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

[Ourph]

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 strongly disagree. As someone up-thread mentioned, the hardest part of getting into RPGs is usually understanding how combat works. The boardgames are perfect for teaching the basics of roll to hit, roll for damage, use a power, etc. In fact, I would say the transition from Wrath or Ravenloft to Essentials is much easier than the transition from Dungeon! or Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books to BD&D was in the 80s. The new games at least share some mechanics in common. Perhaps a pared-down version of the rules was necessary when the "destination" was AD&D with all of its charming arcane language, disorganization and byzantine combat rules. But I think Essentials is straightforward enough that (for a player who has any interest at all in RPGs focused on tactical combat) it is more than adequate as the first foray into RPGs.

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.

I would say the advertising inserts are pretty standard. They certainly let people know the RPG is out there, but I think they could do a better job of explaining how the RPG experience would be desirable to someone who likes the game.

 

[Hussar]

Ourph, I would argue that what you are saying is only true if you insist that RPG's have to focus on combat. Sure, totally agree that teaching 3e or 4e combat to a complete newbie is an uphill battle. For that reason, I would never introduce new gamers to RPG's with D&D.

I think a lot of us were introduced to RPG's via D&D because, for most intents and purposes, it was the only game in town. Even games that weren't D&D, were still pretty close. Today though? There are so many indie games that would work as a much better vehicle into the hobby because they focus on the one thing that other games can't do - the shared imagination space.

Imagine the state of the hobby if most gamers were introduced into RPG's via Dread or Mouseguard or, heck, even The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men.

I honestly think that WOTC could leverage the D&D name and then use these roleplay heavy, mechanics light games as building blocks. Introduce the roleplay aspects first - all the good habits that good players have, emphasise things like the amateur theatrics aspect because these are the things that CRPG's and whatnot can't do.

Heck, Vampire leveraged the whole amateur theatrics thing into what stood as the second biggest (and for a short time biggest) RPG line for a long time. There's no reason D&D can't go a similar route.

 

[Ourph]

Ourph, I would argue that what you are saying is only true if you insist that RPG's have to focus on combat. Sure, totally agree that teaching 3e or 4e combat to a complete newbie is an uphill battle. For that reason, I would never introduce new gamers to RPG's with D&D.

I think a lot of us were introduced to RPG's via D&D because, for most intents and purposes, it was the only game in town. Even games that weren't D&D, were still pretty close. Today though? There are so many indie games that would work as a much better vehicle into the hobby because they focus on the one thing that other games can't do - the shared imagination space.

First, I'm not saying the boardgames are necessarily the best introduction to the hobby at large. I'm specifically saying the board games are a good introduction to 4e.

Second, if we're talking about introducing children to RPGs, I think the one thing that an introductory game can most do without is a focus on the "shared imagination space". Not because such a thing isn't important to RPGs (it is), but because kids already know how to do that and do it on their own all the time as a natural part of play.

The important aspects of any game (including an introductory one) are 1) giving the players some mechanics to resolve challenges that come up in the imaginary space (the board games do a great job as an introduction to mechanics like combat, healing and party cooperation) and; 2) providing a rough foundation for the imaginary space that players can build on (the board games show the players what kind of characters and creatures inhabit the world and some of the types of challenges/quests they can expect their characters to take on). The only thing the board games don't do is provide a full set of resolution mechanics. The next logical step in the progression (Essentials) does just that in a way that should be easily comprehensible to just about anyone.

Imagine the state of the hobby if most gamers were introduced into RPG's via Dread or Mouseguard or, heck, even The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men.

There is a reason those games are "indie". They are not to the taste of the vast majority of people who play RPGs. I imagine the state of the hobby if The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men were the main introduction to RPG gaming would be considerably less robust than it is now.

Introduce the roleplay aspects first - all the good habits that good players have

That smells distinctly of one-true-wayism. I have no desire for every future gamer to be molded into someone else's vision of what a "good" roleplayer is. I think future gamers should be free to find out for themselves what approach to the hobby works best for them. A multitude of options is a GOOD thing (including the combat/exploration-focused option called D&D).

emphasise things like the amateur theatrics aspect

The people who are interested in that focus are a very small subset of the RPG hobby. Why should that one thing be emphasized over all others? There is nothing wrong with enjoying the myriad other aspects of play that RPGs have to offer. The LAST thing I think an introductory game should be doing is telling new players that there are "correct" and "incorrect" ways to have fun with RPGs.

Heck, Vampire leveraged the whole amateur theatrics thing into what stood as the second biggest (and for a short time biggest) RPG line for a long time. There's no reason D&D can't go a similar route.

No, Vampire leveraged 90's goth culture and the fascination with moody, angsty, bodice-ripping, over-romanticized vampires into the second biggest RPG line at the time (a time, I might add, when TSR was self-destructing through application of horrific management practices, i.e. not putting up much of a fight ). And yes, D&D could go a similar route, but why should it? Are you suggesting there is no need or desire for an action/adventure-oriented fantasy roleplaying game like D&D in the hobby? I've never understood why people seem to think that D&D needs to become just like their favorite RPG. If you want to play Vampire, why not just play Vampire and let the fans of D&D enjoy their game of choice too?

 

[Lanefan]

No, Vampire leveraged 90's goth culture and the fascination with moody, angsty, bodice-ripping, over-romanticized vampires into the second biggest RPG line at the time (a time, I might add, when TSR was self-destructing through application of horrific management practices, i.e. not putting up much of a fight ). And yes, D&D could go a similar route, but why should it? Are you suggesting there is no need or desire for an action/adventure-oriented fantasy roleplaying game like D&D in the hobby? I've never understood why people seem to think that D&D needs to become just like their favorite RPG. If you want to play Vampire, why not just play Vampire and let the fans of D&D enjoy their game of choice too?

Because the base question being asked here still remains; whether it's D+D, or Vampire, or whatever: what can be done and-or marketed to get more people into RPGs at all. Once they're in then they can start figuring out their game and-or system of choice.

Lan-"am I the only one who thinks D+D needs more bodice-ripping vampires"-efan

 

[Aus_Snow]

21c D&D has so many rules, so many intertwined options and modifiers that it is virtually impossible to create a house rule without effecting something else. An image that comes to mind is pick-up-sticks, where you try to pull out a stick from a pile without moving any other sticks. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes hard. But I think it is safe to say that it is much harder in 21c D&D than in 20c D&D

No.

Based on my experiences and observations, and those of many other gamers, this is simply not the case. Oh, it's certainly a well-worn interwebs mantra, right enough. But that is all. Hm, well, that and one of several classic rallying cries to the OSR, some time back.

Modular systems, generally speaking, aren't. Just as unified systems rarely are that.

And, just because the knock-on effects are not as blindingly obvious, at first blush, does not mean they don't exist, and won't impact on actual play. They most definitely will, and do.

By all means, approach a "modular" system as you might a "black box" design of any other kind. And if that happens to be blithely/trustingly? Bully for you. Er, and good luck with that - you'll need it.

Cue the equally classic "But the rules don't matter anyway! It's all down to interpretation!1!!one" response, in 3..2..1..

 

[enpeze66]

A very interesting discussion. So interesting that I registered just to show you a new Mike Mearls column which indirectly seems to be a rant about the problem of the overcomplex games today.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Stay Classy)


MM even included a poll to learn what the people think about a simplification of rules by the example of creating a fighter character. (possibly to check out the terrain and willingness of people to accept a simplification of 5th edition)

Regarding my personal opinion as a experienced roleplayer and GM, I say I am fully supporting Mercurius quest for a simpler rule set. Most of the problems how to get fresh gamers into the hobby is because the current publishers caters to a comparably minor crowd of "rule geeks" and not the majority of possible gamers out there. A radical change in the "complicated-is-good" design philosophy (which began in the 2nd edition and last till now) would be necessary to win the casual gamer who dont want to read rule books with several hundred of pages or to win back old hands which played simple D&D in the 80ties and 90ties and quit because they got tired of heavy rule books which would be better suited to defend against street robbers than on a gaming table. I think Mearls knows this very well and tries to check the ground for a simplification of D&D in the next edition.

Contrary to the 80ties, today 2011 it could be the casual roleplayers paradise because we live in a time where roleplaying games dont have a social stigma anymore and are accepted by most people. Unfortunately the number of p&p roleplayers get fewer and fewer. To blame video games for this misery is just a cheap excuse for the major publishers wrong approach to rpgs in design and marketing.

 

[pemerton]

Imagine the state of the hobby if most gamers were introduced into RPG's via Dread or Mouseguard or, heck, even The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men.

I honestly think that WOTC could leverage the D&D name and then use these roleplay heavy, mechanics light games as building blocks.

Agreed completely. (Though I've been using HeroWars/Quest as my example.)

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).

<snip>

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!).

Completely agreed. The notion that Essentials is in any way rules-lite or introductory to RPGs strikes me as completely ludicrous. My Moldvay Basic book had rules for a completely viable RPG, including monsters and GMing tips, in 64 pages. Essentials is 3, 4 or 5 books each of 200+ pages (notice - it doesn't even have a coherent story to tell about which books you need!).

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.

Me and my partner have two daughters the same ages (2 last October, and 5 this coming May), so I can relate to this. My group has a lot of other dads in it, and we play every second or third Sunday afternoon.

I do most of my prep on the train to and from work. My campaign background notes are the WotC books, plus about 4 pages of word documents, and my scenario notes are written up on scraps of A4 paper.

I know you didn't ask for advice, and I hope it's not rude to offer some gratuitously, but I would suggest - take one of your dungeon crawl modules, insert or tweak 3 things to hook onto the PC backgrounds or demonstrated passions of your players, and then just make it up as you go along. As written, you couldn't get more of a dungeon bash than Thunderspire Labyrinth, but by following my own advice I (with a little help from my players) turned it into an epic about the conflict between humanity, gods, devils and demons.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I know I am starting to sound like a broken record on this point, but ...

Separate out the complexity in D&D that is designed to pad space (and thus fill books to sale) versus the complexity useful towards making the game better--and only then can we talk intelligently about the tradeoffs on the useful complexity.

As it is now, the overriding concern with powers (or 3E or 4E feats, or 2E kits, or spell in 3.5 or earlier) is that there are simply too many of them. Don't tell me they can be fixed. You can't have hundreds of near identical but not quite things, written as "exceptions", and not have failures. It can't be done.

At best, you can build in some kind of feedback loop or other mechanism in the surrounding mechanics to minimize the failures as they occur. Second best, you can encourage a style of game that will minimize the failures. Better do a good job conveying that style in the rules, if you want groups to enforce it at the table, or work around its lack if they choose not to.

Arcana Evolved is an excellent variation on 3E, especially if played without 3E mixed in. People like to focus on what it put in (new interesting classes, new ways to do magic, etc.) But one of the crucial things it did was leave things out. You can mix it with 3E or 3.5, and it will work about as well as those things do by themselves. (There are some edge cases where not, however.)

Edit: Also note that were WotC to deliberately go with a "minimalist, best in class, design," this would not only remove padding from their products but pretty much destroy any chances for 3rd party additions as a viable business model. The whole business strategy of such a design is to sell more copies of fewer books, of a higher quality. It is possible that a wider acceptance of such a quality product would make 3rd party adventures more commecially viable, but that is a lot of "if" on top of an already risky strategy.

 

[BryonD]

Most of the problems how to get fresh gamers into the hobby is because the current publishers caters to a comparably minor crowd of "rule geeks" and not the majority of possible gamers out there.

That sounds good on paper, but I don't see any evidence at all that it holds up. Quite simply, the games that supposedly have these entry barriers have been and continue to do much better than the games that claim to lower that barrier. Yes, people will TRY the games. But the "rules geeks" move on in a hurry, a few of the other people play for a bit and then move on to the next fad, and, quite frankly, the great bulk of people just are not interested at all any way you slice it.

Yes, you can point to new gamers. That happens all the time and as a segment of society at large it really has not changed, regardless of system or other options.

Yes, there are absolutely people who prefer the "simpler rule sets". No doubt about it. But it isn't about presence or absence, it is about overall markets. And "simple" has a track record of losing more than it gains.

IMO, there is a big difference between the real pool of potential cash paying gamers and society at large. I guess if your defintions are loose enough you can call anyone a "possible gamer out there". But if you want a sound marketing strategy then you have to realize that the "rules geeks" are a solid majority of those who don't fall under "wishful thinking".

Contrary to the 80ties, today 2011 it could be the casual roleplayers paradise because we live in a time where roleplaying games dont have a social stigma anymore and are accepted by most people. Unfortunately the number of p&p roleplayers get fewer and fewer. To blame video games for this misery is just a cheap excuse for the major publishers wrong approach to rpgs in design and marketing.

I don't think that the numbers are shrinking. I just think we see things like WOW and make comparisons that were not made in the 1980s.

I personally don't blame video games for anything. They probably provide more exposure and that is a good thing, even though the totals stay at about the same level. I guess the only thing I *do* blame on video games is creating an unreasonable expectation.

 

[BryonD]

Separate out the complexity in D&D that is designed to pad space (and thus fill books to sale) versus the complexity useful towards making the game better--and only then can we talk intelligently about the tradeoffs on the useful complexity.

Heh, that is a good point, and it cuts across pretty much everything out there.