Why the Modern D&D variants will not attract new players

[teach]

Maybe this is nostalgia, but I've been thinking about this lately, and I really have begun to believe that the modern D&D variants, Pathfinder and 4E, just won't attract the new players that people want them to attract. Here's why:

The default character rules are just too complicated. First look at the character sheets. They are likely 2 pages, at least (and in 4E case, sometimes a lot longer). There can be some very esoteric abbreviations or words placed on the page, that a new player must walked through. It takes a long time to explain each power, stat, etc etc etc.

It is unclear, when you sit down to look at a character sheet, what that character is good at.

Both systems do a ton to make a DM's job easier, but for players the game remains a very complex system, both in character creation and and in game play, particularly in the advent of miniatures. Don't get me wrong, I don't think I'd want a game where the character creation was simple, but I think new players need a character system that is much easier than the offerings currently.

Thinking back to my first time playing, what was on my character sheet? There was a name, a race, a class, an alignment, six basic stats, my ac, the number I needed to roll to hit something and some items. These things are either pretty self explanatory, or take a minimum amount of time to explain them. Class write ups were a page or 2, and seemed to be mostly fluff. There were plenty of additional rules, that could be added to make the game much more complex, but at it's basic, it was a pretty simple process to create, and understand a character sheet.

Sure, back then, there was a lot more pressure put on the DM to adjudicate the rules than in Modern Variants, but at the same time, that's fine, because it means only one person at the table has to be a master of the rules.

So, I know people think the new 4E Red Box and the Intro Box Paizo has planned will bring in new players, but I really don't see them doing that. Instead, you must have a Basic version of your game that is a complete game, not just the first couple of levels. There needs to be a way to build a character for Red Box and Pathfinder where the character is suitably interesting but doesn't have much more to it than what Old School D&D did, while still keeping with the flavor of the rules of that system.

I know essentials was that attempt, but honestly, I don't know if it's simple enough. If I plop down a character sheet in front of a new player, would they have a pretty good understanding of what their character can do in 5 minutes?

Maybe I'm wrong about what a new player needs, I haven't been a new player in years, and I'm sure 99% of the people on this board are in the same boat, we are likely pretty experienced with RPGs. But I feel like a lot of people started play with a more basic version of D&D, and added things in to it. How do you do that right now with 4E and Pathfinder? They are very complex games to begin with.

 

[Tonguez]

My 10yr old son and I recently sat down to a game of Heroes of Hesiod which he loved and now wants to take to school to play with other children.
I will be graduating him up to Pathfinder forthwith and think that he should be able to cope.

Pathfinder I think has got it right in capturing the 'old style'. My son is part of the yu-gi-o generation so is use to the notion of playing cards with 'stats' which is essentially what a character sheet is.

4e however I agree is too complicated and doesn't interest me let alone a new player...

 

[Lanefan]

So, I know people think the new 4E Red Box and the Intro Box Paizo has planned will bring in new players,

Can't speak to what Paizo's doing but what I've seen of Essentials it seems on the surface like a significant step in the right direction - the Rules Compendium, for example, starts out nice and simple then introduces the crunch at a manageable pace such that by the time you're done reading it you've got a reasonable grounding in what 4e is and does.

It's still not for everyone, and it gets crunchier than it probably needs to, but I'll at least give credit for the attempt.

I know essentials was that attempt, but honestly, I don't know if it's simple enough. If I plop down a character sheet in front of a new player, would they have a pretty good understanding of what their character can do in 5 minutes?

Truth be told, though, the same is mostly true for 1e: a character sheet plopped down in front of someone without much explanation isn't going to help them very much, they still need someone to take the time and explain it or better yet help them roll up the character from scratch and explain it as they go.

But with the RC, someone who is willing to spend the time to read through it could roll up a character - on their own, if need be - just by following instructions in the book and be vaguely ready to play it by the end.

Will it attract new players? Jury's out. *Can* it attract new players? I'd give it a qualified yes.

Lan-"I was a new player over half my life ago"-efan

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I always thought 4E did a great job of being understandable and inclusive to new players. A long time friend of mine (who is mentally disadvantaged) got the hang of it with in half-a-session.

I also find it hard to believe that a team as talented as paizo's won't be able to provide an effective introduction set.

I see your points but disagree entirely, I think they will do a good job of bringing new interest to the games.

 

[Cor_Malek]

I know that a lot of people draw some kind of straight line between dumbified simplistic system, and how it attracts players. I can even understand the sentiment. I just don't agree with it.

So I'll touch only briefly the subject of success of previous Intro Sets, that were also useful only for a couple of levels before you needed Basic Rules (though how many times you repeated this short advancement was up to you), which in turn led to even more advanced version (take this with a grain of salt though - I didn't start play with any of intro sets).

Seriously though, what's up with the notion that people will not be possibly able to grasp more complicated rules? Has ADD become a universal trait? And even if that is so - the only member of entire group who needs to understand the rules - briefly (as in know where to look for them when situation emerges - yay DM screen!) is the DM. Players do something, and it's up to DM to wrap it up into rules (or not). There are groups that were playing for years without changing this state of affairs.

Easier, lighter rules create less friction, if you will. There will be less players who leave after initial contact. But it's irrelevant next to availability and social picture of the hobby, and thus - how many try it out in the first place. WotC Encounters and game podcasts, parents, uncles and aunts introducing kids to RPG, wide availability in shops, the way media portray the hobby - that's what's making the difference.

You're on a falling plane and don't have more than 5 minutes to start playing? Why not use a pregenerated character? Both Paizo and WotC use extremely compact descriptions.

I want to remind you - we're talking about kids here, pre-teens, possibly. The bunch that has recent experience of roleplaying all days, the bunch that will figure out what that computer program does faster than 40 yo PhD, the very same that are currently crunching various synergies in card and handheld console versions of Pokemons.
Let's cut them some slack and admit that they are able not only to think on their toes - but often quicker than we do, eh?

Were you ever troubled by Gygaxian dungeons? Well, they were playtested by his 7 and 9 year old kids (the newer the adventure the older the kids, obviously).

PS.: arghh! Ninja'd by 3 posters? Damn my poor vocabulary and typing skills!

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I've rarely seen a RPG that someone can sit down with their first ever RPG rulebook and no help and get going in a reasonable amount of time. This is a hobby where the vast majority of players are taught, not self-taught.

I thin essentials can come close to doing so, especially the red box. Can new players end up playing 4E untutored with it, and maybe the Rules Compendiuum? Probably, and a lot easier than the PHBI. It is a step in the right direction.

I only heard today that the Paizo folks are going to do he same, and I say more power to them. From what I saw of the SRD, it is not an easy system to get into either. An intro set would be good for them as well.


&Tonguez BTW, the 4E edition-waresque slam was not needed.

 

[Chrono22]

There's a reason pathfinder and D&D are on top, and it isn't because they're rules-light.
Dense rules do impose a learning curve/barrier to new players, but they also retain new players by allowing them to constantly fix and modify and reinvent their gaming experience.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm forced to disagree.

I've taught at least 4 people how to play 4e, and I've never noticed any difficulty. While the details certainly take time to master, all of them picked up the basics in no time at all and started playing without much help. The unified mechanics make it so that once a player understands a few basic concepts (roll a d20 and add half level plus modifiers), that player understands the general workings of the game, from a skill check to an attack roll.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I agree that a simplified, basic-level character sheet would be a lot of help in introducing new players to the game, but (as others have mentioned), most players are just that--"introduced" to the game, by someone who knows how to play and loves it.

And really, although Paizo and WotC can try to bring in new players with good marketing and basic sets, the very idea of a table top role-playing game can be daunting to the uninitiated. What is more likely is that the basic sets are tools that we, the current TTRPG players, can use to help bring new players into the fold.

And I imagine it was always thus, since the white box.

 

[delericho]

I know that a lot of people draw some kind of straight line between dumbified simplistic system, and how it attracts players. I can even understand the sentiment. I just don't agree with it.

I agree. The answer isn't to make the game as a whole simpler.

What I do think needs to be done is to reduce the barriers to entry for new players - and especially new players coming to the game cold (as opposed to being taught the game by existing gamers and/or joining existing groups).

Until the release of Essentials, for a new group to get into 4e, someone had to buy three core rulebooks (RRP $105 - quite an investment in a game you might like!), someone had to read those three rulebooks (832 pages!), (in pre-4e versions, someone then had to create an adventure, or buy and read one at additional cost and effort - 4e at least fixed this with Kobold Hall in the DMG), then the group had to go through character creation (which is, what, 40 minutes per character for new players?). And then get to start having fun!

That's a hell of a lot of money and effort for a game that you might like! Why wouldn't I play Magic instead? Why wouldn't I play WoW, which offers a similar experience, but with better graphics and lower setup costs and effort. (If I'm in the target demographic for D&D, I almost certainly already have a PC capable of running WoW, so that's not an additional cost.) Plus, of course, with WoW I don't have to go to the trouble of scaring up five friends to play, nor am I beholden to their individual schedules!

Now, I do feel that Essentials does this much better. Firstly, the Red Box itself looks promising. Secondly, the Essentials books themselves look and feel very nice, and are at a size and format that is much less intimidating than the original 4e rulebooks. And by changing the look and feel of the books, WotC have avoided the "wall of hardbacks" effect for new gamers in a game store - there's no feel that "I have to buy all these 40 hardbacks to play?"

So, we'll see.

So I'll touch only briefly the subject of success of previous Intro Sets, that were also useful only for a couple of levels before you needed Basic Rules (though how many times you repeated this short advancement was up to you), which in turn led to even more advanced version (take this with a grain of salt though - I didn't start play with any of intro sets).

What success of previous Starter Sets? There hasn't been a good one since the previous Red Box! (The jury's still out on the new Red Box, but it doesn't look good.)

The major problems have been threefold, IMO.

Firstly, they've insisted on using a 'dumbed down' version of the rules. So, when the player graduates to the 'real' game, they have to unlearn some or all of what they know and relearn the real rules. Changing the rules in this manner (as opposed to just adding options) is a really bad idea.

Secondly, they've tended to require the use of the pregenerated characters (and, sometimes, adventures) in the box. One of the major selling points of D&D is the ability to take your own custom character through your own custom adventures; insisting on the use of pregens negates that advantage.

Thirdly, they've been overly-short samples of the game designed to be used and then thrown away. That is, if I buy one of the Starter Sets, and find I don't like them game, then I throw it away and never use it again. The money is wasted... but that's no big deal, since I didn't like the game anyway. However, if I do like the game, then I'm expected to go and invest in a set of the 'real' rules ($105 - great!), and then throw away my Starter Set and never use it again. In other words, the money I've just spent on it is wasted.

(This also means it's very tempting for a new gamer to skip the Starter Set, dive straight in to the 'real' game... but then fail to get through those 832 pages of rules. And so, a person who would have been a gamer is lost, probably forever. Not good.)