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

Celebrim, I think you have forgotten my point over this long thread. The rules of the game can be in general complicated, my argument was that character creation rules, and then the rules as presented on the character sheets were too complicated.

Other people in this thread may have argued differently, but that wasn't my point.

The problem with comparing time periods though is that things have changed quite significantly since the days when a character sheet was a pretty sparse single page. Young people are dealing with complex character sheets in other games all the time - Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Warcraft, Diablo, any number of other games are easily as complex as D&D.

Back in the days of early D&D, outside of wargames, games and other hobby past times just weren't that complex for the most part. But today? I watch my students put together hundreds of Yu-Gi-Oh cards into decks, and they know exactly what each card does. A 4e or 3e character sheet? Not really a problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The problem with comparing time periods though is that things have changed quite significantly since the days when a character sheet was a pretty sparse single page. Young people are dealing with complex character sheets in other games all the time - Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Warcraft, Diablo, any number of other games are easily as complex as D&D.

Back in the days of early D&D, outside of wargames, games and other hobby past times just weren't that complex for the most part. But today? I watch my students put together hundreds of Yu-Gi-Oh cards into decks, and they know exactly what each card does. A 4e or 3e character sheet? Not really a problem.

Every single game you mentioned is specifically designed to start simple and then increase the complexity as you play.
 


Every single game you mentioned is specifically designed to start simple and then increase the complexity as you play.

Yu-Gi-Oh starts simple? Really? A deck is dozens of cards, many of them different, almost every one of them with effects that other cards don't share. The stats of each card is different and there are a fair number of stats per card.

If my ten year olds can build decks out of the bajillion cards they've got, I'm thinking that deciphering the average 1st level character sheet in D&D (any edition) isn't that hard.
 

Every single game you mentioned is specifically designed to start simple and then increase the complexity as you play.
I found the interface alone for the WoW a little daunting, and I've been playing with and working on computers since the Apple II era. Ditto Pokemon... clean interface, quite a bit of information to juggle, even from the start. Hell, every action game on my PS3 features control systems complex enough to sometimes baffle my weened-on-an-Atari-joystick hands.

It's hard to make the argument that our games haven't grown more complex in the last 30 years, even the ones meant for children. People interact with complicated information systems all the time now, from a very young age on.

I've noticed the people who push "simple" games as a way of attracting new players aren't usually beginners, they're experienced players who enjoy simpler systems.
 
Last edited:

Yu-Gi-Oh starts simple? Really? A deck is dozens of cards, many of them different, almost every one of them with effects that other cards don't share. The stats of each card is different and there are a fair number of stats per card.

If my ten year olds can build decks out of the bajillion cards they've got, I'm thinking that deciphering the average 1st level character sheet in D&D (any edition) isn't that hard.

Assuming a properly-built starter deck, they tend to not be that complicated and include a sheet to tell you what the deck already does.

This is what the Red Box kind of does.

Once you're at a point that you understand the deck, modify it abit, and can make your own decks, that's when you bust out a PHB or HOFL
 

Including D&D where you are expected to start at level 1 and gain new spells, features, and powers as you level.

If nothing else, you're forgetting the DM.

A properly structured D&D game would probably be about as difficult to pick up as a Magic starter deck. But that's not the way the 800-page trilogy being discussed here is structured.

Yu-Gi-Oh starts simple? Really?

Yup.

If my ten year olds can build decks out of the bajillion cards they've got, I'm thinking that deciphering the average 1st level character sheet in D&D (any edition) isn't that hard.

But you don't start playing Yu-Gi-Oh by building decks out of a bajillion cards. You start playing Yu-Gi-Oh by purchasing a starter deck, reading a manual about 1/20th the size of the PHB, shuffling the deck, and starting to play.

I've noticed the people who push "simple" games as a way of attracting new players aren't usually beginners, they're experienced players who enjoy simpler systems.

You misunderstand me. Rules-lite/freeform systems aren't great for introducing new players; they're absolutely craptacular for new GMs.

You want a system with a lot of bells-and-whistles, IMO. But you also want a core/beginning experience that let your potential player start playing sooner rather than later.

These problems are mitigated for new players who are being mentored by existing players. (Assuming those mentors are competent.) But there's no reason that D&D needs to be designed to require mentors. (Or pay-to-preview substitutes for mentors.)
 

. Rules-lite/freeform systems aren't great for introducing new players; they're absolutely craptacular for new GMs.

Had the chance to measure this up to a point with a visiting group of players and then my own group. Played the same L10-12 D&D scenario with a roughly 100 page rule set and a close to 800 page rule set. After the games I went back and looked at how many pages were used. In this (very limited) test close to 90% of the 100 page set was used at some stage. There was clearly a shortfall in terms of a good selection of wandering monsters and there was grumbling about the limited choice of classes.

The 800 page set used under 20% of the pages and there was some grumbling about some players' choice of elaborate classes. Taking account of needing a wider supply of monsters and races for continuing scenarios this suggested (to me) that an optimal rule set is about 150 pages long plus a 'cream of the crop' selection of maybe 100 pages of extra monsters and magic items. Beyond that a lot of monsters were varietions on a theme and a lot of classes where, basically, sub-classes.

The players needed to use or (ideally) be aware of 72 of the 100 page rule set and close to 130 pages of the 800 page rule set. Suggesting that a 'full' RPG rule set (in terms of what gets used 90% of the time) is maybe 200 to 250 pages long - of which players need to know or be supported in using about 150 pages.

Was well surprised at the share experienced players seem to need (quite a lot to give them good choices) and less surprised at how little is needed before you're into the land of rapidly diminishing returns.
 

Great points! I think these new systems take away the fun in role playing. 3rd edition had some good points, but all in all, the bases was character power, not the whole experience. The game as we know it, became just hack and slash basically.
However, I don't think that we should bash them so totally. The idea of an FRPG is to have fun. I know from experience starting in ODnD and playing up to fourth edition. Although certain mechanics change, and maybe the way it is played also. Any player and dm could put any story into the game.
My major complaint about the sudden edition changes, lies more into the fact that when we wanted to give it a try and decided to stick to the newer edition was transferring everything we written from second to third edition.
Anyone that has done that, knows that it is freaken nightmare. Not only does character and monster elements change, but the story element has to change to reflect the additional powers to be believable. So, after months of writting, rewritting, proof reading, rewriting again, it just became grueling.
But in those months of cracking open third edition, we began to see somethings. Other than ability scores, armor class, saving throws, which were the major changes. the game reflected the kit system of the advanced era of DnD. So it wasn't as big of a leap as we all thought. 3.5 came along and upset some of it, but not much. It added to the 3rd edition genre of the game.
4th edition is the same i feel. If you take it away in layers, and break it down into its basic mechanics then you find startling simularities that could be found with all other additions.
Why modern DnD variant won't attract new players? The same reason why old edition gamers was not attracted to newer addition. The reason, you have these people so faithful to the older editions and so adamant in their hatred of the new concept that they alienate players from trying to play the newer ones.
From experience, my first DM, we shall call him the ogre. He was so faithful to 1e that when advanced had hit the shelf, he refused to have anything to do with it. Naturally, as a player. I wanted to see what the new addition had to offer, but because he didn't want nothing to do with it. It was something we didn't do in his presence. At the time, I didn't have the notion of DMing, and other than the ogre, we really had no other. Not to mention that most other groups we knew at the time, felt the same as he did. So we left it lie. We stuck with the old edition and it wasn't til a few years that we branched off to form our own group with out the aid of the ogre.
Basically it just boils down to older players hate it, newer players might find it intriguing, but because the older players hate it then the newer players feel somewhat reluctant to try it.

I know, I felt the same way from going to second edition to third edition. It took a while, but it was more out of look what I have already done, and not to mention the money it would take to build a collection books, that equaled my second edition library.

P.S. I had to leave this post unfinished. I hope edited it enough to not be so vague and simple, that is the way of somethings. As far as hack and slash, all DnD has been hack or slash...your preference. But the issues with 3 edition I had was the same as I had with the Players Option, that came out during the demise of 2nd edition. Characters just became too powerful, that every monster had to have ability scores assigned to it just to be challenging. Not to mention leveled to match that of the characters. One of the things I did like about third. 3rd edition was way more statistically simplified but it still left tons of numbers everywhere.
 
Last edited:

Great points! I think these new systems take away the fun in role playing. 3rd edition had some good points, but all in all, the bases was character power, not the whole experience. The game as we know it, became just hack and slash basically.

I keep hearing this, and it makes me sad. In my 3e games, there was always either hack or slash, never both. I feel left behind. :(
 

Remove ads

Top