dungeon! or my Fighting Fantasy game books. I could interrogate the Hobgoblin instead of just killing it. I could trick the old Wizard into telling me where the secret MacGuffin of Doom was kept instead of either bribing him or proceeding along the northward path.

I think a game like Castle Ravenloft or Wrath of Ashardalon with a properly worded and illustrated advertising insert telling kids, "Hey, D&D is just like this, but with more choice!" is the perfect introduction to D&D for the 12 and under crowd.

Actually, I agree with you, although I still think that there needs to be something between Wrath of Ashardalon and D&D 4E, Essentials or not. I haven't read through my copy of Wrath, but do they say anything about D&D the RPG? Are they marketing the board games as a "gateway drug" to the RPG? I'm not aware of them doing so.

Really, I think that something like a Euro-style board game is precisely the sort of "bridge" game that would work great....

Stuff all that into a box and call it something cool because I absolutely suck at naming stuff and there's what I want as a Basic set. 3 standalone games that can be played in 2-4 hours that work up to a campaign game once you've managed to hook them into the basic ideas of what rpg's are about.

Interesting idea. I'm not sure if it would work but it would certainly be better than anything I've seen WotC come up with recently.

I don't know the board games well enough, but I think they might be a bit too focused on meaningless combat for my taste.

The imagination component I think is important for an RPG is the idea that the player is controlling a PC who is his/her primary vehicle for engaging the gameworld. To use some Forge terminology, it's about exploring a shared imaginary space....

....I don't want my RPG to be a game where the narrative is not a part of the play (which is the problem with Talisman, or with even flavour-heavy CCGs). What makes it an RPG is that play involves engaging the unfolding narrative - the shared imaginary space.

We're in complete agreement here. My current D&D group is on hiatus because I'm having a case of DM burnout and no one else wants to take up the reins. Some have suggested that we just have a board game night and I'm a bit hesitant because, quite honestly, playing D&D (or an RPG) was the major allure of game night, especially considering that my friendship with my group is more on the casual level. Playing a board game with friendly acquaintances isn't as much of a draw to spend a regular night away from my wife, especially given that the evenings are the only times that we have alone without the homestead being in total chaos (we have a 2 and 5 year old).

Part of my burn out is that I haven't had the time or energy to really plan the type of campaign I want to run. Due to time constraints I've mainly just been using pre-published dungeoncrawly adventures, with little plot, story, or role-playing - in other words, without most of the elements that separate RPGs from board games. Now I really like adventure and dungeoncrawls, but it can only carry a game for so long - there needs to be something more to sustain a long-term campaign.