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



## teach (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

teach said:


> 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 (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

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 (Oct 9, 2010)

Cor_Malek said:


> 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.)


----------



## delericho (Oct 9, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.




I think there's a lot of truth in this. Thinking back to my own introduction, I was brought into a game by an existing DM, and instantly loved it.

Crucially, though, once Erik disappeared off to university, I was able to go to the FLGS and pick up the Red Box. And it was _that_ that enabled me to get to grips with the rules of the game, enabled me to start playing and DMing, and so completed my conversion as a gamer. (Until that point, _all_ of the rules had been 'behind the screen' - all I had to do was describe my actions. Even the dice rolling was 'behind the screen' - indeed, until I went to university myself, it never occurred to me that the players would use the dice after character creation!)

It was also a major help that, a few months later, I was able to buy a the Blue Box Expert Set expansion, that _added on_ to the Red Box, and kept me playing for another six months. The Companion Set then followed, and it was only _then_, after more than a year of playing and DMing, that I _chose_ to switch over to AD&D 2nd Edition.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 9, 2010)

I think Pathfinder and 4e can be taught to new players without any significant difficulty if someone is available to show them the ropes.  I know I've taught and played many 3.x/Pathfinder games with IronPup and he has grasped things quite well at the age of six.

I think the Intro/Basic sets are most needed for someone trying to get into the game with no one readily available to help mentor them. Or even in the case of IronPup, it would be nice to have a slightly more intro focused set to give to him to read on his own to help ease his own entry into RPGs.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 9, 2010)

I think that the issue with rules light games is that they require experience to referee. Playing an rpg is pretty easy, describe what you do and let thte referee  adjudicate it. It can even be done in 4e. Powers are there for the hardcore gamers to create opportunities for interesting tactics, etc.

DM'ing or refereeing is the difficult black art in RPGs and that seems to be the big focus in 4e to teach DMs to be better at their job and to handhold new DMs and ease them in. I have seen several references here that in organised play poor or mediocre DMs can now run a passable game unlike in previous versions.

Can a group start cold with the Red Box, I really do not know but I do know that when I tried first with the Red Box (back in the eighties) I was hopeless and never really groked the DMs role until I saw it done by others.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 9, 2010)

Cor_Malek said:


> 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'm with you.  Or perhaps, I agree that there's lots of folks for whom this isn't a problem.

Current gamers often underestimate the young.  Many of them seem to forget their own youth.  Kids and teens are learning machines.  Complexity is not a problem.  For many of them complexity is a draw.  Tons of us picked up D&D not through the boxed sets, but through AD&D, which is by no means a simple system.

Now, if what you're trying to hook is 30+ year old gamers, then complexity might be an issue.  But if you're looking to get new gamers kind of like we were when we picked up the game, there are barriers, but not in the complexity of the game.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Current gamers often underestimate the young.



I agree, but would go even further and expand that to "anyone who isn't already a gamer".

There are absolutely people out there who want simple games.  But neither age nor experience with games in general are predictive of that.

But there are also a lot of people out there who see any added complexity that adds value as a good thing.  

"Dumbed down" is a bit of a verbotten phrase.  But making things easier because you found a better way to do it is a great thing.  Making things easier because you assume your audience can't get their brain around a better way enough to benefit from that better way is just dumbing down.  And I think potential long term gamers are the ones least attracted to simplified games.  A simple game might get five players to the complex game's two.  But four years later, both of the complex game fans are still gaming (maybe a different game, but still gaming).  You are lucky if one of the first five hasn't moved on to the next fad.

Putting difficulty in getting new players, particularly youth, off on complexity is way off base.

There are challenges.  But they have vastly more to do with alternatives.  I had been a gamer for years before I ever had a computer.  My kids can not imaging a world without the internet any more than I can one without radio.  And that is just the very big tip of a huge iceberg of alternatives that didn't exist in the "golden era".


----------



## teach (Oct 9, 2010)

I'm not trying change everything about the system, just the character creation rules. I want there to be a simpler character creation system, that generates a simpler character sheet, that can be mostly compatible with the more advanced system. 

I know there are plenty of kids and teens playing the game with their parents, what I'd like to see is more kids playing with other kids. And it's my belief a way to encourage that is to present a simpler version of the character creation. I know that they will be able to get it eventually, and probably quicker than I did, but as a poster up thread said, why would I buy the current iterations of the basic set if all I get are two or three levels, and have to rebuy the rules when I want the complete rules. 

I guess I want something like the rules cyclopedia. A slightly more basic version of the game, all in one book, that if a player buys, they can play d&d.  

Each of us can give examples of getting new players to play, but one thing I worry about:  are those players adding to the current player base, or replacing old players?  

Well, anyways, I think other people have had good points, and wotc has agreed with them, and paizo I imagine will to, unless the intro set is a radical departure from what intro sets have been in the past.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 9, 2010)

Cor_Malek said:


> 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 with the OP and thus disagree with your statement here. First of all, both terms "dumbified" and "simplistic" are somewhat pejorative in connotation; this is part of the problem, imo, and simply an erroneous perspective in terms of RPG design and mechanics. Simple does not necessarily mean dumb; it could mean elegant and efficient. And don't forget that it is because of the _simple _core mechanic of 3.x that it was able to make the most "option-filled" and complex version of D&D yet. 

A game can be simple _and _complex. That, I think, is the key to success that the OP is touching upon. A simple, core game is not antithetical to an extensive game of advanced options. This is the approach that I've been advocating: A simple, core game, perhaps in the form of a Red Box set, but one that is not simply a taster of the "real" game, but a basic version, both complete in and of itself but also compatible with the advanced game. In other words, a Red Box that is introductory but also complete in itself, at least up to a certain point (or level).

In other words, I would advocate a return to the Basic/Advanced model, but one in which they are not two different streams or lineages of the game, but two different versions of the same game, fully compatible, fully modular. In some ways it is like Google maps; you can pan out and get the whole world without all of the details, or you can pan in on a specific region and get as detailed as you want. The former would be the core game, the latter the advanced options.

Furthermore, rather than the basic set being only the first level or two, I would advocate a basic box set for each tier. You would have a Heroic Red Box, a Paragon Blue Box, and an Epic Black box (or something like that). From those core products you would radiate into whatever level of detail and complexity you want, but it would all be optional. There might be "core" advanced options that are the default for tournament play--things like _Player's Handbooks, _etc, and then you might have truly optional books like _Magic of Incarnum._

But the box sets could be marketed everywhere as truly evergreen products. And people could happily play D&D for years without going beyond them. Those that wanted more detail and options could have their fill as well. Best of both worlds, really. But it would be the former, and not the latter, that would potentially bring in a new generation of players.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 9, 2010)

dumification is a result of the style of play not the length of the rules set. If the game's all about following combat procedures it is dumificated, because it's only using one of the many types of play and skills open to RPG players. 

A rules light game that encourages exploration, mystery, investigation, discovery, challenges . . . and combat is a lot less dumificational as a result of putting the onus on players and GMs to vary play and 'take control' at an early stage. It's also far more accessible if it's offering variety of play and player choice early on.

In terms of games in general lots of people play non-dummified Catan, because it uses tons of different skills and offers great variety almost out 'of the box'. Very few people will ever be interested in Napoleonic wargaming, because it's all procedure and simulationist, i.e. uber-dummification. And no amount of insisting that rules-heavy, super-crunchy games involve serious maths  is ever going to change that.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 9, 2010)

teach said:


> I know there are plenty of kids and teens playing the game with their parents, what I'd like to see is more kids playing with other kids.




My kids (ages 10, 11, 13, 14) play Pathfinder on their own. Kids have a better memory than adults and learn faster*. Moreover, kids who are likely to be attracted to the idea of roleplaying are going to be kids who appreciate complexity and rules interactions, IMO. (I just asked my boys if they thought Pathfinder was too complex and they both said no.) 

In my experience, kids can understand the basics of roleplaying about the time they are 5 or 6 and they will instinctivelly use the rules they understand as they understand them. Which is all that is needed. By they time they are 8 or 9 and playing on their own, they should be able to learn just about any system as fast or faster than an adult so long as they have the reading skills. 

I would like Paizo to put out an introduction set of Pathfinder, not because it would be easier to learn, but because it would hopefully be cheaper as a gift and would contain rules, adventure and dice all in one package. 

*full confession: I once knew every stat for every monster in the AD&D monster manual, not to mention every spell duration and effect. Now I find myself asking my kids for rule verification (apart from looking it up) as their memory is faster and clearer than mine (not that I'm a slouch) and its easier than cracking open the books.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 9, 2010)

I hope that Pathfinder Basic/Starter/whatever will be the one. Not because I want Pathfinder/Paizo to do well - and yes I do, but then, they are already anyhow - but because I believe the hobby would benefit _hugely_ from having a simple(-ish!), high-profile, fantasy RPG box set widely available, and affordable, with everything a NEW player needs to get started in the hobby.

Needing to be introduced by those who have learned enough of, say, 3e or 4e, is just not good enough, IMO. Intake will be very limited. *IS* very limited, for the most part, as things stand.

So, I am heavily in favour of [something that sounds like] the OP's idea. Have been for a while now.

I have no inside information as to whether the Pathfinder option will be "the right one" (in my view), but dear gods I do hope so. I'm sure it - and they - will do rather well in any case, but AFAIC, that misses the point altogether.

IOW: WotC, Paizo, or any other company (or individual), making a larger or smaller amount of bucks from the mass of already dedicated current gamers, matters not one whit, to "the health of the hobby", to coin a popular phrase.

Something is missing, and has been, for some time.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 9, 2010)

I am curious about the evidence of a shrinking market. 

I'm also curious as to why we discount the value of word-of-mouth. Most of us are in the hobby because someone else introduced us to it. Why should the next generation of gamers get into the hobby in a different way? Laziness on our part?


----------



## jbear (Oct 9, 2010)

From my personal experience I would have to disagree with the OP.

I've introduced 8 people to D&D since the release of 4e. Others who know that we are playing have dropped major hints that they would like to learn as well.

All of them are parents with kids.

We have a regular weekly/bi-weekly game going and all of our kids aged from 4 to 7 knows that mummy and daddy play 'Dungeons'. They are totally curious about it. They are fascinated by the dice, the figures, the 3d encounter settings built to represent ruined castles. I've played a reduced 'Dora the Explorer' version of it with my son. He was totally into it. Some of the other pàrents' kids have asked me to explain how it works. If I was to organise a kids and parents game, the kids would have to team up with the parents or we'd have far too many players.

I kind of compare it to skipping ropes, knuckle bones and the game 'elastics'. They are things I grew up with, games kids played at lunch time at school, or in my case with my 3 sisters. Kids don't even know about them anymore. The have the Wii, the TV and the PSP. But as soon as you introduce them to those games, they are onto them like white on rice. D&D is the same, as soon as kids get exposure to it, they are sharpening their swords and out crossing troll infested bridges, hunting dragons!

D&D is an awesome game in all its many forms. Kids love games. A game like D&D can't help but attract new kids.


----------



## teach (Oct 9, 2010)

I think I might have misrepresented my point with my thread title. Are there currently new players coming to the hobby?  Yes. But i think there is a big missing avenue to get new players.  And that is a simpler version of the current character creation rules. So maybe this thread should be called " modern d&d wont attract as many new players as I'd like to see". I think many players who started in the eighties and 90's were introduced to a more basic version of d&d then moved to the more complex. Did some players start with a very complex version of ad&d or 2nd edition, or are there players who are being introduced through 4e and pathfinder?  Yes. 

But we still need other ways to get players into this game, and I'm trying to look at what was successful to bring in many gamers in the 80's and 90's to help inform today's games.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 9, 2010)

teach said:


> But we still need other ways to get players into this game, and I'm trying to look at what was successful to bring in many gamers in the 80's and 90's to help inform today's games.




I think I would argue that exposure to the game is more important to attracting players than the rules used in the game. A simpler ruleset does not, in and of itself, bring new players in apart from exposure. And a complex ruleset is not a insurmountable obstacle when the game is fun and intuitive.

Simplicity in rules is not the be-all and end-all. Elegance is preferable to simplicity, imo. 

I think the real path to growing the game is increased DM support. Make it easier for DMs to introduce the game to their friends. Likewise, more positive mainstream exposure would be good. Make the game less mysterious. IMO, computer RPGs have been a boon in this regard, not a hindrance.


----------



## jbear (Oct 9, 2010)

teach said:


> I think I might have misrepresented my point with my thread title. Are there currently new players coming to the hobby?  Yes. But i think there is a big missing avenue to get new players.  And that is a simpler version of the current character creation rules. So maybe this thread should be called " modern d&d wont attract as many new players as I'd like to see". I think many players who started in the eighties and 90's were introduced to a more basic version of d&d then moved to the more complex. Did some players start with a very complex version of ad&d or 2nd edition, or are there players who are being introduced through 4e and pathfinder?  Yes.
> 
> But we still need other ways to get players into this game, and I'm trying to look at what was successful to bring in many gamers in the 80's and 90's to help inform today's games.



I'm wondering if you've read the introductory solo adventure in the new 4e Red Box?

It makes the fundamentals of character creation very simple and totally explicit.

Simpler than that ... I can't really imagine anything simpler than that to be frank.

I know personal experiences are at the best anecdotal, but I don't remember beginning with a 'beginner version' of D&D. And I can't remember ever thinking ...'Oh, this is too complex'. And if there was anything that we didn't understand, and thats a big if, Im sure we just made it up as we went along.

Kids are the living breathing essence of creativity.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 9, 2010)

teach said:


> But we still need other ways to get players into this game, and I'm trying to look at what was successful to bring in many gamers in the 80's and 90's to help inform today's games.




Early on there were no lengthy, crunchy combat encounters, as the mechanics for this hadn't been imported at that stage. You might have fight after fight, but not against the same monster for an hour or more. Turns came round quicker too and individual PCs were less stacked. Even if there was fight after fight, that meant play between encounters/ openings to try something else came up much more often.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Oct 9, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> I agree with the OP and thus disagree with your statement here. [lot's and lot's of convincing, and logically expressed points.]




Dammit. Thing is - I agree with *your* post, and still disagree with OP. 

Sadly, my pressure on adding pejorative load to the word "simplistic" derailed the point I was trying to make. And then, Delericho wrote what I meant in much more clear way:


delericho said:


> 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).




First off, I want to clarify something - it's not visible in my post, but I didn't want to either edit it after being quoted, nor post just for this: there definitely _is_ a need for introductory sets. As you see in mine, as well as most (all?) posts in this thread - it's what Dice4Hire said - that it's a lot different when you're being taught, than when you have to figure it out yourself.
It's like with Linux - it's a breeze when there's someone to bounce trivial questions off, but can be discouraging if you have to figure it out yourself (well, past tense there - new distributions are as easy to use as it can be).

Of course, with the simplest but elegant rules you can create anything just by adding complexity - any music ever created is just 9 things - 8 sounds and silence (Heavy Metal has 10th - rebellion ;-) ).



Mercurius said:


> In other words, I would advocate a return to the Basic/Advanced model, but one in which they are not two different streams or lineages of the game, but two different versions of the same game, fully compatible, fully modular. In some ways it is like Google maps; you can pan out and get the whole world without all of the details, or you can pan in on a specific region and get as detailed as you want. The former would be the core game, the latter the advanced options.



The thing is - the more levels you want, the more complex it de facto will be, because you not only need rules for the image - but also for act of scaling itself. GURPS is great for such scaling, and it is simple - but it carries overwhelming complexity with it.

What strikes me, is that while I was reading the paragraph before the quoted one, I was thinking "huh, so like Basic/Advanced model?". But! As I was reading through the quoted part - what was going through my head was "huh, sounds like 4e-Essentials". Seems to me, that WotC planned on what you describe here - but with only 3 layers - Introduction-Essential-Core. As development prerogative they are meant to work modularly with each other. Of course all I have for it is what I fish out of threads and articles about it - I take keen interest in 4e development, but I lack actual play experience, so I'll take your word for whether this goal was successfully attained by Wizards.

It seems that bulk of what seems like disagreement between our stances is semantic differences on lines of: simple, complex and easy. 
In d20 systems you basically roll d20, add stuff for being good at something and compare it against number expressing how hard the thing you tried is. You roll various other polyhedrons to determine effects of what you just did with your d20. What you can do with your d20 can be limited by what is called as "class".
Which is why I consider 3.X as simple - but complex, so not very easy. 4e went a step forward here, as there are basically only 4 classes, although each has multiple variants - again, simple with complexity. Which is why the idea of making this basic premise _easier_ - strikes me as something that deserves at least slightly pejorative description.
So both systems in theory comply with the premise: simple core - additional modules. And yet, a lot of people call one easy and the other too complex. Funny thing - they can't seem to agree as to which is the simple one ;-) IMO it's because they _both_ are. But people choose to focus on all the possible layers as if they had to incorporate them all at once (vide- archive panic).

Take the archive panic away, by hiding it. Would you say that Penny-Arcade is an epic tale of gaming industry? I mean, there's a lot of panels and articles. What they did, is if you hear that there's a cool comic there - when you visit it, you immediately see the most recent one. Nobody expects you to start reading with the first one or the one where present design was introduced. If you _choose to_ - you can click on the archive button.

This is what I was trying to say - there's absolutely no need to simplify either of systems as OP suggested. They are *not* too hard to grasp. There's an illusion of such state, because we see them in complex form (buffed by _huge_ fonts, lots of pictures, thick pages and often unjustified hardback form, and lots of empty space). Take that illusion away by producing an intro set where outlay is focused on minimalistic and non-threatening form and presto!

For a time, I argued in PF section, that this function could and should be taken care of by introductory part of rulebook to quick startup. Guide of most crucial parts of book, and everything other you can learn as you go. Beauty of discussion, I was convinced by others that it's more than that - there needs to be a product that accounts for the fact that user is self-taught. Because it *adds* volume, other parts need to be discarded or else you get a behemoth of a book.
Besides, someone who doesn't know the ropes, needs some basic tools - like various dices and tokens/minis, a map. It's easiest to learn through experience so an adventure should be included.

And this is what IMO such introduction set should include - tools that take into account that recipient doesn't have a guide to the game. You don't want to make it obsolete if/when she buys the Core Rulebook, so it's good to throw in some unique content - adventures, maps, minis, that kind of stuff. It has to be affordable, so it cannot contain all that on *top* of normal content. But it's only the complexity you need to strip - you really don't need to simplify it. I consider less complex rules in introduction as rather unfortunate *cost* of adding aforementioned content, rather than desirable design.

*Whoever heard of a kid that wished that his Lego set had less pieces?*

Dammit. I could've written the above and call it a day. Oh, well.

And as for technicalities...


Mercurius said:


> Furthermore, rather than the basic set being only the first level or two, I would advocate a basic box set for each tier. You would have a Heroic Red Box, a Paragon Blue Box, and an Epic Black box (or something like that).



I'd be afraid that this backfires as multiple versions of Vista did. It creates archive panic for someone who is supposedly oblivious of the entire RPG thingie. Of course when executed well, it can work: as with XP. It can be even craved - like with Linux. But it is dicey.


Ah! One more point I wanted to address:


Umbran said:


> Now, if what you're trying to hook is 30+ year old gamers, then complexity might be an issue.  But if you're looking to get new gamers kind of like we were when we picked up the game, there are barriers, but not in the complexity of the game.




I blame editors. Sure, folks with steady job have far less time to sit down and learn a book-worth of rules, but they most probably already have the skills to look at entire problem, prioritize and find only what they need. I don't remember exact number, but when I counted actual number of pages needed to start playing Pathfinder game (entire sections based on table of contents - no crossing off paragraphs) - it's less than "Little Train that Could". But I've read some awfully edited rulebooks, where tidbits of information needed to start the game are hidden across the book, forcing one to read most of it at first go ("damn you, Vampire:tM! I already _know_ what character I want, I don't give a damn about all that other stuff! How do I make malkavian with paragnomic tendencies nao!?").


PS.: Goddamit. I have this nagging feeling that clarification, shouldn't be twice as long as the clarified text. Oh, well.
For anyone that actually chewed through that whole post - I'm sorry I wasn't able to express it in more... compact way, and I thank you for attention you've given it.


----------



## Eliana (Oct 9, 2010)

Personnaly... if you wish a simplistic game with no effort involves...

Well don't play RPGs!

Éli,


----------



## BryonD (Oct 9, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> A game can be simple _and _complex.



Chess and Go are great examples that prove you correct in the general case.

The problem is, we are not talking about the general case.  We are talking about role playing games.



> That, I think, is the key to success that the OP is touching upon. A simple, core game is not antithetical to an extensive game of advanced options.



Again, I completely agree that there are people who want simple games.  But for A LOT of people, there is a minimum threshold of complexity for a satisfying RPG experience.  

The OP and you both appear to not be in that latter group.  Which is fine.  But then you both go on to presume that the growth of the marketplace is hinged on the presumption that everyone agrees with you.  You are way way wrong at that point.

Both points of view must be considered.

Frankly, I think that if you had to choose a side, choosing simplicity does more harm than good in the long run.  But both is better than either or.

I want the game as simple as possible, but there are a great deal of demands implicit in that "as possible" part.  It is certainly very easy to make fully functional games that are much more simple at their core and still tactically complex.  But the things I demand from an RPG ruleset have a great deal of dimensions and degrees of freedom.  

And, the fact is, there are games out there that people complain about being to complex and yet I find them "simple".  Obviously, at least two different markets exist here.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 9, 2010)

teach said:


> ... But i think there is a big missing avenue to get new players.  And that is a simpler version of the current character creation rules.




I think the big players are already working on this or have released something.  4e has the Red Box set which I believe is an attempt to do just this, make entry to the game easier.  Paizo has announced intent of making a Pathfinder Intro set which is likely going to have a similar goal.  



			
				teach said:
			
		

> But we still need other ways to get players into this game, and I'm trying to look at what was successful to bring in many gamers in the 80's and 90's to help inform today's games.




And this is more a topic of how do we get new players into the game than a matter of complexity of rulesets.  Regardless of the rulesets you need a way to get people to even want to pick up the box to start playing.  Is this best done through word of mouth and a grassroots effort?  Or is it better to try to get in the big box stores and in the games section so someone passing by can see it?  Or is it advertising in comic books or other books or magazines to get attention?


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 9, 2010)

Cor_Malek said:


> What strikes me, is that while I was reading the paragraph before the quoted one, I was thinking "huh, so like Basic/Advanced model?". But! As I was reading through the quoted part - what was going through my head was "huh, sounds like 4e-Essentials". Seems to me, that WotC planned on what you describe here - but with only 3 layers - Introduction-Essential-Core. As development prerogative they are meant to work modularly with each other. Of course all I have for it is what I fish out of threads and articles about it - I take keen interest in 4e development, but I lack actual play experience, so I'll take your word for whether this goal was successfully attained by Wizards.




First of all, as I said the Red Box is more of a taster and learn-how-to-play product and less of a set that you can use to play the game for many game sessions. In other words, it is not the _old _Red Box, which covered a bunch of levels, not just two. Now its main goal is to teach new people how to play the game; how successful it is I cannot say as I am not new to 4E. But it is absolutely worthless for even a somewhat experienced player.

From the Red Box Wizards is leading this hypothetical new gamer to the Essentials line, which is not really a simpler version of 4E but quite simply just a repackaging of 4E. This is where I think WotC didn't go far enough, which would have been to make a simpler, cleaner version of 4E, sort of like how Castles & Crusades is to 3.x.



Cor_Malek said:


> Take the archive panic away, by hiding it. Would you say that Penny-Arcade is an epic tale of gaming industry? I mean, there's a lot of panels and articles. What they did, is if you hear that there's a cool comic there - when you visit it, you immediately see the most recent one. Nobody expects you to start reading with the first one or the one where present design was introduced. If you _choose to_ - you can click on the archive button.




That's pretty much what I was going out with the Basic/Advanced set-up. You can "hide" the Advanced options by simply sticking to the Basic game, which in my version would be comprised of three main box sets (Heroic, Paragon, and Epic) and maybe something like the Rules Compendium. If you want to add in more monsters, you get aMonster Manual or two; if you want more detail for you character creation and classes, pick up a Player's Handbook. But ideally you could play a Basic character right next to an Advanced character, the latter would just be more detailed, more complex. 



Cor_Malek said:


> This is what I was trying to say - there's absolutely no need to simplify either of systems as OP suggested. They are *not* too hard to grasp. There's an illusion of such state, because we see them in complex form (buffed by _huge_ fonts, lots of pictures, thick pages and often unjustified hardback form, and lots of empty space). Take that illusion away by producing an intro set where outlay is focused on minimalistic and non-threatening form and presto!




I'm not saying that the system should be simplified, but that a simpler version should be offered.



Cor_Malek said:


> *Whoever heard of a kid that wished that his Lego set had less pieces?*




Right, but most kids start with one set and build from there, adding what pieces they want as they want. Actually, many kids start in the way that my cousin started: their cousin (me, in this case) gives them a huge bag full of thousands of random pieces and they are taught by someone or have to teach themselves. This works fine for a certain type of person--often the type that would enjoy Legos (or D&D)--but not for many, and not for some who would enjoy Legos (or D&D) if they had a softer entry point.




BryonD said:


> Again, I completely agree that there are people who want simple games.  But for A LOT of people, there is a minimum threshold of complexity for a satisfying RPG experience.
> 
> The OP and you both appear to not be in that latter group.  Which is fine.




Huh? When did I say that I prefer a simple game? I didn't.  Actually, I like the complexity level of 4E but I don't think it is for everyone. 



BryonD said:


> But then you both go on to presume that the growth of the marketplace is hinged on the presumption that everyone agrees with you.  You are way way wrong at that point.




Again, huh?! Again, I am _*not* _saying that A) I prefer simple games, and B) everyone else does as well. Actually, I'm not saying either of those. What I _am _saying is that 4E, Pathfinder, 3.5, and most editions of D&D are too complex and esoteric for many people to want to even approach, let alone dive into; and I am saying that these games should offere simpler, "Basic" versions, but not at the expense of or instead of their usual, more Advanced forms.

It is the best of both worlds, really. Imagine if BECMI and AD&D had been fully compatible. That's what I'm talking about, but making "BECMI" even simpler, and all supplements usable by players of both the Basic and Advanced game.



BryonD said:


> Frankly, I think that if you had to choose a side, choosing simplicity does more harm than good in the long run.  But both is better than either or.




Yes, exactly. I am saying _both, _not one or the other. All we have right now, even with the Red Box and Essentials, is a complex game with a taster intro set and a variant presentation of the same complex game. 



BryonD said:


> I want the game as simple as possible, but there are a great deal of demands implicit in that "as possible" part.  It is certainly very easy to make fully functional games that are much more simple at their core and still tactically complex.  But the things I demand from an RPG ruleset have a great deal of dimensions and degrees of freedom.
> 
> And, the fact is, there are games out there that people complain about being to complex and yet I find them "simple".  Obviously, at least two different markets exist here.




Yes, the key is having as simple a game as possible with as many options as possible. They only way I see that as being, to overuse the world, _possible _is to have Basic and Advanced versions of the same game. 

Imagine 4E stripped down to basics: No skills, just ability scores. No feats, just a few key class features; no powers except for spell-casting classes. Just core classes. Just those things would make a much simpler, and accessible game. 

I like the idea of three general levels of complexity to the game: 


*Basic D&D* - The core game, comprised of only a few products - Heroic Red Box, Paragon Blue Box, and Black Epic box. Maybe a Rules Compendium that includes the rules from all three for quick reference. Would _not _require miniatures or a battle grid.
*Advanced D&D - *This is the default tournament game and the rules under which supplements are written. This includes the usual lineup: Player's Handbook, DMG, Monster Manuals, etc. It is completely compatible with Basic D&D, but can be "layered on."
*Options - *This is pick-and-choose, stuff like _Weapons of Legacy _and _Magic of Incarnum. _It isn't "Core" like the first two in that it isn't the default. It is, in a sense, different offshoots and possibilities that individual DMs can add to their campaign.
Most people would play "AD&D", although quite a few would play BD&D and many AD&D players would add in Options of their choosing. But it would Basic D&D that you'd see in Target, that would be evergreen in Barnes & Noble, and that would be the gateway for most new players. It is also BD&D that might just have a chance of bringing back some of the "lost flock."

The key word, though, is *modularity. *Play the game as simple or as complex as you want, with whatever crazy variants you want. But make sure a simple version is offered for those who want it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 9, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> snip
> 
> Imagine 4E stripped down to basics: No skills, just ability scores. No feats, just a few key class features; no powers except for spell-casting classes. Just core classes. Just those things would make a much simpler, and accessible game.



 I just want to focus on this bit: I think that while this game would be simpler to play (at least for non magic using characters) I Thing it would be harder to DM. It would be less blanaced between the classes and with no skills system the DM would have no tools to adjudicate the non combat stuff.

I am also beginning to think that arguments about Red Box, simple games and so forth are irrelevant. The biggest issue with table top rpgs is that they are difficult to explain why they are fun in a soundbite. So they grow by existing gamers introducing fellow gamers into the hobby. In the past complexity was not an issue since they were the only platform (them and choose your own adventure books) for cetain types of games. The choose your own adventure books have given way to crpgs and MMOs, which also compete with certain style of campaign but the ttrpg is more fun but that may not be obvious to anyone that has not played one or seen one played.
I think stuff like the PAX celebrity game, if seen by a wider enough audience is a better route. The real trick is to spread the awareness of what the games is and the possibilities it offers far and wide and then have a cheap entry point easily avialable.


----------



## Janx (Oct 9, 2010)

Cor_Malek said:


> 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).
> ...




That right there.  In 1970, 1980, the number of people who were familiar with lord of the rings or any kind of RPG (computer even) was pretty low.  

Since then, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, the LotR movies, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft has introduced more people to the core concepts of RPGs (stats, and fantasy).

Its not to say somebody coming from one of those experiences will know how to read a char sheet.  But they're not stupid.  They know they're playing a character and all the info on that sheet must reflect their stats.  With every game title having different systems, they're used to that.

It potentially wouldn't hurt to have a basic rule set that left a lot of stuff out.  But personally, as somebody who did figure out D&D on his own, I'd have gone straight to the advanced product line, knowing I would need it.

Even in 2e, my char sheets were multi-page.  I layed out each topic on its own sheet, because I hated how little information was on the typical 1 pager.  So # of pages isn't the key.  It's the fact that there's more entities to track in the modern RPG.

In 1e, with no skill system, the most data to track was inventory and spell list.   Add skills, and now that's more data.  Want some snippet of explanation, still more space needed per skill, feat or spell.

Thats why char sheets are so complicated.  Play a game with just fighters, no skills, and a small inventory, and it can easily fit on one page.


----------



## Ourph (Oct 9, 2010)

I've seen a lot of new players introduced to 4e (and loving it) through Encounters. Armchair industry analysts might predict something different, but the reality is that I've yet to see a new player (one who has never played RPGs before) have a problem understanding the basics of their character or walk away from a 4e game dissatisfied with their experience.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 9, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> There's a reason pathfinder and D&D are on top, (. . .)





Because they are both closely associated with the primary brand?  There might be other reasons to like both games, and others, but that close association with the brand is what gives you a shot at being on top.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 9, 2010)

teach said:


> 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:




My current table has 3 players (out of 6) that have never played the game before.



> The default character rules are just too complicated.




And my rules are more complicated than both 4e and Pathfinder (granted, not significantly so).



> First look at the character sheets.




Character sheets?  It's a homebrew.  I don't really have them.  I found a 3e excell character sheet and modified that to serve, but really, 'back in the day' we got by with pencil and paper.



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




Has nothing to do with it.  It's very unclear what a 1e character without exceptional stats is good at.  That isn't what brings new players into the game.



> 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.




You thing hit points, alignment, wisdom, charisma, and inverted armor class where lower is better are all 'self explanatory' or 'take a minimum amount of time to explain them'?  I've been playing nearly 30 years and I still don't think I can explain what a hit point is outside of its roll in game mechanics.  

But more importantly, 'back in the day' new players weren't even expected to know the rules.  'The rules' were the province of the DM only, more or less, and there were big warnings on books not to let players know the rules.  Likewise, my new players still don't know the rules and are still confused over basic things in the game.  So what?  What else is new?  Too much focus on system misses the point here.  You don't need to know the rules to play an RPG.



> So, I know people think the new 4E Red Box and the Intro Box Paizo has planned will bring in new players, butI really don't see them doing that...




Well, there is something I agree with.



> Instead, you must have a Basic version of your game that is a complete game, not just the first couple of levels.




But not for the reason you do.  The original red box that many of us got into the game only had the first 3 levels _and it was a complete game_.  Heck, my current campaign has run 12 sessions already (4-5 hours each) and no one has attained 3rd level.  Leveling up is not what RPGs are about, nor is it what makes rules 'complete'.



> 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.




Humility is great.  Yeah, you are mostly wrong.  What a new players needs isn't rules.  That's what a new DM needs.  What a new player needs is a DM who is willing to have new players and who provides an entertaining.



> 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.




Same way we did 'back in the day'.  We misunderstood things, made mistakes, made things up, played the way we thought was right until we decided something was better, and yes slowly evolved more complex rules or more precisely more complex house rules.   

System doesn't matter.  Good players don't interface primarily with the system.  It's actually a flaw that tends to develop in experienced players that they try to interface primarily with the system instead of the game world.   New players have the advantage of not knowing the rules, so they just try stuff.  And that is the way to play.  It's the DMs job to make the rules as _invisible_ as possible.   So who cares if the system is complex or not.  Understanding of the system will come in do course.  The goal of a DM should be to prepare the player in such a way that when system understanding comes, it doesn't get in the way of the player's skill as a role player.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 9, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Humility is great.



Ain't it just.




> What a new players needs isn't rules.  That's what a new DM needs.  What a new player needs is a DM who is willing to have new players and who provides an entertaining.



And what the hobby needs is *new DMs*. Or *new GMs*; either way.




> System doesn't matter.



This is quite possibly the least defensible statement I've seen in this thread, so far. Give it time though, I suppose. . .


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 10, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Because they are both closely associated with the primary brand?  There might be other reasons to like both games, and others, but that close association with the brand is what gives you a shot at being on top.




But I think we should look at what games are and have been near the top. White Wolf systems aren't a whole lot simpler; Warhammer 40K is currently selling well, and a search for a character sheet turns up "The Ultimate Excel character spreadsheet is back, bigger and better"; digging through the Amazon current bestsellers turn up L5R, Exalted, Shadowrun, GURPS... none of these strike me as being much simpler to build a character for than the D&D 4ed PHB. Where exactly are these really simple games thriving? FUDGE and TWERPS were marginal even at their peaks.


----------



## teach (Oct 10, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Character sheets?  It's a homebrew.  I don't really have them.  I found a 3e excell character sheet and modified that to serve, but really, 'back in the day' we got by with pencil and paper.
> 
> 
> You thing hit points, alignment, wisdom, charisma, and inverted armor class where lower is better are all 'self explanatory' or 'take a minimum amount of time to explain them'?  I've been playing nearly 30 years and I still don't think I can explain what a hit point is outside of its roll in game mechanics.
> ...




First, I think you are in large part agreeing with me.  Maybe you took what I said about character sheets to mean computerized character sheets, but that's not at all what I meant, I meant the sheet of paper that sits in front of you at a table.  

You say you want the rules to be as invisible as possible.  That's what I want too.  The current character creation rules of 4E and Pathfinder are filled with all kinds of rules and steps needed to be taken.  Many more than the D&D systems in the 80's and 90's.  I want a character creation system that gets out of the way of the new player, so that they can create the character they want, and sit down and play.  In two months or two years, maybe they'll want to try the more "advanced method", but i want there to be a basic method.  

I don't want the DM to modify it for the player.

I know when I learned, the DM took care of most of the rules.  I told him what I wanted to do, and he told me how I could do it.  Now, I wouldn't want to play that way anymore. 

And that gets to another point.  People think I want 4E and Pathfinder Simplified because that's the kind of game I want to play.  Nope.  I like the complexity.  I like the choices.  I like fiddling with character creation.  But I want that simpler option to be available for all those new players who might be intimidated by the systems as they stand right now.  

I know there are plenty of players who will just come in at the "advanced" level.  That's great!  I want you to play D&D too.  I don't want to tell people how they have to start playing d&d, I just want them to start playing D&D.  And a complete basic version is what I think will get even more players into the game.  

Having finally seen the Heros of the Fallen Lands Essientials book, I think they might have gotten close to what I was thinking.  A single page for the character sheet.  Nice big numbers.  Skills under the ability score.    I could explain that sheet to a new player in 5 minutes.  I can't explain the original 4e sheet in 5 minutes, nor the official pathfinder one.  

I still worry that character creation is more complicated than it needs to be, but I'm happy it's so much simpler than the default 4E rules.  

I'm going to keep playing my default 4E characters, but I hope essientials allows a lot of new players to play D&D, just like I hope Paizo's intro box does the same.


----------



## deinol (Oct 10, 2010)

I have two anecdotal pieces of evidence about how people get into role-playing. 

First is how I started role-playing. When I was young (just before my seventh birthday) my older sister's friend told me about the D&D game she played in. So when my birthday came I told my mother I wanted D&D. She didn't know anything about it and wasn't certain she wanted to get me something totally unknown. However, she'd read the hobbit and saw the Middle Earth RPG and bought it for me instead. This was back when MERP was based on Rolemaster. Not a light system designed for kids.

Of course, I don't think I really played MERP, but I loved the book and eventually convinced my mother to let me get the D&D books. These were the AD&D books, and while I remember the Red Box from those days, I can't say I ever played it back then. "What do you mean I can't be an elven ranger?" My cousin and I pretty much taught ourselves from the two AD&D books (I don't think I had a monster manual back then, but some B modules.)

More recently I can tell you that the local university gaming club which I am still tangentially involved in brings in new players every quarter. Some have gamed before, but many have not. Last I heard they mostly play 4E, but they easily teach the new players the game. Of course, we are talking college students, not 7 year olds. Still, I think the hobby grows the way it has for years: learning it from someone else.

The reality is there are more ways to get into the hobby now than ever. Any slowing in the hobby industry is more related to the overall economy than anything else. If a group of 6 can get along with a single set of 3 core books, they will.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 10, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> First of all, as I said the Red Box is more of a taster and learn-how-to-play product and less of a set that you can use to play the game for many game sessions. In other words, it is not the _old _Red Box, which covered a bunch of levels, not just two.




A bunch of levels? Let's get this right: the original Basic set, the revised Moldvay edition and the revised Mentzer (Red Box) edition all covered a massive *three* levels.

Due to the different pace of advancement, plus the additional level, it would probably give more play hours than the current Basic set does before additional materials are required. My estimation is that the current Basic set will allow a campaign to start and play for four or five sessions or thereabouts - about 16-20 hours play.

Incidentally, due to the differing rates of advancement in Basic D&D (Moldvay), a group would need the Expert set when the thief reached 4800 XP, with the magic-user not yet third level, and the elf having only just achieved second level! This is not quite as much play as you might expect!

This isn't to say that those original Basic sets were flawed - by no means! The Moldvay set is still - in my opinion - the best Basic RPG set I've ever seen, far outstripping the 4e sets. However, all of the Basic sets are no more than "taster" sets. They are enough to introduce players to D&D and roleplaying and set down the groundwork for what would follow as they moved into more advanced forms of the game - either Expert D&D or Advanced D&D. Or Essentials. Or 4E.

Cheers!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 10, 2010)

I think geting new players into any game isn't about its simplicity. It's about "Time to Game", e.g. how long does it take (and how much money does it cost) since you're actively playing the game? 

Computer games are very quick at that. The longest part is usually the installation process (imagine that could be cut down!). But you can pick it up quickly. That doesn't have to mean the game is simple. It's just that it provides an easy entrance point.

If you got the basic Dominion set, you can instantly play the game. The rules are really simple. Yet the game is actually very complex and difficult to master and allows a very deep and long gameplay. 

Maybe that's where all basic sets fail - they provide the quick entrance, but they don't necessarily give you the depth. But maybe that's just something you can't do with one single box? Maybe it's okay to require 2 additional products (which I think would cover 30 levels of play - the DM box and the Heroes of the Fallen Lands if we speak on the Essentials Red Box)? For computer games, if you want 5 people playing together, everyone has to buy one copy.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 10, 2010)

The 3 Level Starter Set remains the 3 Level Starter Set because it leads directly to brand dummification/ dependency.

Long, long ago all we had was a 3 Level Starter Set and the PH was several months away from the UK. So we built on what was there by extending the basics. 4th -7th level followed with a growing realisation that one little book could template an entire RPG.

As with 1-3, this made for a game where players still didn't have enough spells, nifty skills and magic items to dispatch anything more than a few orcs unless they were prepared to come up with solutions from outwith the rule set, e.g. the magic missile wasn't going to take out six stirges, but those fishing nets and some bait could fix them good. Play was a) exciting b) fast and c) interpretive.

This was blown out of the water, in turn, by the PH and DMG. Instead of reaching for novel solutions everyone reached for the manual and then began the dummification. No more netting and cooking crunchy stirges. Just, fireball, that's them obliterated and what's the next monster I can use the rule set to beat up on.

The think 'horse' was placed behind the grind 'cart' and before long players, (who'd been sweating it over a couple of trolls), were power-gaming, win-mentality, optimal advancement, rules-lawyering fiends. So much so that one group went from playing 5th-6th level to taking on Demigorgon in a matter of weeks. (Of course they 'won').

The 3 Level Starter Set, therefore, avoids the 'danger' that players will realise that they can go their own way with relative ease, and that a lot of the most exciting play results from loosen and tightening the reins, instead of simply lashing everything down.

Unsurprisingly, publishers live in fear of the 5 or 7 Level Starter Set, as players would get used to being more interpretive and improvisational, have longer to decide whether or not to invest in manuals, and be far better placed to switch systems or design their own extensions.

For a large publisher, the profitable approach is seen (mistakenly) as double-dummification, where the combination of rules (as litany) and brand (as prophet) mesmerises the otherwise intelligent player into believing that yet another manual actually adds more to the game than they could add by themselves.

So, when was the last time you told a player she/ he could try out their new tattoist-pitfighter sub-class, or chucked a rainbow phase spider into play with adaptive defenses, or let your players discuss the best way to cook a stirge with the orcs who consider them a rare delicacy worth the effort of trading?


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 10, 2010)

nedjer said:


> So, when was the last time you told a player she/ he could try out their new tattoist-pitfighter sub-class, or *chucked a rainbow phase spider into play with adaptive defenses*, or let your players discuss the best way to cook a stirge with the orcs who consider them a rare delicacy worth the effort of trading?




Emphasis mine...

Not recently, but I will soon.  Thanks for the great idea.

and to answer what I think is your underlying question...we don't use the rules as a straightjacket, we use them as a guideline and starting point.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 10, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Because they are both closely associated with the primary brand?  There might be other reasons to like both games, and others, but that close association with the brand is what gives you a shot at being on top.




D&D is associated with D&D. A new player, learning from scratch, would have no idea what Pathfinder is until they looked at it.


----------



## Camelot (Oct 10, 2010)

D&D 4e attracted me to tabletop roleplaying games.  I've since taught the game to ten other people, none of whom had ever played tabletop roleplaying games before, some of whom had never played computer roleplaying games before, and they all understood it after a few weeks at most.  I've looked back at older games, including the earlier editions of D&D, and thought that they were way more complicated than D&D 4th edition.

New games do just as good a job at attracting new players as the old games did, and complexity has nothing to do with it.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 10, 2010)

teach said:


> 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.




Bosh. Roll some dice, pick a race/class, get help picking a feat and some spells. Done. Easier than registering for community college, and the prerequisite rules are much easier to understand.



> 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.




"This is a magic missile. It does damage to monsters."
"This is Power Attack. It allows you to swing harder, but less accurately."
"This is Dodge. It helps you avoid attacks, as the name suggests."
"This is Weapon Focus. It means you are particularly good with cooking. Just kidding. It means you are particularly good with a weapon."



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




Far less so than in previous editions. Unless you gathered that low AC was good and high hit points were good, you would have a heck of a time making even basic sense. 




> 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.




... languages known, % Hear Noise (what?), AC (without shield), five saving throws, "prime requisites," etc...

Now, it's the same, except NPWs are now called Feats and Skills, there are fewer saving throws, situational ACs are spelled out, and the ability score bonuses are unified and can be determined without looking at six or eight charts.



> 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.




Actually beyond recommending a cleric pick a deity (Red Box), indicating they need not (Cyclopedia), or strongly suggesting they do (AD&D), there is very little fluff in the writeups. Mostly you have weirdly long descriptions of what happens when you turn name level, or if you violate your class restrictions, and so forth.



> 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.




What's the huge difference between a 2-level game and a 3-level game? The original Red Box was the most successful intro set in the history of the universe.



> 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?



]

I can't even imagine what such a game would look like. Even if you were using something like Hero Quest or Maelstrom or Risus, and it said something like, "Good with shotguns," it would be hard to get a really clear picture of your capabilities without understanding the system.




> 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.




They need structure, clear language, attractive art, and a resolution system that is not too taxing. Pathfinder has it, D&D 4e is getting there, most "rules-lite" games lack any of that.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Oct 10, 2010)

Haven't WotC employees claimed on their blogs and elsewhere that 4E outsold all of their expectations and that it was the best-selling edition in D&D history?* 

That doesn't seem to gibe with the OP's claim that new players aren't playing it. In my personal experience, between 20% and 33% of people I've played 4E with have never played D&D before. I call those people "new players."





*My Google-Fu is exceptionally weak this morning and I have not found any online evidence to support this. I blame the fact that I haven't eaten breakfast yet. XP to whomever links to evidence to back my claim!


----------



## Cor_Malek (Oct 10, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> *My Google-Fu is exceptionally weak this morning and I have not found any online evidence to support this. I blame the fact that I haven't eaten breakfast yet. XP to whomever links to evidence to back my claim!




_Wax on... wax off. Wax on... wax off._ 

Searched by: "d&d 4th outsold"

We can even keep it down to the trusted source of ICv2 
ICv2 - D&D 4E Back to Press


> Sell-in of 4th Edition has “far exceeded expectations” and even though the initial print run for 4th Edition was 50% higher than the order for the previous D&D 3.5 Edition, WotC has now realized that it is necessary to go back to press to meet anticipated reorder demand.




And it's not like title of Best Selling Author hurts either: mearls: From the "I'll Take It Where I Can Get It" Department

[/me finds the quotes]
TarionzCousin: How did you do that? How did you do that?
Cor Malek: Don't know. First time.

PS.: If you can fish it out: supposedly, somewhere within this interview Mike Mearls drops an "outsold" line.


----------



## buddhafrog (Oct 10, 2010)

This year alone, I've taught 20+ kids how to play D&D -- almost all are Koreans with varying degrees of English proficiency, ages 10-15.  It's not too hard.  What is lost through the confusion is gained through interesting gameplay.

I do agree with the specific point that the character sheet is a mess.  Is that the best designed sheet WotC could come up with?  I use Shado's Character Sheet pdf - it's much more coherent (although not perfect)


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 10, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Haven't WotC employees claimed on their blogs and elsewhere that 4E outsold all of their expectations and that it was the best-selling edition in D&D history?*




If they have truly outsold all of their expectations, why do they have three years worth of backstock on the Players Handbook? Afaik it is not the first printing, but I did read here a few times that WotC has a huge backstock of at least the PHB.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 10, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> If they have truly outsold all of their expectations, why do they have three years worth of backstock on the Players Handbook? Afaik it is not the first printing, but I did read here a few times that WotC has a huge backstock of at least the PHB.




Because it's much cheaper to print in bulk, and if you're going to have a large backstock of any product, it should be the one that you know will sell?


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 10, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> If they have truly outsold all of their expectations, why do they have three years worth of backstock on the Players Handbook? Afaik it is not the first printing, but I did read here a few times that WotC has a huge backstock of at least the PHB.




What says they have three years worth of backstock? The only thing they said was in response to the "ZOMG! THEY'RE NOT REPRINTING THE PHB!" hubbub was that they aren't reprinting it yet, because they still have enough inventory not to warrant it.

And it outsold their expectations because the first print run was 50% larger than 3.5's first print run and they sold out that print run before the game was released, while 3.0's first print run lasted until about 3 months after the game was released. They sold out of the second print run within a couple months after release, making the current stock their third print run.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 11, 2010)

I wrote "three years of backstock" because the PHB came out two and a half years ago and they still have have copies of early print runs. Not the first, evidently, but--from what I've heard on this site--they have enough copies in inventory to dissuade them from publishing a revised version of the PHB. 

So it may be that they outsold their _initial _expectations but they certainly haven't their later expectations.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 11, 2010)

teach said:


> First, I think you are in large part agreeing with me.




I am? Then its possible that I don't understand you at all.



> Maybe you took what I said about character sheets to mean computerized character sheets, but that's not at all what I meant, I meant the sheet of paper that sits in front of you at a table.




What I was saying is that the sheet of paper sitting in front of you at the table is almost incidental to a new players experience of the game.  It doesn't matter how complex or how simple it is because the new players enjoyment of the game isn't usually grounded in understanding the rules.  The new player doesn't need rules.  They are irrelevant.  Rules interfacing doesn't even typically happen until after the new player is 'hooked', and at that point how much complexity you want is something of a personal preference.  But at that point, complexity won't be the deciding factor in whether the player plays.



> You say you want the rules to be as invisible as possible.  That's what I want too.  The current character creation rules of 4E and Pathfinder are filled with all kinds of rules and steps needed to be taken.  Many more than the D&D systems in the 80's and 90's.  I want a character creation system that gets out of the way of the new player, so that they can create the character they want, and sit down and play.  In two months or two years, maybe they'll want to try the more "advanced method", but i want there to be a basic method.




The basic method is always the same regardless of system - tell the DM what you want, and then let the DM guide you through it.  The only impact of system here is whether the system will let you be what you imagine, and to that extent complex systems may actually be better because they more quickly give the new player the connection 'oh, because of this thing here on my sheet there is this thing in the game my character is better at just like I wanted'. 



> I know when I learned, the DM took care of most of the rules.  I told him what I wanted to do, and he told me how I could do it.  Now, I wouldn't want to play that way anymore.




Yes, I agree.  _Now_ you wouldn't.   But that way is perfect for a new player.


----------



## Canor Morum (Oct 11, 2010)

My ten year old son learned how to play 4E after one gaming session.  Now he's leveling up his PC in the character builder and trying to convince me that he should have a lizard mount because he can afford it.  I gave it to him on the condition that he come up with a back story for how he got the lizard.  

I don't think that complexity is the problem.  You are talking about kids that grew up with computers and video games.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 11, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> I don't think that complexity is the problem.  You are talking about kids that grew up with computers and video games.




The really ironic thing is that some of the harshest criticism for 4e when it was released involved the game being "dumbed down" too much.  I remember comparisons to Sesame Street, stating the game was targeted at a wider audience.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 11, 2010)

I don't feel 4E is complex at all.  Why I feel it sometimes doesn't have the 'old school feel' is that (in my opinion) it doesn't maintain the sense of wonder and adventure that a rpg should have.

I understand the reasons why many of the changes were made.  I understand what WoTC was trying to do.  To some extent, I also believe it did work.

However, this is something I noticed while recently GMing a session: going from level 1 to level 30 is exciting the first few times.  It starts to lose its luster very quickly though.  For many of my players, the wonder of an rpg comes from living vicariously through your character.  While this is still possible in D&D 4E, I feel that the manner in which the current system is structure has a little bit too much of a linear push to it.  Sometimes part of the fun for a player is getting lost in the life of the character; having motivations and goals; making friends and enemies; owning land; building a castle; seeing your actions have impact on the world your character lives in.  

Again, I am in no way saying none of this is possible with D&D.  As a game of the imagination, you are free to play the way you want to play.  However, by default, I feel that the ideals upon which the game was built support a particular style.  Often, this particular style assumes that certain aspects of playing a rpg are not important.  It is my belief that some of these forgotten aspects carry with them the feel that people are searching for.  Some of the most enjoyable quests I've played in as a player didn't require me to save the world; they only required me to live the fantasy I wanted to live through my character - regardless of whether that meant being a pauper attempting to shepherd my sheep through the countryside or a prince defending my crown against traitorous nobles or a paladin venturing into the depths of hell.  I shouldn't feel as though one idea or another is considered more right or more wrong by the structure of the game; I often do. 

This ability to live my fantasy is (again, in my opinion) somewhat infringed upon by the ideal that PCs should be a certain type of character and that characters should be a certain type of hero and that heroes of certain levels should be doing certain tasks.  It's a little too linear.  Too often, when I've been a player, I feel as though my actions don't have enough impact on the game world.  As a GM, I try to give my players more choice, but I often need to bend those choices to the assumptions that the underlying system makes.  I have noticed a marked difference in both my enjoyment and the enjoyment of my players when we play D&D versus a system which makes less of an assumption about our style.  

Right before making this post, I had a conversation with one of my players via Facebook in which that particular player had mentioned being unable to fully enjoy D&D again after seeing what the other system we play had to offer.  This caught me completely flat footed; mostly because the player in question was the one who was the most supportive of D&D and least supportive of trying something else prior to the group's experimentation into other systems.  I can't always put my finger on exactly what is different, but something is indeed different about playing D&D now than it was before.  I have my ideas about what I think has changed, but I imagine others have different views.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 11, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I don't feel 4E is complex at all.  Why I feel it sometimes doesn't have the 'old school feel' is that (in my opinion) it doesn't maintain the sense of wonder and adventure that a rpg should have.
> 
> I understand the reasons why many of the changes were made.  I understand what WoTC was trying to do.  To some extent, I also believe it did work.
> 
> ...




The complex part is not learning crunch and grind, it's allowing RPGs to play as RPGs. Movies, magazines, videogames, off-the-shelf modules, multiple monster manuals . . . are all about fixed narratives, which discourage open-ended play, player choice and improvisation.

It's clearly possible to play any RPG as open-ended, player (rather than rules) led and improvisational. Unfortunately, as systems become larger, get more rules to cover everything, have more options decided on the roll of a dice, favour combat-focused solutions and characters . . . play is constantly being channelled towards fixed narratives and linear challenges.

This model is seen as necessary to companies, which see themselves as the content creators instead of helping players to act as their own content creators. The ready made module or MM3 is convenient but comes at the expense of discarding the magic pixie dust made from players' imaginations.

Lego offers a pretty clear analogy. You can buy Lego kits with instructions for making a particular model for a particular setting, e.g. Prince of Persia or Atlantis. From the word go the kit, with its final outcome, follow the instructions, 'win mentality' is shaping players' experience and gameplay.

Equally, you can take a bunch of Lego bricks and make your own desert fortress or undersea kingdom. This can have all sorts of shapes and forms, be populated by your characters and 'run' your ad hoc, opened-adventures.

As a result, instead of play being channelled towards admiring a finished model and/ or playing with the model in the cast of a PoP movie, the model is ever-changing and play may touch on 1001 Nights, Beau Geste, The Four Feathers, the Mummy, your last adventure, your favourite characters - in a creative crucible filled with players' ideas and aspirations, rather than those handed down from 'above'.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 11, 2010)

I disagree, at least regarding 4e: Using just the PHB it's no more complicated than creating a character in a typical computer rpg. I assume using Essentials, it's even easier. Using the Character Builder it's a piece of cake. You can even quick-build a pc with a single click and choosing race & class (and the result is actually a character that is playable!).

Even simple video games, like Diablo use a more complicated power system than 4e. Many board games have a more complicated ruleset than D&D these days.

Imho, only someone who's been living under a rock for the past two decades might have trouble with it.


----------



## delericho (Oct 11, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I disagree, at least regarding 4e: Using just the PHB it's no more complicated than creating a character in a typical computer rpg.




For new players? Including understanding all of the many options (enough to make an informed choice)? Including calculating all of the end modifiers and filling in the character sheet?



> Using the Character Builder it's a piece of cake.




The problem with relying on the Character Builder is that by default it includes every option from every book published thus far. For a new player, that's an absurd number of options to wade through. (However, if the Character Builder were set up to only include the PHB1 options, then I'd would agree that it is a huge step forward. It's also great _once you've gotten to grips with the rules_.)

The "Quick Character" option is excellent, but the results are very badly suboptimal IME. It's better than nothing, but far from an ideal solution.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 11, 2010)

delericho said:


> The "Quick Character" option is excellent, but the results are very badly suboptimal IME. It's better than nothing, but far from an ideal solution.



I disagree. Of course they're not optimal, but please: Show me a newbie who cares! Imho, nobody but an optimizer will care. 

And it's still easier to use the quick character as a starting point and then change a power or feat. Power choices are not overwhelming at all. Feat choices might be, but you get a short list of 'recommended feats', that a beginner will probably use.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 11, 2010)

Just cast a short anecdote into the 'crucible'.

One system I played with came upon the 'problem' of simultaneous magical effects, i.e. what happens when you chuck a spell into an on-going magical effect or two spells go off at once. The answer I always got was can't happen, doesn't happen. The effects are either sequential or seperate.

I then sat down one night to play a light, not lite, system where a magical effect overlapped with a spellcasting, i.e. the area, (occupied by fur wrapped henchdudes), was being blasted with frost while a wall of thorns appeared. I expected the usual, i.e. the frost has its effect and the wall of thorns has its seperate effect.

Instead, the GM says 'what do you think would happen?'. Quick suggestions included the thorns get frosted over. The GM says 'right: it's a wall of sharp icicles now - looks brittle'. Some 'idiot'  can't resist and the wall soon explodes all over the room. Icicles embedded in everyone.

The PCs pick themselves up, do some healing and realise they're on their last legs. They leave the 'dungeon' and a week later are offered a contract to investigate the murder of ten 'henchdudes' - all found dead with circular puncture wounds. No sign of any weapons or what type weapon was used. Though some of the wounds contained tiny fragments of thorns . . .

So far as I can tell, there's no computer game or rule set capable of what the GM pulled off there - and it practically teleported me back to what play was like when we were working with that Basic Set years before.


----------



## Davachido (Oct 11, 2010)

@OP:

I will have to disagree on most of the points. When 4e booted up we had 3 new players to our gaming group to learn 4e from scratch and they loved it, but were a little disappointed there wasn't more stuff to character creation and 4e has given more slowly but surely. Now I will not say 4e is the perfect edition or is alone in getting good response from new players. 

When I was in my first year of uni picking up 3.5 I was in a group where only the DM was experienced in 3.5, 3 of the players had never touched an pen and paper game at all, despite this all 6 players were loving all the options they could take and how complex the character sheets were. Some of them were planning options 10 levels ahead by the end of the 2nd session.

Not 2 days ago I was advertising gaming group to new students, a lot of which had never played D&D before and after I started giving them a run-through on the basics of character creation and character mechanics they didn't hesitate to join up. Now I can't say this is the same everywhere but where I am at the moment in the UK there are a lot of new players coming in. (Back home in Mauritius is another story though )

Though I will agree that with no guidance it is sort of hard to grasp, others will have most likely mentioned this. It is rare that players and a DM will all be new to RPGs, at least one person (usually the DM) has played RPGs before or played the current system to teach the players. 

I guess it could be like learning to drive a car. If you and a friend just sat in a car the dashboard and all the controls all seem daunting at first, especially if you and your companion had never driven or sat in the drivers seat before. You sit there reading through books figuring out what to do. However with an instructor (the DM) he'll guide you through the motions, you will eventually know things a lot easier and spot things you might've missed, hopefully then enjoying the activity more.


----------



## delericho (Oct 11, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I disagree. Of course they're not optimal, but...




Suboptimal isn't a problem. _Badly_ suboptimal is.

If you put a newbie in with a bunch of experienced players and he's hit for effectiveness by having less understanding of the rules _and_ by having a character who is significantly inferior to the rest, then that double whammy makes it much more likely that you'll soon have one more ex-player to add to the statistics.



> Power choices are not overwhelming at all.




The range of options goes well beyond simply power choices. We now have themes, backgrounds, races, classes, powers, skills, feats, equipment... At each step we have dozens of options, each with their own little rules, prerequisites, exceptions and consequences. We have the complexities of a point-buy system for attributes, where again it is not at all clear that you should focus very heavily on one (or maybe two) stat(s) and where the choice of 'ideal' stat depends very much on other choices.

I've been playing for 20+ years, and _I_ find the range of options overwhelming. I have to come to it with a clear idea of the character I want to build before I start, or I have no chance. (And as for playing without the Character Builder, forget it. I simply will not do it.)

If the tool is limited to the PHB1 options only, then it absolutely is manageable. If you force the new player to accept that the Quick Character (without tweaking) is "good enough", then it is manageable. But to expect a new player to make head or tail of the full range of options allowed by that tool is absurd.

(And it's actually a _good_ thing that the game has a 'base' set of options, represented by the PHB1, and a 'full' set of options for use by more advanced players - it allows for easier entry and then more complexity as you go. But they probably should have an "easy mode" button front and centre on the Character Builder to get it to default to the PHB1 options only with one click.)


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 11, 2010)

delericho said:


> Suboptimal isn't a problem. _Badly_ suboptimal is.



Yup, and I disagree, that they are _badly_ supoptimal, they're just suboptimal 


delericho said:


> If you put a newbie in with a bunch of experienced players and he's hit for effectiveness by having less understanding of the rules _and_ by having a character who is significantly inferior to the rest, then that double whammy makes it much more likely that you'll soon have one more ex-player to add to the statistics.



Well, that clearly depends on the 'experience' that the 'experienced' players have with inexperienced players. Many of the experienced players I know will create a different kind of character for a game that includes inexperienced players than for a game that consists only of experienced players. Often, they will jump at the opportunity to play a whacky concept that they fully know is suboptimal!

Fortunately, I don't play with the kind of 'experienced' players that are incapable of playing in the same group as newbies because of a lack of patience and consideration. Generally, the 'experienced' players I know will try to help the newbies to get into the game, but without dictating how and what they should play.

Imho, new players should also always be allowed to reverse the choices they made during character creation if they find out during play that things don't work as they expected. No 'experienced' DM would force them to stick with bad choices they made because they didn't know better.


delericho said:


> If the tool is limited to the PHB1 options only, then it absolutely is manageable. If you force the new player to accept that the Quick Character (without tweaking) is "good enough", then it is manageable. But to expect a new player to make head or tail of the full range of options allowed by that tool is absurd.



Well, actually, I was thinking of the free version of the character builder. I wouldn't expect a newbie to go all the way and actually become a DDI subscriber without having even tried to play the game!

The free version has everything up to and including PHB2 and I don't think it's absurd to expect a new player to be able to switch a power or feat.

I mean, I know what happened when we playtested 4e: There were only three things that caused any confusion:
- Backgrounds (almost everyone forgot to pick the skill training / bonus)
- Shopping (several of them used 'add' instead of 'buy')
- Rituals

Now, granted, they were not new to roleplaying, they were just new to D&D 4e, but I think if you have ever seen anything remotely similar to an rpg you will be able to cope.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 11, 2010)

teach said:


> 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.




I have a couple of books on my bookshelf, and _damn_ are they complicated.  Dense prose, lookup tables all over everywhere, ad hoc die roll modifiers, modifiers for different weapons vs armour type.  You name it they got it.  Those books?  AD&D PHBs.



> 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.




Easier than the _Red Box Choose Your Own Adventure?_



> 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.




Which edition?  And where were your five types of save?  Your hide in shadows percentage chance?  Your spells?  (Which you needed to refer to the PHB for).  I could go on...



> 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?




Level 1 character sheet?  Bright person?  Two minutes of explaination?  Sure.



Jhaelen said:


> I disagree, at least regarding 4e: Using just the PHB it's no more complicated than creating a character in a typical computer rpg. I assume using Essentials, it's even easier. Using the Character Builder it's a piece of cake. You can even quick-build a pc with a single click and choosing race & class (and the result is actually a character that is playable!).
> 
> Even simple video games, like Diablo use a more complicated power system than 4e. Many board games have a more complicated ruleset than D&D these days.
> 
> Imho, only someone who's been living under a rock for the past two decades might have trouble with it.




Hell, _AD&D_ had a more complicated ruleset than 4e.  And when I started we didn't bother with red box or basic.  That said, my group refers to autobuild as random on the Character Builder.



Jhaelen said:


> I disagree. Of course they're not optimal, but please: Show me a newbie who cares! Imho, nobody but an optimizer will care.




Were you ever 12?  I remember all the munchkinry we got up to at that age.  Hell yes, we cared.



delericho said:


> Suboptimal isn't a problem. _Badly_ suboptimal is.
> 
> If you put a newbie in with a bunch of experienced players and he's hit for effectiveness by having less understanding of the rules _and_ by having a character who is significantly inferior to the rest, then that double whammy makes it much more likely that you'll soon have one more ex-player to add to the statistics.




Agreed.  And one major problem with 3e.  It's quite hard in 4e to make a badly suboptimal character accidently as long as you are aware that your primary stat should be high*.  In AD&D it took either an inept caster (1 spell/day, no armour, low hp, uncreative spell use) or someone optimising (e.g. by writing "Bladesinger" on their character sheet).  In 3e it took writing "Monk" on your character sheet.  (Or arguably Bard or Fighter and not going for a cheese build).

* Anyone who plays an Int 8 wizard deserves what they get IMO.  But Int 16 is fine.  (And it's entirely possible to make a viable Str 8 Warlord...)


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 11, 2010)

delericho said:


> Suboptimal isn't a problem. _Badly_ suboptimal is.




I think it would be very difficult to make a badly suboptimal character using the Character Generator.  

In fact, since you can use auto-pick, I think anyone who feels overwhelmed will just use that option.

But realistically, it's pretty easy for anyone to just click options that sound good, and come up with an OK character that is not badly suboptimal.  In fact, I find that new players that pick options that "experienced" players think are suboptimal, usually find new and creative ways to use those powers that make them much more powerful.


----------



## delericho (Oct 11, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Yup, and I disagree, that they are _badly_ supoptimal, they're just suboptimal




I've recently seen it build a Str-based Barbarian, only to max out his Cha instead, and build a character with loads of sword-focused feats, only to fail to equip him with a sword. I feel pretty comfortable labelling those badly suboptimal.



> Well, that clearly depends on the 'experience' that the 'experienced' players have with inexperienced players. Many of the experienced players I know will create a different kind of character for a game that includes inexperienced players than for a game that consists only of experienced players.




We have just started a new campaign with a mixed group. Given that we're expecting to play those characters long-term are you really suggesting that the experienced players should deliberately nerf their characters? (And potentially find themselves playing characters that they're really not happy with _for months_.)

That is what you are suggesting, after all.

(The way we dealt with this? The newbies explained the type of character they wanted, and the DM built it for them. But that, frankly, isn't a good solution - it's just the least-worst option available.)



> Imho, new players should also always be allowed to reverse the choices they made during character creation if they find out during play that things don't work as they expected. No 'experienced' DM would force them to stick with bad choices they made because they didn't know better.




Agreed. But if they don't have the experience, they have no basis on which to determine which were the poor choices, and what they should have done differently. And if they hate their _first session_ due to having a bad character, then they won't stick around to fix their bad choices... they'll just do something else instead.



> Well, actually, I was thinking of the free version of the character builder. I wouldn't expect a newbie to go all the way and actually become a DDI subscriber without having even tried to play the game!




What's most likely is that the newbie player will sit at the experienced player's PC and use his installation. Of course, that would be the fully-updated version, with all the options.



> I mean, I know what happened when we playtested 4e: There were only three things that caused any confusion:
> - Backgrounds (almost everyone forgot to pick the skill training / bonus)
> - Shopping (several of them used 'add' instead of 'buy')
> - Rituals
> ...




You've just said that your experienced group had trouble dealing with all the options. In that case, can you not see how it might be a problem for new players?


----------



## deinol (Oct 11, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> However, this is something I noticed while recently GMing a session: going from level 1 to level 30 is exciting the first few times.  It starts to lose its luster very quickly though.




Have you actually played a campaign from 1-30 more than once in the 3 years 4E has been out? I'm still running my 3.X game that began 4 years ago and just reached level 15. I understand our game is on the slow XP track, but we only level every 3 months or so.

My friends just finished their first 4E campaign at level 30, which has taken about 2 years to complete. I think they started at level 10 or so.

My advice: slow down. This isn't WoW where the goal is to get to the top as fast as possible. (At least, some people seem to treat it like that, "The game doesn't start until 60/70/80/whatever the cap is now.") Enjoy the game at every level. Take your time to enjoy each tier for what it is worth.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 11, 2010)

teach said:


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




D&D does a far better job at this than many games just by virtue of the second thing on the sheet usually being "Class", and those class names usually being fairly descriptive. Fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric. Well, ok, perhaps not cleric.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 12, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Using the Character Builder it's a piece of cake.



But that's just the point - the very fact that a character builder has a reason to exist at all is a large part of the problem!

Lanefan


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 12, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> But that's just the point - the very fact that a character builder has a reason to exist at all is a large part of the problem!



I'll have to question the logic on this.  Savage Worlds has software associated with making characters and campaigns on Metacreator, I don't think anyone can call that system overly complex and keep a straight face.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 12, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> But that's just the point - the very fact that a character builder has a reason to exist at all is a large part of the problem!




Character Builder certainly has a _reason _to exist but it doesn't _need _to exist, at least no more than it needed to exist with 3.5 (which it didn't, unfortunately). I would take it a step forward and say that one of the reasons why 4E is less complicated than 3.5 (IMHO) is because of Character Builder. If neither had CB I would guess that 3.5 would still seem more complicated.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 12, 2010)

As several people have already pointed out, many people play RPGs precisely _because_ of the complexity, not despite it. In fact, that's probably at least part of the appeal for the vast majority of players. The game gives them something to learn and master; trying different options and exploring ways (ways that are not immediately obvious) to better one's character gives the game an extra dimension of challenge that isn't really offered elsewhere.

Go to the game's primary acquisition market--13-year-old boys--and this becomes extra doubly true. Kids at that age are obsessed with rules. They don't want to know just what they _can_ do, they want to know _how they're supposed to do it_. In fact, in Basic Game focus groups (lo those many years ago) we saw over and over again that if kids couldn't find a rule they needed, their games simply stalled; the "you're the GM; make it up" or "it doesn't really matter, move on" thoughts were not on their radar screens.

In other words, the presence of additional rules facilitated play for these guys. Removing rules in favor of GM/player judgement was a game-killer.

One last point: Suppose you took the words "Dungeons & Dragons" and replaced them with "Magic: the Gathering." (Granted, the psychographics are not identical, but they're closely related.) Magic is a game that draws an audience =_precisely_= because it's complicated. But it's doing pretty darn good--gangbusters, lately--with the "kids these days."


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 12, 2010)

delericho said:


> I've recently seen it build a Str-based Barbarian, only to max out his Cha instead, and build a character with loads of sword-focused feats, only to fail to equip him with a sword. I feel pretty comfortable labelling those badly suboptimal.



Granted, I would definitely call that badly suboptimal, as well. I can't remember it did anything that stupid for me, though.


delericho said:


> We have just started a new campaign with a mixed group. Given that we're expecting to play those characters long-term are you really suggesting that the experienced players should deliberately nerf their characters? (And potentially find themselves playing characters that they're really not happy with _for months_.)
> 
> That is what you are suggesting, after all.



Not really. I'm suggesting that a game involving complete newbies is extremely unlikely to still have the same cast of characters after a couple of sessions. Are you honestly expecting you'll be playing all of those characters for years to come? My 3e campaign has been running for six years now - an absolute personal record for me - I don't think any campaign ever lasted longer than two years before. But even so, there's not a single character from the beginning left. Most have their third character but for one everyone lost count (including the player himself). It's probably been over a dozen.

Again, I cannot imagine a DM insisting a player had to continue playing the same character for all eternity. Now, that would be something I'd call absurd.


delericho said:


> (The way we dealt with this? The newbies explained the type of character they wanted, and the DM built it for them. But that, frankly, isn't a good solution - it's just the least-worst option available.)



I'd say that's a good way to deal with it, too. In 3e, several of my players just told me their character concept and I suggested some (prestige) classes that were close to the concept. This made sense, since in the beginning I was almost the only person who had all the books.


delericho said:


> And if they hate their _first session_ due to having a bad character, then they won't stick around to fix their bad choices... they'll just do something else instead.



Depends. For some that may certainly be true. Some may also do something else despite thinking it was fun. And some may not have fun despite having received thoroughly optimized characters.


delericho said:


> What's most likely is that the newbie player will sit at the experienced player's PC and use his installation. Of course, that would be the fully-updated version, with all the options.



Well, when we started, noone was a DDI subscriber, so that was not an option for us 


delericho said:


> You've just said that your experienced group had trouble dealing with all the options. In that case, can you not see how it might be a problem for new players?



Well, they didn't have any experience with 4e. Of course it might be worse for someone without any rpg experience at all.

When I started playing back in the days, I started with AD&D 1e. The DM told me in two sentences about the class choices and I picked the one that intrigued me the most (an illusionist!), I rolled a bunch of dice and someone assigned them to attributes for me and rolled for my starting spells and starting equipment.

Then, after the first session (in which I was killed by a fellow player, playing an assassin), I borrowed the PHB and tried to start reading the rules myself, which was quite a challenge considering I had only just started learning English at school...

For some inexplicable reason all of this caused me to become even more interested in playing rpgs; and I continued playing to this day.

I daresay, with 4e it's a lot easier to get into the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 12, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> As several people have already pointed out, many people play RPGs precisely _because_ of the complexity, not despite it. In fact, that's probably at least part of the appeal for the vast majority of players. The game gives them something to learn and master; trying different options and exploring ways (ways that are not immediately obvious) to better one's character gives the game an extra dimension of challenge that isn't really offered elsewhere.




Exactly.



> In fact, in Basic Game focus groups (lo those many years ago) we saw over and over again that if kids couldn't find a rule they needed, their games simply stalled; the "you're the GM; make it up" or "it doesn't really matter, move on" thoughts were not on their radar screens.




This goes to my other point.  That rules are for GMs, and your typical GM - especially a new GM - needs and wants alot of them.  It's burdensome to invent rules.  Many otherwise good GMs can't do it.  The real interface of the rules in the game for a group in a new game is this:

1) Player makes a proposition.
2) GM applies a rule, perhaps without even telling players what the rule is.
3) GM tells the player what the outcome of the proposition is.

The point of the rules is to make it easier for the GM to get through step #2, and sometimes that alot easier in a rules heavy system than it is in a rules light system.  In particular, a rules heavy system is almost essential to providing answers to proposition where the player wants to quantify something - not simply get yes/no, pass/fail.  How much can I lift?  How far can I run before I get tired?  How long does it take me to make a dugout canoe using stone tools?  How long does it take to tunnel through the wall?   If those questions aren't specifically addressed in the rules, then its a potential failure point in the game.   It's at that point that system finally starts to matter, because a system that consistantly gives poor answers (or no answers!) to questions like that in the hands of a new GM will frustrate everyone.  Now, of course, if the GM can handle all of that by fiat, then system still doesn't matter but the game only works in the hands of a narrower and narrower set of GMs with a rarer and rarer set of skills.  

The sort of person that becomes a GM is typically a rules freak.  Some players are rules freaks, and we call them power gamers, rules lawyers, and so forth.  And that's ok.  I think we are typically way to snobbish in our dismisal of players that love RPGs because they love exploring system mastery.   Those players can be a problem it's true, but so can any kind of player - casual gamers can be too casual, RPers can put character ahead of game, goofs can be goofy to the point of disfunctionality, tactical minded players can become domineering table sergants that want to play every other players character for them.   But the important point is that new players are't really ever turned on or off by the complexity of the system or really anything having to do with the system, because that's not how the new player plays the game.  I've played several systems that I never even learned the rules to.  I didn't need to know the rules.  I once played a couple sessions of D&D with a DM that didn't even let the players see their own character sheets.  You don't even need a character sheet to play an RPG!  The new player doesn't interface with a sytem; he interfaces with the GM.  How frustrating it is to interface with the GM, and how much reward he or she recieves for doing so is the real determining factor.

Their are several real problems with 4e as far as attracting new players goes, but its nothing to do with complexity.  Nor for that matter are any of the problems so great that its going to prevent 4e from attracting new players (because system doesn't matter!).  One problem I see with 4e from the standpoint of starting up new tables is that it is a player focused rules set when players per se aren't what a game system should try to be attracting.   A rules set should be aimed at GMs because its the number of GMs running your system that determines its success.  There are a surplus of players in the world and a shortage of GMs.   Any GM with decent skills can attract more players than he's capable of handling.   There are millions of lapsed players out there wishing they knew a decent GM.

Which is for example why WotC was always making a huge mistake trying to be the 'rules company' while outsourcing all the adventures to third parties because 'they didn't make money'.   Silly WotC, all the money is in the modules; the system doesn't matter.   The suits at WotC probably think the problem right now is the OGL because they are focused on 'system' as what makes an RPG successful.  The real problem is that they don't understand what grows a market for RPGs because they don't know who their customers are or how to make new ones.  they still don't know which is evidenced by the essentials and introductory lines that they are coming out with that offer nothing to GMs.  

Nothing in the past few years has told me 4e D&D is doomed quite like the number of players I've talked to locally who say things like, "I prefer the 4e system, but the campaign I'm enjoying most right now is a 3.X/Pathfinder game _because the DM is better_."


----------



## MortonStromgal (Oct 12, 2010)

When I was young I loved complicated games like Shadowrun, Rolemaster and GURPS, now than I'm old I find anything more complicated than Ubiquity or Storyteller way too complicated.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 12, 2010)

For a group of people never having played D&D, picking up the rules for thefirst time and trying to figure it out can be a daunting task, especially if there isn't at least one rules freak, as Celebrim put it above, in the group.  For new players joining a group with experienced players, it isn't as bad because the newbie can be brought along.

That said, I personally think that for players D&D should take a page from the computer game industry and include a Quick Start section.  They can explain the basics in just a few pages and get someone started without bogging them down in details.  I know I learn best by getting into it and using it, looking up rules as I need rather than reading books cover to cover and trying to retain it all.


----------



## delericho (Oct 12, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Stuff...




First up, I want to apologise for my tone yesterday. I got quite worked up about the subject when I should not have done. Sorry for any offense I caused.



> When I started playing back in the days, I started with AD&D 1e...
> 
> Then, after the first session (in which I was killed by a fellow player, playing an assassin), I borrowed the PHB and tried to start reading the rules myself, which was quite a challenge considering I had only just started learning English at school...
> 
> For some inexplicable reason all of this caused me to become even more interested in playing rpgs; and I continued playing to this day.




Certainly, having gone to the effort of getting to grips with the rules, I can see a strong reason for carrying on. Where I have concerns is the distance between "new to the game" and "playing your first 'real' character".

I do also think there's two gaps in the product line:

As I see it, the D&D Gamedays are drawing in a lot of people for a demo game, where they play once with pregen characters. But they may well not have a regular group to join. What I think is needed is a 'real' Basic Set to take the players who have played once with an experienced DM, and teach them the ropes so they can form a group out of their friends. (For various reasons, I feel that every starter set since the old Red Box, including the new Red Box, has fallen short in this regard.)

The second product I think should be there is an "Expert Set" expansion to the same, expanding it from a tiny sample of the game to something that can sustain play for at least a year (or even until the next 'partial edition' comes out?).



> I daresay, with 4e it's a lot easier to get into the game.




I definitely feel that 4e is an improvement over 3e in this regard, and Essentials appears to be a further improvement over the original 4e. I feel there's still a ways to go, though.


----------



## Skyscraper (Oct 12, 2010)

I think the character sheet should fit on a single-sided sheet, or really two-sided at most at higher levels. Having 4-5 sheets at low-level and 5-7 sheets at higher levels makes no sense to me.

The DDI monster builder allows a creature to be printed in a single box. Simplify the darn character sheet output and allow it to all be on a single-sided sheet! For example, there is no need to put passive abilities on the character sheet, nor is it useful to provide the details of how your defenses are calculated.

There should be a calculation sheet used to calculate your stats, and then an output sheet for use during the game. The DDI should provide both upon demand.

I know this isn't the entire answer to the OP's concern, but it would be so simple as a first step with the available software.

Sky


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 12, 2010)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> I'm suggesting that a game involving complete newbies is extremely unlikely to still have the same cast of characters after a couple of sessions. Are you honestly expecting you'll be playing all of those characters for years to come?




I know one game that had been running several years, and then a character ran out of raises (AD&D 2e, IIRC) and despite the cajoling of the DM, nobody wanted to continue if one player had a new character. That seems much more common to my experience than an endless churn of new characters. Whether it's "unlikely" or not depends a lot on the playing style of the players and DM. 



Celebrim said:


> Which is for example why WotC was always making a huge mistake trying to be the 'rules company' while outsourcing all the adventures to third parties because 'they didn't make money'.   Silly WotC, all the money is in the modules; the system doesn't matter.




It's easy to say that, but if WotC wasn't making money selling modules, then WotC wasn't making money selling modules, and getting others to try and make money on modules for WotC's game probably wasn't a bad idea. An argument against it would be that GMs are rejecting certain games because they didn't have enough adventures, and I think that requires more evidence than given.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 12, 2010)

Celebrim, you make some great points. In particular I think you make an  excellent point that the actual system has less to do with player  enjoyment as the quality of the DM. Personally speaking, I run a 4E game  and overall prefer 4E to 3.5 and Pathfinder, but I would _much _rather  play in a Pathfinder game run by an excellent GM than a 4E run by even  an OK DM. In other words, DM/GM matters (much, much) more than system.

That said, there are a few things I don't (entirely) agree with in your  post. I do think complexity matters, although it is probably not the  number one deterrent for attracting new players. There probably isn't a  number one factor but a combination of factors that make getting into  D&D a daunting task, which maybe deserves its own thread. But I do  think complexity is a factor and I think everyone in this thread that  says it is not is perhaps overly identified with their own perspective;  in other words, everyone reading this thread is a serious, experience  RPGer for whom complexity is not a deterrent. But what about that spouse  of a friend who might find their spouse's hundreds of rules book  overwhelming? Or, very simply, what about just _anyone _who might want to play D&D but doesn't want to read through 800+ pages just to get started?

Perhaps an even more important, and related, factor is the confusion  with where to begin. Essentials is an attempt to clear this up and may  be an improvement, but I think WotC could improve this more with the  next edition, or even a revised edition, by having a clearer "product  tree" that correlates with the order of publication. In other words, the  starter kit should be published first, then the core rulebooks, etc,  and it would be made clear that you start with the kit and then, and  only then, do you buy the core books.

Secondly, I don't think running a rules lite game means that one needs  to invent rules. DM Fiat isn't as much inventing rules as making  judgment calls. Guidelines are certainly useful, but it really comes  down to a kind of spontaneous,  imaginative thinking, and one that is  not dependent upon a rulebook. I work in a private high school which has  a handbook with rules and policies, but we have to make judgment calls  all the time that don't follow the written policies exactly and it  drives some people (usually administrators) crazy.

Finally, I will say again that it doesn't have to be either/or, either  you have a complex or a simple game. It can be both: A simple core,  primary game, with more complex secondary and tertiary layers. This is  why I advocate a two or three layered game, with at least Basic and  Advanced, but maybe also more wild optional variants like _Magic of Incarnum. _But  the key would be making all variants interchangeable and modular and  not require one to move beyond the Basic game if they are happy with it.  

I mean, in some ways this is how most people learn the game. You start  playing with what you understand and then as you encounter something  new, or look a rule up, you add that knowledge or rule to your game (or  not). This is how I've learned every edition of D&D, from 4E all the  way back to 1E and Basic. 

In the end, D&D is a toolbox game - you use what you want to use and  every DM is slightly different. Many DMs--especially with 4E and the  (unfortunate, imo) homogenizing effect of Character Builder play the  RAW, but even then there will be slight variances in judgment, minor  house rules, etc. Might as well implement this more clearly and  consciously from the beginning!


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 12, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> That said, there are a few things I don't (entirely) agree with in your  post...But what about that spouse  of a friend who might find their spouse's hundreds of rules book  overwhelming? Or, very simply, what about just _anyone _who might want to play D&D but doesn't want to read through 800+ pages just to get started?




I don't think you are really hearing me.

You don't get friends or spouses of friends to start playing by showing the stacks of rule books, and you don't need to read through 800+ pages of rules to get started with a game.  Frankly, I prefer to sit down to a new RPG without knowing any of the rules and without touching a rule book.  Reading the rules probably will get in the way of my enjoyment of the game.  

This is the way I play an RPG:

1) I make a proposition.
2) I interface with the rules under the guidance of the DM.
3) I recieve information back from the DM about the outcome of my proposition.
4) Go to step #1.

The important point about step #2 is that it might sometimes help that I know what I'm supposed to do to interface with the rules, but really it's enough to know that when the GM says, "Make a skill check/saving throw/whatever", I know to throw a particular dice.   And even that isn't necessary.  All that is really needed is the ability to take instruction from the GM about what dice to throw and modifiers to add.   If the game is good, a new player will probably have been playing for a dozen sessions or more before they even bother to get a grasp of the rules, because it won't be the rules that are engaging.



> Perhaps an even more important, and related, factor is the confusion  with where to begin. Essentials is an attempt to clear this up and may  be an improvement, but I think WotC could improve this more with the  next edition, or even a revised edition, by having a clearer "product  tree" that correlates with the order of publication. In other words, the  starter kit should be published first, then the core rulebooks, etc,  and it would be made clear that you start with the kit and then, and  only then, do you buy the core books.




All irrelevant.  You don't start playing an RPG by buying the books.  You start playing an RPG with a GM says, "Would you like to play?"  

And you don't even make new GMs by selling books.  You make new GMs by players going, "You know; I think I want to GM.", or in some cases by, "Well, our GM moved to Indiana/joined the military/got married.  Who wants to GM?"



> Secondly, I don't think running a rules lite game means that one needs  to invent rules. DM Fiat isn't as much inventing rules as making  judgment calls.




Same thing, though I've no desire to argue that point again. 



> I work in a private high school which has  a handbook with rules and policies, but we have to make judgment calls  all the time that don't follow the written policies exactly and it  drives some people (usually administrators) crazy.




See.  Exactly my point.  You are arguing here against what you just said.  You have a rules light system - a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references - and so when you actually have to use the rules, you find that you spend most of the time making up new rules that there after become 'common law rules' which determine how similar future situations will be resolved.   This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are never highly successful in the RPG market place.



> Finally, I will say again that it doesn't have to be either/or, either  you have a complex or a simple game. It can be both: A simple core,  primary game, with more complex secondary and tertiary layers. This is  why I advocate a two or three layered game, with at least Basic and  Advanced, but maybe also more wild optional variants like _Magic of Incarnum. _But  the key would be making all variants interchangeable and modular and  not require one to move beyond the Basic game if they are happy with it.




In this I agree.  And with this, I'll introduce a really contriversial position.  Really well designed RPG's aren't elegant.   Elegance is a trait to be scrutinized the way you'd look at potentailly lethal microbes under the microscope.  Really well designed RPG's have a vaiety of monolithic subsystems that you can ignore or add as you desire to make the game complicated or uncomplicated as you desire and in the areas you care about.   Elegance tends to produce tightly coupled RPG systems where every aspect of them effects every other system, so that you can't pull on one part of it without risking the whole thing falling apart.  This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.



> I mean, in some ways this is how most people learn the game. You start  playing with what you understand and then as you encounter something  new, or look a rule up, you add that knowledge or rule to your game (or  not). This is how I've learned every edition of D&D, from 4E all the  way back to 1E and Basic.




Ok, now we are beginning to get on the same wavelength.  Yes, this is how people learn the game.   In particular, this is how GMs learn the game and some of this sinks by osmosis into the rest of the players at the table.   In other words, once you resolve a problem in one way, the players remember that, "In a similar situation in the past you had me roll a D20, add my dex bonus, and I succeeded with a 16.  So that is  'the rule'."


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 12, 2010)

In my opinion, the complexity of the game has far less to do with attracting new players than the other sources of entertainment, especially as time constraints on having multiple people in "IRL" continue to get in the way of gaming.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 12, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> In this I agree.  And with this, I'll introduce a really contriversial position.  Really well designed RPG's aren't elegant.   Elegance is a trait to be scrutinized the way you'd look at potentailly lethal microbes under the microscope.  Really well designed RPG's have a vaiety of monolithic subsystems that you can ignore or add as you desire to make the game complicated or uncomplicated as you desire and in the areas you care about.   Elegance tends to produce tightly coupled RPG systems where every aspect of them effects every other system, so that you can't pull on one part of it without risking the whole thing falling apart.  This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.




This is seriously the most insightful thing I have read on this board in months. And this board has some very smart people posting very insightful things.

Modularity, not elegance. Brilliant.

(Edit: Just wondering, are you a software developer? Because it strikes me that there's a parallel with principles of good software design here. Well-written software has loosely coupled components with as few interdependencies as possible, so when some newly hired programmer ten years from now has to go in and change something, she can figure out what to do and do it without bringing the entire system to its knees.)


----------



## nedjer (Oct 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> See.  Exactly my point.  You are arguing here against what you just said.  You have a rules light system - a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references - and so when you actually have to use the rules, you find that you spend most of the time making up new rules that there after become 'common law rules' which determine how similar future situations will be resolved.   This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are never highly successful in the RPG market place.




Rules light sytems as anarchic, incoherent and commercially inert. That's about as supportable as a full stack of 4e hardbacks balanced on top of a rollerskating elephant - performing a tango.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Their are several real problems with 4e as far as attracting new players goes, but its nothing to do with complexity.  Nor for that matter are any of the problems so great that its going to prevent 4e from attracting new players (because system doesn't matter!).  One problem I see with 4e from the standpoint of starting up new tables is that it is a player focused rules set when players per se aren't what a game system should try to be attracting.




You make a good argument, Celebrim, but your central thesis seems quite flawed. D&D 3e is notable for how much preparation time was required, especially at the higher levels. Almost all of the complaints I've seen about 4E have been about the player side - the DM side has been more of "Oh, this is so much easier to run!"

The complaints from the player side have been of two nature: this is too simple (from the magic-users) and this is too complex (from the fighters). The latter point is addressed by Essentials. Honestly, I don't know if the system would be improved by making wizards and cleric more complex than they currently are. Some twiddling with rituals, certainly. The changes to wizard encounter powers will be very much welcomed.

However, I can certainly say from personal experience that there are players who are put off by the basic level of complexity of 4E characters. I'm going to be very interested to see how they react to Essentials - I should know in the sort-of-near future when (if?) Essentials makes it to Australia.



> And you don't even make new GMs by selling books.




This is wrong. It's so mind-staggeringly wrong, that I can't quite comprehend how wrong it is. Yes, Virginia, there are DMs who have begun their career by buying the books and running games from them. Not all of them, certainly, but a fair portion.


----------



## Camelot (Oct 13, 2010)

MerricB said:


> This is wrong. It's so mind-staggeringly wrong, that I can't quite comprehend how wrong it is. Yes, Virginia, there are DMs who have begun their career by buying the books and running games from them. Not all of them, certainly, but a fair portion.




Present.

As to the idea of a game made of independent systems, this sounds like a great idea in theory, and as was mentioned is good for a computer program, but it seems that in practice for a TTRPG, it wouldn't be as desireable (unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning).  The enemies of the characters have to be balanced in regards to the character; if the two systems disregard each other, one side will probably turn out much too powerful (and it would probably be the monsters).  If each class is too different, one will reign supreme over all the others.

If I'm wrong and you mean something along the lines of "characters have one mechanic for attacking, and monsters have another, but they're still balanced against each other," then this is still iffy.  Having unifying mechanics makes the game easier to grasp, and while some mechanics can differ (monsters have recharge powers, PCs don't), making them to independent just sows confusion.

Elegance isn't as desireable in a CRPG, because no players play the enemies, and they don't need to do all the die rolls and calculations, so if things are different, as long as they're balanced, nobody will really notice.  It's much more noticeable in a TTRPG, so elegance makes it easier as well as not too challenging or easy.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 13, 2010)

There are two ways into this hobby:

(1) Joining an existing group.

(2) Buying the game and forming an entirely new group.

IME, the complexity of the ruleset is _almost_ irrelevant when it comes to the first group. Any half competent GM should be able to serve as an interface between players and rules: "Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you how to do it." The learning curve can be whatever the player can handle (or wants to handle).

OTOH, making the game completely rely on recruitment and tutoring is not, IMO, necessary. And designing your game to work like that seems ultimately self-defeating.

Speaking as someone who got into the game by buying the books and starting an entirely new group, I think it's important for the game to be accessible to people like me.

And here's another thing: I've personally introduced more than two dozen people to roleplaying games. A lot of them have stuck around. If I hadn't been able to start playing, some or all of those people may have never gotten tutored.

I'm increasingly convinced that the D&D / AD&D pairing was inspired: A simple, complete ruleset accessible in an affordable package. And if you like the game and want more complexity, we have the option for that right over here. And it's even mostly compatible. (I think 100% compatibility would be even more desirable.)

With that being said, I think the idea most experienced players have a "rules-lite" or "simple" system is the wrong concept of "simple" that's needed in an introductory game.

(1) You need a system for quick, easy character creation. You want to give the new player the ability to have control over what type of character they want to play, without bogging them down in a mire of options that are essentially meaningless to them.

(Pregens are not a solution. Creating a character is part of the fun. Yes, this is a fine line to walk.)

(2) You want to strip down the rules so that they don't have a lot of daunting, fiddly bits and endless nuances for new players to get lost in. OTOH, the rules should be comprehensive: The new DM should have a clear answer to the question, "When the players say X, what should I do?"

(Yes, this is a balancing act, too.)

BECMI D&D basically accomplished this as far as dungeon-based adventures are concerned.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 13, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> I know one game that had been running several years, and then a character ran out of raises (AD&D 2e, IIRC) and despite the cajoling of the DM, nobody wanted to continue if one player had a new character. That seems much more common to my experience than an endless churn of new characters.



My long-term experience couldn't be more different if it tried.  Characters come and go, it's a fact of life.

I suspect most people's experience is somewhere between our two extremes.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> See. Exactly my point. You are arguing here against what you just said. You have a rules light system - a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references - and so when you actually have to use the rules, you find that you spend most of the time making up new rules that there after become 'common law rules' which determine how similar future situations will be resolved. This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are never highly successful in the RPG market place.



Not successful at market perhaps, but amazingly successful at the table.  If I as player and-or DM have in effect helped design the game I'm playing by making up these now-common-law rules and helping flesh out the rules-light framework then I'm by extension almost certainly going to buy into it far more deeply than if I'm playing something prepackaged with rules to the nines.

I mean, not everyone likes the 'Victoria Rules' 1e variant we play, but those who do are fiercely loyal to it - because it's ours.  We built it, out of the framework given us by 1e, and we'll play it till we die.


> And with this, I'll introduce a really contriversial position. Really well designed RPG's aren't elegant. Elegance is a trait to be scrutinized the way you'd look at potentailly lethal microbes under the microscope. Really well designed RPG's have a vaiety of monolithic subsystems that you can ignore or add as you desire to make the game complicated or uncomplicated as you desire and in the areas you care about. Elegance tends to produce tightly coupled RPG systems where every aspect of them effects every other system, so that you can't pull on one part of it without risking the whole thing falling apart. This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.



But here, you've hit the nail right on the head.

Individual parts of a system can be immensely elegant; and the more of these the better.  But make the whole system elegant and you've 99% certainly also made it much more constrained and non-tinkerable.

Lan-"Victoria rules right!"-efan


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 13, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Modularity, not elegance. Brilliant.



I would recommend an addendum to this statement, as modular systems can be elegant.  Savage Worlds, for example.  There are a variety of sub-systems to can add on if you want to, including numerous different ways to handle magic and powers, depending on your specific setting.  The system as a whole, however, is quite elegant and flows well.

I'd say rather than elegance as something to avoid, integrated game design would be something to avoid.  The idea of having multiple parts working in tandem can be problematic, and I agree.  This wound up being one of my main problems with 3.5 by the end, do something as simple as change a single feat during a revision (Power Attack) and the entire concept of melee changes.  I normally refer to his as integrated design.

Modularity, not integration.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 13, 2010)

Celebrim, Beginning of the End covered a lot of points I would have made but I'll reply to what you wrote.



Celebrim said:


> You don't get friends or spouses of friends to start playing by showing the stacks of rule books, and you don't need to read through 800+ pages of rules to get started with a game.  Frankly, I prefer to sit down to a new RPG without knowing any of the rules and without touching a rule book.  Reading the rules probably will get in the way of my enjoyment of the game.




Yes, that was you and that was (mainly) me, but as BotE pointed out, not only is there another way of entering the game--buying a book and learning how to play on one's own--but WotC can't rely on just word of mouth to grow the game. Why? _Because it hasn't worked._ Well, it has worked to some degree but it is largely out of the hands of WotC - all they can do is make the best product they can and try to attract new buyers.

So yes, some people _do _start playing an RPG by buying the books. Or maybe they _re-_start playing by buying a book, like the new Red Box. A lapsed AD&D player who hasn't played for twenty years is basically a new player and would have to re-learn the game. Don't you think WotC is trying to re-connect with this "lost generation" of players--mainly Gen-Xers--that hasn't played since they (we) Grew Up? Think of how many people played D&D in the early to mid 80s; there must be _millions _of 30-50 year olds who haven't played since junior high or high school; say, hypothetically, that there are 10 million people that played D&D in the 80s that haven't played since. It isn't about trying to get those 10 million back, but what about 1% of them? One in a hundred of that "lost generation" and you've got 100,000 new players.

The point being, if you are WotC you are looking at multiple markets; here is what comes to mind, off-hand:



Existing 4E players
Friends of existing 4E players
Existing players of other editions of D&D/Pathfinder
Existing players of other RPGs
Lapsed players who have played within the last decade (3.x era)
Lapsed players who haven't played in 10+ years
Lapsed players who haven't played in 20+ years
People who have never played D&D
That is probably not an exhaustive list but my point is that different markets require different marketing strategies, and that doesn't even take into account "sub-markets." For instance, existing players of other editions of D&D - the 3.5 crowd is different from the Old School crowd; or with regards to people who have never played, there are artsy types, nerdy types, theater types, etc. Which goes back to the OP and the perceived need to have an easier entry point, easier character generation, and a generally less "stat heavy" variant of the game, at least as an introduction.

It doesn't take away the fact that many--even most--people learn from experienced gamers. But there are other ways to enter the game, and and a wide variety of people (and markets to be targeted) that might enjoy playing.



Celebrim said:


> See.  Exactly my point.  You are arguing here against what you just said.  You have a rules light system - a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references - and so when you actually have to use the rules, you find that you spend most of the time making up new rules that there after become 'common law rules' which determine how similar future situations will be resolved.   This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are never highly successful in the RPG market place.




Rules lite games are _not, _in my experience and opinion, about "making up new rules" as they are applying judgment and imagination. The same goes for my experience at my job; it isn't about making up a rule on the fly as much as it is using my judgment within a given situation and taking into account context and the specifics of the situation. Certainly I have experienced many situations where not having a clear rule has made things a bit fuzzy, but on the other hand if one has a rule for every possible situation it ends up being overly complicated and divorced from reality. In other words, it becomes a massive abstract bureaucracy that misses the people that it is meant to serve.

But when I am talking about a simpler version of D&D I am not talking about an "ultra-lite" game like FATE or ORE. I am talking about something more light-to-medium, and in contrast with the "rules heavy" 3.5 and the "rules medium-to-heavy" 4E. 

Furthermore, and more to a point, a well designed light-to-medium game can cover most situations quite adequately. For example, let's say that this so-called Basic 4E did away with skills and replaced them with Ability checks. If you are trying to walk across a tightrope you very simply use your DEX mod + half level and that's that. Maybe each class gets a bonus to different ability checks, so for example a Rogue might get a bonus to DEX checks and a wizard a bonus to INT checks. Etc. The point being, you do away with the added complication (or module) of specific skills, but a character can still do anything they want, it just falls under the purview of ability scores.



Celebrim said:


> In this I agree.  And with this, I'll introduce a really contriversial position.  Really well designed RPG's aren't elegant.   Elegance is a trait to be scrutinized the way you'd look at potentailly lethal microbes under the microscope.  Really well designed RPG's have a vaiety of monolithic subsystems that you can ignore or add as you desire to make the game complicated or uncomplicated as you desire and in the areas you care about.   Elegance tends to produce tightly coupled RPG systems where every aspect of them effects every other system, so that you can't pull on one part of it without risking the whole thing falling apart.  This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.




Yes, exactly. This is why I've been emphasizing modularity, over and over again, and why I'd like to see at least a differentiation between a stripped-down Basic game and an Advanced set of modular rules. Everyone plays the Basic game but what modules each DM uses may vary. 

(I really should just sit down and work out a Basic 4E; I don't even know how it would look and have only thought about it in relation to these discussions, never actually tried to formulate it; hmm....)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

Just reading the thread and spotted this one.



Johnny3D3D said:


> I don't feel 4E is complex at all.  Why I feel it sometimes doesn't have the 'old school feel' is that (in my opinion) it doesn't maintain the sense of wonder and adventure that a rpg should have.
> 
> I understand the reasons why many of the changes were made.  I understand what WoTC was trying to do.  To some extent, I also believe it did work.
> 
> However, this is something I noticed while recently GMing a session: going from level 1 to level 30 is exciting the first few times.  It starts to lose its luster very quickly though.  /snip.




Umm, let's look at the math a bit here.  An encounter in 4e takes about an hour.  It takes 10 encounters to make a level.  Let's shorten that a bit, because of things like bonus xp, traps, whatnot that might make that easier.  You're talking about 200 hours of game play to go from level 1 to 30.  Multiply that by "the first few times" and you're looking at about 500-750 hours of game play.

And you're surprised that the game is losing a bit of luster?  The game's only been out less than three years and you've put in that many hours of play?  It's not the system that's losing the luster, it's the fact that you've played the ever living hell out of it.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

On the idea of integrated rules:

Is modularity something you want to give to a new DM?  Is it fair to presume that a new DM will be able to pick and choose?  How?  How can someone who is new to RPG's have the criteria for knowing what will work at the table and what won't?

Doesn't modularity result in lots and lots of failed sessions, if not failed games, as DM's fumble their way through reinventing the wheel time and time again, table to table?

Why not start from the presumption that DM =/= amateur game designer and build a ruleset that works most of the time?  Sure, it might not be a great system for bending towards other things, but, is that what you want from a system?  Why not presume that people who play Game X are going to play in a certain style and then provide Game Y for those who might want something different?

This is precisely what 3e D&D did.  You have a very integrated system in 3e (note the plethora of threads decrying various people's inability to adapt the system to whatever variants they want), with a bajillion side games, mostly from 3pp based on whatever new avenue people want to explore.

I honestly think that the era of the "tinker's game" is over.  I know that people don't want to think that, but, IMO, what we're going to see is more and more integrated systems.  The tighter the system is tied to a specific genre or theme, the more integrated the system will be.

Savage Worlds is a generic system, so, while it's fairly integrated, it's not very tightly wound.  Not until you add in a campaign book, and then the system becomes very tightly integrated - trying to pull out elements of the specific campaign books is not an easy task.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just reading the thread and spotted this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





An understandable position until I consider that my gaming habits haven't changed.  If anything, I probably play less 4E than the other games I currently play and the pre-4E games I played.  

Honestly, what you mention is something I had considered too.  I took a break from D&D for a little while before being asked to run the game I am running now.  I do think there is some merit to the point though, and you are actually touching upon one of my qualms with 4E - It's a great experience... at first.

I find that, when I'm on the players side of the table and join a game, I'm really into it for the first few sessions.  Then, for some reason, I am suddenly hit by the feeling that I'm just going through the motions to make the group happy; so they have enough people to play.  I don't know what it is or exactly how to even describe it, but I... I don't know... I wish I could explain it, but I am unsure how to.

I really wish I could explain it better because without being able to put it into better words, what I am saying probably comes across as some sort of unfounded 'h4tEr' bias.  There are very many things about the game that I look at and like.  I love the new cosmology; I like the lessened power curve between levels; I like the 'drag and drop' nature of how GMing works. Though, for some reason; after the first few bites, I find my appetite has gone the way of the dodo. 

I find myself in an odd position because I can't go back to 3E either.  There are things which I feel 4E got right; and experiencing those things has made me unable to sit down and play 3E again.  I tried, and I couldn't do it.  Though, in spite of the things I feel 4E does right, it doesn't feel right when I sit at the table with it.  Something about it just doesn't deliver what I want out of an rpg experience.  Great game; very well designed game, but somehow (for some reason) it doesn't give me what I want from an rpg.  Somehow 4E has managed to present options I like without being a game I enjoy.

From the GM side of the table, things are ok as long as I don't try to get too ambitious with the crunchy aspects of world building.  I like running a 4E game.  Though, I have noticed something odd during the past few sessions that I never gave much thought before. 

 That is that I feel as though it is possible to GM 4E without knowing how to play 4E.  I do know how to play -especially after 'playing the ever living hell out of it'- but I was sitting there watching the players take their turns and it hit me that I need to know virtually nothing about how things function from the player side of things to run the game.  This is a good thing in some ways; it makes GMing less of a daunting task.  Conversely,  at times I find myself feeling more detached from the rest of the group than I would like to.  Still, I do find that I generally enjoy GMing 4E far more than being a player.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 13, 2010)

delericho said:


> I do also think there's two gaps in the product line:
> 
> As I see it, the D&D Gamedays are drawing in a lot of people for a demo game, where they play once with pregen characters. But they may well not have a regular group to join. What I think is needed is a 'real' Basic Set to take the players who have played once with an experienced DM, and teach them the ropes so they can form a group out of their friends. (For various reasons, I feel that every starter set since the old Red Box, including the new Red Box, has fallen short in this regard.)
> 
> The second product I think should be there is an "Expert Set" expansion to the same, expanding it from a tiny sample of the game to something that can sustain play for at least a year (or even until the next 'partial edition' comes out?).



I don't know how well the 4e Red Box works as an introduction point to the game, but I agree that the old Red Box did it very well. Continuing to expand the game with the Expert Set, Master Set, etc. was also a clever thing to do.

I would have liked the Essentials line to take the same approach, i.e. have one product per tier. Since paragon and epic gameplay are supposed to be a different play experience it would have made sense to 'partition' the game like this.

Then again, I realize that someone interested in the game may want to get the 'whole picture' without having to buy four different boxed sets. E.g. I remember being somewhat disappointed after buying MERPS to find it ended at level 10, and I was apparently expected to switch to Rolemaster if I wanted to continue playing after that.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> I don't know how well the 4e  Red Box works as an introduction point to the game, but I agree that the old Red Box did it very well. Continuing to expand the game with the Expert Set, Master Set, etc. was also a clever thing to do.




The danger with that though is that you further split your consumer base.  While AD&D and B/E D&D were compatable, I know from anecdote at least, that lots of people refused to "cross the streams", as it were.  They'd buy whichever supplement fit their system and ignored everything for the other system.

I have no idea how much cross pollination was going on, but, that's certainly a concern with creating a "full" game split off from the core game.  I could also see it diluting the brand as well.  One setting is for X D&D, and the other setting is for Y D&D.  Is it all D&D?  Maybe.  In the eyes of the consumer though?  Probably not.  

Not saying you're wrong.  Just putting out a possible reason why this might not have flown.



			
				Johnny3D3D said:
			
		

> I find myself in an odd position because I can't go back to 3E either. There are things which I feel 4E got right; and experiencing those things has made me unable to sit down and play 3E again. I tried, and I couldn't do it. Though, in spite of the things I feel 4E  does right, it doesn't feel right when I sit at the table with it. Something about it just doesn't deliver what I want out of an rpg experience. Great game; very well designed game, but somehow (for some reason) it doesn't give me what I want from an rpg. Somehow 4E has managed to present options I like without being a game I enjoy.




Now this?  This I totally understand.  I've just spent the last year hopping between a bunch of different systems.  Five or so different systems, three different DM's, plus myself, just to shake off the cobwebs.  Like you, I'd played the crap out of 3e.  Weekly, sometimes twice weekly games for the better part of ten years, plus all the time I spend here and elsewhere.  

I was REALLY burned out of D&D by the end of that.  So, I managed to convince my wonderful group to try out a bunch of weird, indie games.  Played a bunch and read a whole bunch more.  

That kinda got me back in the mood for D&D.  I find myself jonesing for D&D again, so, that's what we're currently playing.  

My advice, take a long break.  Don't play any D&D for a while and stretch out the legs for a while.  It sounds to me like you're in a rut and just need some freshness.  Despite all the hullabaloo, I really don't find 4e all that much different from 3e at the end of the day.  They play pretty close to the same at the table for the most part.  ((Yeah, yeah, i can hear you pounding your keyboard from here, please stop.  I'm just sharing an opinion with this guy, you don't have to correct me)).  

Step away from the D&D cycle of gaming and get into something really different for a while.  It might help.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 13, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> My long-term experience couldn't be more different if it tried.  Characters come and go, it's a fact of life.
> 
> I suspect most people's experience is somewhere between our two extremes.
> Not successful at market perhaps, but amazingly successful at the table.  If I as player and-or DM have in effect helped design the game I'm playing by making up these now-common-law rules and helping flesh out the rules-light framework then I'm by extension almost certainly going to buy into it far more deeply than if I'm playing something prepackaged with rules to the nines.
> ...




D&D, and especially 1e AD&D, is rules light only in a very particular (though I grant you important) sense.   And that is that D&D can be usefully stripped down to a few very basic very simple to use mechanics.   And in that since, it meets my definition of a 'well designed game' in that its very modular with a simple core system.  

But in the sense that I'm talking about here, AD&D 1e is fundamentally one of the least rules light system ever, because its is definately prepackaged with rules to nines especially if you start considering the full breadth of the supplementary materials.  Want  to know how much metamorphic rock you can tunnel away in a weeks time use goblin slave labor?  It's out there.  Want to know how fast you can travel between two cities using a 90' schooner with a 20 man crew?  It's out there.  Want to know the amount you can safely devalue your currency by - literally making money by minting coins - if you have an 100 year old established kingdom with good credit?  It's out there.  Want to know how much income you earn from running an inn on an established trade route, or maybe if you run a theives guild in a capital city, or do you want to know the nesting habits of stirges?  It's all out there.

Everyone's version of AD&D is their own, but because the fundamental systems are so similar everyone has the ability to borrow from that vast rules library for whatever propositions that they encounter in the game.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Is modularity something you want to give to a new DM?  Is it fair to presume that a new DM will be able to pick and choose?  How?  How can someone who is new to RPG's have the criteria for knowing what will work at the table and what won't?




Just because my computer has the ability to swap out graphics cards doesn't mean that everybody needs to be handed a box full of random parts and be forced to assemble their computer from scratch. You can put together an accessible computer without welding the case shut.

Although, personally, I think this whole "modular" vs. "integrated" thing is kind of bunk. You change Power Attack and that has an impact on melee combat for characters that have Power Attack? Well, duh.

There's this rather comical belief that you can (a) change the rules of the game without (b) having an effect on how the game plays. This is, frankly, impossible.

"But I can do it with AD&D!"

No. You can't. AD&D may be enough of a glorious mess that you don't really care about the add-on impact of your changes, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Get rid of magical healing? Whole game changes. Change magic to a spell point system? Class balance radically alters. House rule _stoneskin_ so that a handful of pebbles discharges the spell? Your game is playing significantly differently from the guy using _stoneskin_ as a win button against meteor strikes. Stop rewarding XP for treasure and start rewarding it for combat? Significant impact on how people approach the dungeon.

And so forth.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Want  to know how much metamorphic rock you can tunnel away in a weeks time use goblin slave labor?  It's out there.  Want to know how fast you can travel between two cities using a 90' schooner with a 20 man crew?  It's out there.  Want to know the amount you can safely devalue your currency by - literally making money by minting coins - if you have an 100 year old established kingdom with good credit?  It's out there.  Want to know how much income you earn from running an inn on an established trade route, or maybe if you run a theives guild in a capital city, or do you want to know the nesting habits of stirges?  It's all out there.




but that's where the simulationist approach maybe falls down/ loses all simulation? How much you can devalue your currency or how far you can go on a schooner has to be worked out on the fly to become consistent. There are any number of modifiers to apply to such situations and a quick agreement about the main ones on the spot seems more likely to make a good fit than a generalisation, which probably doesn't match your campaign or plot/s.

While we're on it - though Stirges nest, 1e forgot to mention that Tiger Stirges don't nest; they drool aneasthetic on the necks of the sleeping, then lodge themselves at the top of the spine where they claw into, melt away and replace the upper vertebrae. They then penetrate the host's brain before laying their eggs into the spinal column and feeding themselves and their eggs from the host's brain.


----------



## Windjammer (Oct 13, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> I wrote "three years of backstock" because the PHB came out two and a half years ago and they still have have copies of early print runs. Not the first, evidently, but--from what I've heard on this site--they have enough copies in inventory to dissuade them from publishing a revised version of the PHB.




errr... they ARE doing a revised version of PHB 1, in softcover format:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons-Dragons-Accessory/dp/0786958588/]Amazon.com: Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell: A 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons Accessory (4th Edition D&D) (9780786958580): Wizards RPG Team: Books[/ame]


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 13, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> errr... they ARE doing a revised version of PHB 1, in softcover format:
> 
> Amazon.com: Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell: A 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons Accessory (4th Edition D&D) (9780786958580): Wizards RPG Team: Books




I do not view that book as a "revised version of PHB 1".  It has some stuff that was also in the PHB1, but that doesn't make it a revised version of it.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Just because my computer has the ability to swap out graphics cards doesn't mean that everybody needs to be handed a box full of random parts and be forced to assemble their computer from scratch. You can put together an accessible computer without welding the case shut.
> /snip




The problem with analogies, is how much are the two things really analogous?

A computer with a graphics card runs just fine.  I could weld the case shut and it will work perfectly fine.  Heck, I call that a laptop.  

Will it continue to work perfectly fine ten years from now?  Probably not.  The new games likely won't work on it.  

But, OTOH, if I go completely modular, buy parts from a bunch of different companies, there are all sorts of compatibility issues.  Who knows if I can get updated drivers on that no-name sound card?  

It's the difference between a Dell and a build it yourself.  

In the same way, building a modular gaming system, where every module is largely discrete from every other module, to the most possible anyway, which certainly allows people to individualize a lot more easily, also runs smack into the same compatability issues that home built computers can run into.  

AD&D and OD&D were not written with a complete newbie in mind.  They were written with gamers in mind.  These were the games that Gygax and co enjoyed and they put them out there thinking that other like minded people might too.  To their surprise, the concept took off like a rocket and all sorts of gamers got into the mix.

I'm not really convinced that the "Tinker Gamer" represents the majority of gamers anymore, or if it ever really did.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I honestly think that the era of the "tinker's game" is over.  I know that people don't want to think that, but, IMO, what we're going to see is more and more integrated systems.  The tighter the system is tied to a specific genre or theme, the more integrated the system will be.




I think the era of the non-tinker's game is over. There are too many forms of entertainment that are more accessible than RPGs to compete for the mass market nerd dollar. I think a mass market D&D has about the same future as a mass market catapult.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just reading the thread and spotted this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've put in more hours of play in my own game over that timespan (never mind the same-system game I play in rather than DM) and it hasn't lost any luster.  Stick another '0' on the end of your hours-played estimates above and then we can start realistically talking about when the shine wears off. 


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But in the sense that I'm talking about here, AD&D 1e is fundamentally one of the least rules light system ever, because its is definately prepackaged with rules to nines especially if you start considering the full breadth of the supplementary materials. Want to know how much metamorphic rock you can tunnel away in a weeks time use goblin slave labor? It's out there. Want to know how fast you can travel between two cities using a 90' schooner with a 20 man crew? It's out there. Want to know the amount you can safely devalue your currency by - literally making money by minting coins - if you have an 100 year old established kingdom with good credit? It's out there. Want to know how much income you earn from running an inn on an established trade route, or maybe if you run a theives guild in a capital city, or do you want to know the nesting habits of stirges? It's all out there.



One of the main skills in running a good 1e game is knowing what rules *not* to use.  Like all of these. 


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think the era of the non-tinker's game is over. There are too many forms of entertainment that are more accessible than RPGs to compete for the mass market nerd dollar. I think a mass market D&D has about the same future as a mass market catapult.



I suspect the publishers would very much like it if all the tinkers stopped plying their trade and left design-level stuff to the paid professionals.  However, we charter members of the tinkerers union aren't about to do any such thing.  That said, we're easy enough to please - all we ask for is two things: a) a playable framework, and b) get out of the way.

Lanefan


----------



## LostSoul (Oct 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Really well designed RPG's aren't elegant.




I don't think so.



Celebrim said:


> Really well designed RPG's have a vaiety of monolithic subsystems that you can ignore or add as you desire to make the game complicated or uncomplicated as you desire and in the areas you care about.




In that case, what you have is a toy in book form.  You have to provide the game yourself.  It's like buying a "make your own RPG" kit.  It's the difference between being given a ball and a couple nets and playing soccer.



Celebrim said:


> Elegance tends to produce tightly coupled RPG systems where every aspect of them effects every other system, so that you can't pull on one part of it without risking the whole thing falling apart.  This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.




Yep, that's what makes it a game.  Well designed RPGs put together different subsystems to provide the experience that the game is about.  They focus on some areas, ignore others, provide spaces where interpretations and judgement calls must be made, detail explicit rules that must be followed in other places, all to provide a specific experience.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Oct 14, 2010)

I explained the basics of Dnd 4e to my girlfriend in about 15 minutes. The rules are relatively streamlined and intuitive so they are easy to remember.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 14, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Indeed.  I pick the game system that best represents the feel of the genre, environment, and setting for the game I want to run.

It's only when I don't find a very good match to my taste that I turn to my toolbox of generic games and make something that matches what I'm looking for.

Elegance and reasonable integration of conceits into the ruleset is a selling feature for me.  It increases the disrablility of a game for its chosen niche by making genre actions appropriate game choices.

Modularity is only really most important for the toolbox systems like Hero or Mutants and Masterminds.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 14, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> One of the main skills in running a good 1e game is knowing what rules *not* to use.




That is true only in as much as not everything that was or is written is well considered.  Some of it doesn't produce the result it was intended to produce because it wasn't play tested.

However, in my experience as a DM I would say that to the extent that we call these things 'rules' then you really don't have a full choice whether you use them or not.  These things come into the game because of player propositions.  Once the player proposition has been made, you have three choices - say 'no', use someone else's rule, or make up your own. 

Now, it may be that you are a great rulesmith and you don't need anyone elses stinkin' rules.  I can relate.  But frankly no one is so good that they can't benefit from someone else's ideas and research.  If some player proposes that they want to start building their own warships, or that want to prospect for minerals, or found their own religious order, or whatever, you need to provide answers and depth.  That sort of depth can only come from research and usually quantitative research.   Someone else's research is usually at the least a good starting point.


----------



## teach (Oct 14, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> I explained the basics of Dnd 4e to my girlfriend in about 15 minutes. The rules are relatively streamlined and intuitive so they are easy to remember.




I absolutely agree that the basics of DnD 4E are very easy to explain.  I think the basics of Pathfinder is the same.   My concern is over the character creation systems in both of them, and the amount of information that is necessary on the default character sheet.  That's where I get bogged down in explaining the game to new players.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2010)

teach said:


> That's where I get bogged down in explaining the game to new players.



Rules aside, do you think campaign settings should be simple(r) as well? If complex mechanics offer a barrier to entry, why not complex fictional environments?


----------



## Camelot (Oct 14, 2010)

teach said:


> I absolutely agree that the basics of DnD 4E are very easy to explain. I think the basics of Pathfinder is the same. My concern is over the character creation systems in both of them, and the amount of information that is necessary on the default character sheet. That's where I get bogged down in explaining the game to new players.




My players have trouble with character creation too.  If I guide them along through it, it's usually no problem; once they start playing they get the hang of it really quick.  But I'm going to write up a guide for new players on how to create your own character.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 14, 2010)

The more I deal with new players, the more I think that new players can handle any amount of reasonable complexity in character design. They don't need six stats and a couple of checkboxes, they need clear instructions from the rest of the group, and support from that group. 

The group that throws a 400-page rule book at the new guy who's never even played a computer game before, yeah, they'll probably lose him. That didn't happen to me back in the day and it shouldn't happen to any modern new player. The rulebook or set or edition or whatever shouldn't matter very much -- the group is actually what teaches you to play the game, not reading the rulesbook.

Right now, I'm dealing with two groups - both have people who have played less than six months in any tabletop RPG at all. Coincidentally, the games they've been exposed to include both Pathfinder and 4E. Both of them have played 4E and loved it. They apparently find the proliferation of powers and abilities no more challenging than the one woman's nine-year-olds do, which is to say not at all. Pathfinder is equally easy for them, though I will say that neither are playing spellcasters. They have a sheet that enumerates their skills and abilities, and they have no problems with 'roll a die and add this number from my sheet'.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 14, 2010)

teach said:


> I absolutely agree that the basics of DnD 4E are very easy to explain.  I think the basics of Pathfinder is the same.   My concern is over the character creation systems in both of them, and the amount of information that is necessary on the default character sheet.  That's where I get bogged down in explaining the game to new players.




I agree as well; while the overall principles are easy ("roll d20 + modifiers, you want a high number"), character creation complexity is where games usually get players in terms of complexity(/decision paralysis).  6-8 players with one DM/GM who knows the rules makes for a difficult time at character creation.  Especially if you using more than core rules for some reason.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 14, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> I agree as well; while the overall principles are easy ("roll d20 + modifiers, you want a high number"), character creation complexity is where games usually get players in terms of complexity(/decision paralysis).  6-8 players with one DM/GM who knows the rules makes for a difficult time at character creation.  Especially if you using more than core rules for some reason.




Character creation with new players in a complex long running game is usually at least a 2 week process of conversations and email exchanges.   As such, a complex rule set may be entirely unsuited to a pickup game.  Of course, a system like HERO, GURPS, M&M or even 3e D&D - whatever their positive merits - maybe completely unsuited to a pickup game even with experienced players, as character creation might well take 3-4 hours even then.  

Character creation takes alot of planning, and probably should not be put off to the kick off game night.

The only real solution to this is to use pregenerated characters, but this may not be fully satisfying to everyone as one of the joys of a game is playing the character you want to play.

For this reason, 'rules light' games may be better choices if you want to do a spontaneous short session.   Even a game as complex as oD&D or BECMI may not be simple enough to allow for a quick pickup game with new players.  Character creation may still take 3-4 hours by the time the DM gets to everyone's character and guides everyone through the process.  This is a recipe for alot of boredom.

In short, if a new players introduction to a game is through a 'character making session', then, yes, I do agree that this can be daunting, confusing, and sufficiently unfun as to turn off a new player.   Stacks of books, confusing jargon, and a vast array of choices is not the way to go about winning a person over to the hobby.  It's far better to get the player's ideas about what they want to play: 'a vampire hunter', 'a dinosaur rider', 'a magician that blows things up', etc. and guide them to what they need from the rules to achieve their goals rather than hand them a stack of books.  That process is going to take alot of time, most of it just talking, and its far better IME to spend that time conceptually than in complex rules discussions.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 14, 2010)

Double-post.  Shoot me.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Character creation with new players in a complex long running game is usually at least a 2 week process of conversations and email exchanges.   As such, a complex rule set may be entirely unsuited to a pickup game.  Of course, a system like HERO, GURPS, M&M or even 3e D&D - whatever their positive merits - maybe completely unsuited to a pickup game even with experienced players, as character creation might well take 3-4 hours even then.




2 weeks?  If I can't get a new player into the game (or having existing, knowledgable players) have their characters made for a game in 2-3 hours, I'm going to give up on playing with those games.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 15, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Double-post.  Shoot me.




Very well. Bang! You're dead. 

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Oct 15, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I've put in more hours of play in my own game over that timespan (never mind the same-system game I play in rather than DM) and it hasn't lost any luster.  Stick another '0' on the end of your hours-played estimates above and then we can start realistically talking about when the shine wears off.




Yah, but yer weird.    

[/quote]
One of the main skills in running a good 1e game is knowing what rules *not* to use.  Like all of these. 
I suspect the publishers would very much like it if all the tinkers stopped plying their trade and left design-level stuff to the paid professionals.  However, we charter members of the tinkerers union aren't about to do any such thing.  That said, we're easy enough to please - all we ask for is two things: a) a playable framework, and b) get out of the way.

Lanefan[/QUOTE]

True, but, you've had things your way for almost thirty years.  If you want tinker games, there's a bajillion of them out there for you.  Why complain when the ball FINALLY comes over to our side of the court?  

The problem with the "playable framework" is that it results in games that, for non-tinkers, become nothing but headaches.  I don't want a toy, I want a game.  I have zero interest in reworking rules.  I really don't.  Not anymore.  There are too many games out there to bother trying to rebuild one to do something that another game does better in the first place.

So, let us have this one.  Let the non-tinkers have at least one version of D&D that we can play and not have to worry about playing amateur game designer.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Character creation with new players in a complex long running game is usually at least a 2 week process of conversations and email exchanges. As such, a complex rule set may be entirely unsuited to a pickup game. Of course, a system like HERO, GURPS, M&M or even 3e D&D - whatever their positive merits - maybe completely unsuited to a pickup game even with experienced players, as character creation might well take 3-4 hours even then.




Yes, you can take that long to make a character in those systems.  But, it certainly doesn't have to.  It only takes that long in 3e D&D if you start allowing a bunch of material beyond core.  Stick to core and a character is built in 30 minutes or so.

And, I would say that character creation taking "at least two weeks" is possibly idiosyncratic to your particular table.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 15, 2010)

Just a few bits and pieces in response to the thread in general: 

I don't think it has ever taken me 2 weeks to create a GURPS character; even when I was first starting out with the system.  It is possible that it might take this long if you're getting deep into the nuts and bolts of some of the optional rules, but, in general, it shouldn't take anywhere close to that long.  

I would totally still buy a catapult if I were able to go to the local store and pick one up.  

I think maybe I do need a break from D&D, but I feel like I just came back from a break.  I was excited for Essentials, but I saw them at the store today and felt no desire to pick anything up.  I heard Low Tech was available on e23 and was totally pumped.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yah, but yer weird.



Maybe.  But - quite seriously - maybe not.

You are one who seems to enjoy jumping from system to system, trying them out and seeing what they can do.  And if that's what floats yer boat, more power to you.

But I suspect you may be very much in the minority - not among the hardcore nutballers here on ENWorld, but among the greater gaming community.  It strikes me that most people might jump systems a bit to start with until they find one they like, and then stick with that preferred system for a very long time - perhaps tinkering with it as they go in order to make it fit their desires better and-or to incorporate a good idea developed since.  

For my part, I'm just too lazy to be learning new systems all the time; I'd rather put my effort into the adventures I dream up and the characters I steer to glory...or quick and painful death.  And if I see something wrong with my game system, I know for a fact it's gonna be less work for all involved if I just fix the current system rather than chuck it and start over with something new.



> lanefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because there's going to be people out there - probably quite a few of them - for whom a given non-tinkerable system might be just the answer, except for a few niggling things (either by personal preference or faulty system design) that need to be...you guessed it...tinkered with to make 'em right.  I maintain that if the system is truly non-tinkerable it's going to lose many DMs and players who otherwise might have become long-term supporters of it.



> Yes, you can take that long to make a character in those systems.  But, it certainly doesn't have to.  It only takes that long in 3e D&D if you start allowing a bunch of material beyond core.  Stick to core and a character is built in 30 minutes or so.
> 
> And, I would say that character creation taking "at least two weeks" is possibly idiosyncratic to your particular table.



Depends what level you're talking.  1st level in any system is - or should be - pretty much dirt easy; just follow the instructions in the PH.  15th level, not so much. 

Lanefan


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 15, 2010)

WayneLigon said:


> The group that throws a 400-page rule book at the new guy who's never even played a computer game before, yeah, they'll probably lose him. That didn't happen to me back in the day




Didn't happen to me, either. Thank God the BECMI Basic Set existed. I probably wouldn't be playing RPGs today if we'd had the Starter Set back in the '80s.

(This is not particularly hypothetical: I bounced off a pay-to-preview introductory set to _DC Heroes_ and a couple of multi-hundred page RPG rulebooks before finding the BECMI Basic Set.)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 15, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> But I suspect you may be very much in the minority - not among the hardcore nutballers here on ENWorld, but among the greater gaming community. It strikes me that most people might jump systems a bit to start with until they find one they like, and then stick with that preferred system for a very long time - perhaps tinkering with it as they go in order to make it fit their desires better and-or to incorporate a good idea developed since.




Sticking with system, I'll buy.  Then again, it's pretty rare that any RPG system remains static, barring perhaps Palladium.  I would guess that a lot of tables to change edition from time to time.

Put it another way.  You ran a ten year (IIRC) campaign.  By the way, in case I haven't said so before, that's FANTASTIC!  However, a question.  Of the players who sat down at the first session, how many remained at the last session?  And, how many players total sat in for that campaign?

I think that gives you your answer to how many groups stick to one system/campaign for that long.

See, I played 3e for eight years.  2e since it was released, so ten years and 1e for about seven years.  So, yeah, I stuck with system.  I bounce campaigns, not systems.

Although recently I've started bouncing systems as well.  

But, I can totally see people getting burned out on games in fairly short order.  Back in my 1e days, we had lots of free time, so we'd play our regular D&D game, but, we'd also try out all sorts of other games too.  Always came back to D&D, but, we did move around a fair bit too.

I honestly think that most groups do bounce around from game to game, campaign to campaign.  Particularly groups with multiple DM's.  IME, that's pretty common.  I've rarely seen single DM groups.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yes, you can take that long to make a character in those systems.  But, it certainly doesn't have to.




I agree that it doesn't have to.  However, speaking as a long time GM, if we started a session of those games where no one had a premade character I would expect it to take at least 3-4 hours before we were really up and running.  It's for this reason I've gotten away from starting any campaign with a kickoff session where we essentially just make characters (or spend most of the time making characters).  



> It only takes that long in 3e D&D if you start allowing a bunch of material beyond core.  Stick to core and a character is built in 30 minutes or so.




Sure.  I could make a 3e D&D character in 30 minutes or less.  I do so all the time as a DM.  However, how fast a character should be built is not the same as how fast they will be built, and this is especially true with groups of mixed experience levels.   If I were to get 6 people who'd never played before and started walking them all through character creation together, it would take hours and hours before we were done.   Any number I pulled out of the air would just be a number pulled out of the air, but the anticipation I would have is that the answer would be 'most or all of a session' just devoted to character creation.   And even with that, the results would probably be pretty unsatisfying.



> And, I would say that character creation taking "at least two weeks" is possibly idiosyncratic to your particular table.




Perhaps, but I get the impression more tables could benefit from the approach, especially in this era of easy electronic communication.  

Now, I'm not saying that character creation for any one character involves a commitment of more than a couple of hours on the part of any one players time.  But I am saying that if I plan to play on day X, then I better start coaching my players through character creation about two weeks before that if I expect that on day X will have character sheets ready to go within a couple minutes of setting down to play.

_Each player_ is going to end up exchanging the following me:

1) Initial concept discussions:  At this point, the rules aren't particularly important.  It's more important to convey some basic setting information to the players to give them some ideas about what is possible.   What I'm focused on here is finding out what the player might enjoy playing, and then seeing what concept might support the idea that attracts the player.  The goal is to get something like a one sentence background or summary of the character which is not tied directly to rules.
2) Initial rules discussions:  Once we we have a concept in mind, its time to start discussing exactly how the rules might provide for or influence the concept.   This is where we start thinking about things like primary skills, powers, profession, race, or class according to how the rules work.  The eventual outcome of this is hopefully something like a high level concrete mechanical implementation of the concept above.  In D&D, this is usually a class, race, and loosely what the player intends to be good at.  In M&M it might be an idea of how the character will spend most of his points.
3) Character creation:  At this point, after a couple conversations or emails we are finally at the point were we can bring out a character sheet and start filling it out and paying close attention to the rules.  Sometimes, at this point the character concept shifts as something shiny in the rules catches the players attention, and then we are back to step 1 but at least on a fast track.  Sometimes the concept shifts again, maybe even back to what it started with, once the player begins to see the tradeoffs.  But eventually we end up with a filled in character sheet, including things like equipment owned.
4) Character sheet review:  At this point, I can read the character sheet, and check it for errors.  I can also determine if the character concept is viable as an adventurer, and advice the player what the character strengths and weaknesses will be and what tradeoffs are available to perhaps increase viability in the short or long term.  This may involve various back and forth exchanges, since if I make a change in the character sheet to correct an error the player now needs to review and approve the changes.  Hopefully at the end of this we have a character sheet without errors that everyone is happy with, and I can approve.
5) Background creation and approval:  As long as we have a character sheet, we can play, but its usually still a good idea to have a least a paragraph of background connecting the character to the world.   This involves the player learning abit more about the setting and writing something, me adding to it or ammending it, the player integrating or approving the changes and so forth.   Eventually we end up with a simple story about the character's life in the world thus far that I can approve as being relevant to and possible within the setting.   And now, and only now, we have a completed character.

Now, that doesn't need to take two weeks.  We could probably sit everyone down and get it done in 4-5 hours face to face.  But if we did sit everyone down and do that, there is going to be alot of time when the player is just waiting on me to finish discussing something with another player and in that time they are likely to be bored or if not bored then entertaining themselves in some non-game related way.  Both are bad, and both create poor environments to start a new game in.  So, in my experience its better to get everything out of the way before we get everyone together and that in my experience takes two weeks and even then expect at least one player to be unfinished come game day.  Also, if you have a mixture of experienced and inexperienced players and get them together to make characters, there is a tendancy for the experienced player to want to tell the inexperienced players what to do, so that the inexperienced players end up playing the character that the experienced player wants to play (or thinks they should play) instead of the one that they want to play.   Also, if you wait until game day until finding out what everyone wants to play, you usually end up with a batch of character concepts that are utterly incompatible with each other or which in total don't constitute a balanced party.  This is actually more likely in my experience the better the players are, because IME experienced RPers generally want to create somewhat exotic characters with lots of quirks and internal drives and hooks that would be what we'd call 'issues' in a real person.  Sometimes you work through them.  And sometimes you don't.  I've seen too many promising campaigns die stillborn (one of mine, three or four from other GMs) to problems like this to leave it to chance now.

Besides, by starting prep for the first game day a couple of weeks ahead of time it gives me time to prep the game, send around questionaires to find about what people want in a game, and otherwise make sure I'm planning a game that my players will want to play and enjoy.  It also gives me a chance to figure out what sort of table conflicts we are likely to have before we have them and set some expectations about the social contract accordingly.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 15, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> 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.




I think there's a danger in this type of thinking though. "most" is a tricky word. Sure most kids are introduced to the game by other gamers, but not nearly "all". 

What about the kid in the country where there's no group at his small school/town? 

What about the kid in the "conservative" school where gaming is frowned upon? 

What about the eldest/only child of non-RPG gaming families? By the time they grow up/hit college/etc. they may have filed that curiosity away, etc. and no re-visit it in a meaningful way. 

What about the parent who has a child who wants to play the game he heard about but the parent has no experience? 

But give that kid/person an easy, quick, understandable way to learn the game first, then THEY become the recruiter for new gamers in small towns/schools/neigborhoods all over the world. It may not be the big portion of the market, but still an important one.


----------



## deinol (Oct 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Sticking with system, I'll buy.  Then again, it's pretty rare that any RPG system remains static, barring perhaps Palladium.  I would guess that a lot of tables to change edition from time to time.




I'm still annoyed that they altered the perfectly good Palladium Fantasy RPG to conform to that RIFTS madness. Ok, Rifts has barely changed since it's first release. Call of Cthulhu has also barely changed.

Anyway, my local university gaming club gets new players all the time. Total newbies. Most of them jump into a D&D or Pathfinder game and seem to enjoy "Modern" D&D variants just fine.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Sticking with system, I'll buy.  Then again, it's pretty rare that any RPG system remains static, barring perhaps Palladium.  I would guess that a lot of tables to change edition from time to time.
> 
> Put it another way.  You ran a ten year (IIRC) campaign.



Two, in fact.  Working on a third as we speak.  







> By the way, in case I haven't said so before, that's FANTASTIC!



Thanks.   ::takes a bow::  







> However, a question.  Of the players who sat down at the first session, how many remained at the last session?  And, how many players total sat in for that campaign?



First long one: 6 players started it.  Of those, three were still in at the end; and a total (including these) of 19 players were in for at least one session.  It was a multi-party campaign.

Second long one: 3 started, of which 1.5* were in at the end; 21 players total were in for at least one session.  Another multi-party campaign.

* - how do you get .5 of a player?  The player in question is my now-wife, who played full-time at the start but was down to part-time (she had PCs in the game but often let others play them) by the end.

The third (current) one, now about 2.5 years in, started with 4 players of whom 3 are still in; 9 players total have been in for at least one session.  Again, multi-party game.

The above totals in all cases do not include me as DM but do include various people who lasted maybe a session or two before deciding the game wasn't for them.


> I think that gives you your answer to how many groups stick to one system/campaign for that long.



Does it? 


> I honestly think that most groups do bounce around from game to game, campaign to campaign.  Particularly groups with multiple DM's.  IME, that's pretty common.  I've rarely seen single DM groups.



We've got 3 main DMs in our crew and a few who've tried their hand now and then.  Two of the three use our 1e variant and the other is using a 3.5e variant (and that campaign is coming up on 10 years as well; I'm not sure of the player stats other than to say none of the original players are still in but the same DM is still running the same campaign and there's been continuity within the party all the way).  We don't tend to change systems much.

Lan-"puck drop on session 213 in 25 minutes"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Oct 16, 2010)

Yes, Lanefan, I think it does answer things.

Of your long standing groups, barely 1 in 5 stuck around for the duration.  20%.  Not counting yourself of course.  And also not counting the number of players who only stuck around for a session or two.

Is it really a good idea to base the assumptions of a game on 20% of the audience?

Celebrim - while I agree that you can go that far in depth into chargen, it isn't necessary.  It's only necessary if you presume a certain style and duration of game.  Granted, it's a style I prefer as well, deep and rich, but, that's something I've gotten to after gaming for quite some time.

I don't think any game should presume that level of depth of chargen.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yes, Lanefan, I think it does answer things.
> 
> Of your long standing groups, barely 1 in 5 stuck around for the duration.  20%.  Not counting yourself of course.  And also not counting the number of players who only stuck around for a session or two.
> 
> ...




Whereas in my 5-10 year games I run (D&D going on 7 right now, 5 yr CHAMPIONS superheroes in the late '80s, 5 yr AD&D 1e in the mid-late '80's, 6 yr Aftermath in the '90s, 11 yr Ars Magica in the late '80s-90s, I run a lot of lengthy games), I have 80%+ player retention from beginning to end and almost zero player pickup after play begins.  Occasionally, I'll lose a player (like when one goes to Africa for a 3-year stint or whose job moves him out of province) and occasionally I'll add a player if the group feels low.

In the current D&D, for example, I have 100% of the original players and added one at about the 2 year mark.

I don't think you can reach conclusions.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Is it really a good idea to base the assumptions of a game on 20% of the audience?




It may be when those are the tables generating the most new players. I have two ongoing campaigns: On has run for 60 sessions over 3 years and included 7 players of whom 5 are still playing.

The other has run for 20 sessions over a year and a half and has included 24 different players. Of those 24 players, 6 of them were entirely new to roleplaying games and 8 hadn't played in 3+ years. Some of these players have stuck around and continued participating in the campaign. Others drop in once every few months as their schedule allows. Others haven't stayed interested. Others have spun off and begun playing and running their own games.

What's the difference? Well, the former campaign has a tight, ongoing continuity. Joining that campaign is a major commitment: You have to be willing to compromise your personal schedule in order to coordinate game sessions with a half dozen other busy people. We need to have a fair degree of confidence that (a) you'll be a good fit for the campaign and (b) that you won't drop out and cause continuity problems when your character vanishes. So inviting new people to play the game is difficult, and inviting people completely new to roleplaying games is essentially impossible.

OTOH, the other campaign is a looser affair: Whoever shows up for a particular session forms the adventuring party for that adventure. When the session is done, all the PCs head back to town ready for the next hodgepodge adventuring party that goes out to the dungeon or looks to explore the nearby wilderness. It's an old school structure, and it means getting new people involved in the game is as easy as saying, "Hey, you wanna play?"

If all you care about are the die-hards who play the game on a regular, weekly or bi-weekly basis then the latter campaign structure isn't where you want to be focusing your attention. The "retention rate", as you say, is terrible.

But if football manufacturers decided that the "retention rate" of people playing catch in the backyard was terrible because most of those people didn't join peewee leagues... Well, they'd sell a lot fewer footballs.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Of your long standing groups, barely 1 in 5 stuck around for the duration.  20%.  Not counting yourself of course.  And also not counting the number of players who only stuck around for a session or two.
> 
> Is it really a good idea to base the assumptions of a game on 20% of the audience?



As to whether people stick with the same system?  Sure it is.  Why, you ask?  Because game system isn't why they leave.

Those who left had all sorts of different reasons for doing so, of which the actual game system being played was (if memory serves) in the first long game irrelevant and in the second one a consideration for only a few.  But now you've got me thinking as to why each one did leave... ::checks some logs, tries to remember::  ...see below.

(side note: I should probably also mention here that all three of my games used/are using essentially the same system; and that there was player carry-over from one to the next in each case)

OK, why did they leave?

First long game had a total of 19 players.  9 of these were active at campaign's end.  Of the 10 who left before it was done:

1 left due to boredom with system (advancement too slow)
3 left because they moved out of town
3 left because they weren't really into RPGs at the time (the 1-session types)
3 left due to personality clashes with other players and-or me

Also, one of the finishing 9 had left due to scheduling and later returned.

Second long game had a total of 21 players, 10 active at campaign's end.  Of the 11 who left early:

4 left because they moved out of town
2 left because they weren't really into RPGs at the time (1-session types)
1 left due to health reasons (could not get to the games)
1 left due to dissatisfaction with game system, preferred 3e
2 left due to personality conflicts with other players and-or me
1 left due to scheduling issues (not enough time)

Of those who finished, 2 had left (one due to scheduling, one to try other RPG systems and genres) during the campaign, and later returned.

Third and current game has had 8 players, 5 are active now.

2 left due to scheduling (school); both are likely to return later
1 left due to not really being into RPGs at the time (1-session type).

So, to sum up: of all the various people who have left my games I can find only 2 for whom game system was - as far as I can tell - the primary reason. The *group*, as defined by its slowly-changing membership at any given time, stuck with the system.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm not saying that system was the reason for leaving, Lanefan.  In fact, I would assume that it wasn't usually the reason.  After all, if you've sat down to play a given game, likely you're at least somewhat interested in that game.

But, if campaigns typically only last a year and groups not much more than that (which is what the WOTC market survey information says), then why would they design a game with the assumption that campaigns will last longer than that?

BOTE - I think you're actually agreeing with me.  Your loose campaign is generating loads more players than your tight campaign.  Wouldn't it make sense to design a game with the loose campaign in mind?

Which is what I said in the first place.  Why design a game based on a small, limited number of hard-core players instead of designing to wider appeal?


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, if campaigns typically only last a year and groups not much more than that (which is what the WOTC market survey information says)



The very flawed market survey, if you're referring to the one they did in the run-up to 3e. 







> then why would they design a game with the assumption that campaigns will last longer than that?



In part because they designed the survey to give them the answers they wanted, then designed to the answers they knew they were going to get.  Different topic, however; so I won't go ranting off about it here.


> Why design a game based on a small, limited number of hard-core players instead of designing to wider appeal?



Because in this hobby more than most it's those limited number of hard-core nutballers who are going to end up generating the wider appeal, albeit slowly, via word of mouth.  That's how it worked for 1e; no reason to think much has changed since in that aspect at least.

Lan-"D+D as a game never comes across well in advertisements"-efan


----------



## nedjer (Oct 17, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Because in this hobby more than most it's those limited number of hard-core nutballers who are going to end up generating the wider appeal




Is that wider appeal or simply the most reliable income in the short term?


----------



## Wicht (Oct 17, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Is that wider appeal or simply the most reliable income in the short term?




Short term here meaning, of course, the 30+ years those hard-core gamers game and recruit others to gaming.


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 17, 2010)

Yep^
Advertisements don't sell D&D, rulebooks don't sell D&D.
DMs Good DMs sell D&D. The best DMs aren't casual players. They are dedicated players, they are "hard core" gamers.

That's not to say all hard core players are good DMs, but I've never met a casual player that was also a good DM. Being a good DM, IME, requires a certain level of investment, dedication, and focus that can't be found in a casual player.

So I think WotC should rethink their marketing strategy. D&D will never have mass appeal like other games... unless they try to remove those elements that make it D&D in the first place. You know, the parts where having an imagination, time management skills, and a sense of story telling are required. But that's not a road I want them to take.

The hardcore niche is the niche that does the most work expanding the player base. I've seen loads of casual players come and go, and for the most part they have lousy retention. But the dedicated players just keep coming back for more, and they bring friends.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Short term here meaning, of course, the 30+ years those hard-core gamers game and recruit others to gaming.




I don't doubt the great value of that contribution, but for me the potential RPG market goes well beyond the numbers brought in through hard-core gamers.

On a 'D&D spectrum' most of those possible players are open to a 'style' focused on exploration, mysteries, discovery, . . . and combat, using mechanics on the level of the oldish Basic, Expert, Companion, We Love Ourselves set.

However, these potential players may not exist, in which case it all seems a bit end of LoR/ Arthurian as the Round Table of hard-core gamer Elven Knights become outcasts in a world that no longer understands them.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 18, 2010)

Nedjer, I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say? Are you suggesting a different ruleset might bring in a lot more players than the prevalent rulesets?

If so, I agree that might be possible, but killing the goose because you think the potential gold might outweigh the present gold is almost always a bad idea. Faithful customers who stick with you for 30 years are easier to plan around than potential customers who might be tempted to give you their patronage if you revamp your entire inventory. 30 year customers are the long term strategy. Loads of customers that stick with you a few months and then quit is almost the definition of a short term strategy.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Nedjer, I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say? Are you suggesting a different ruleset might bring in a lot more players than the prevalent rulesets?
> 
> If so, I agree that might be possible, but killing the goose because you think the potential gold might outweigh the present gold is almost always a bad idea. Faithful customers who stick with you for 30 years are easier to plan around than potential customers who might be tempted to give you their patronage if you revamp your entire inventory. 30 year customers are the long term strategy. Loads of customers that stick with you a few months and then quit is almost the definition of a short term strategy.




My take in terms of D&D is that if you want more hardbacks and AD&Ds it might be necessary to fund it by making D&D more accessible. This is being done up to a point with solo game PC generation card crossover efforts, Encounters, lower entry costs and dovetailing. Essentially, (sorry) I'm for fattening the goose rather than killing it.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End - there is a fair bit of space between limiting the DM's role within the ruleset and eliminating it altogether.

I totally agree that eliminating the DM is a very bad idea.

OTOH, if you take the route, as 4e has done, of giving the players (including the DM) a ruleset that covers most of the expected actions that you're going to commonly run across, and then advise DM's to create content that fits within that ruleset and uses that ruleset, you gain some degree of standardization across tables.

In other words, if (and that's a big if) a given DM does what he's advised to do, the game designers can be fairly sure that everyone at the table will have a good time.  Maybe not a fantastic time, maybe not the time of their life, but, a good time.  

If, however, you give DM's a system like Mentzer Basic, which did not cover many common actions - no skills, no task resolution outside of combat, very, very limited scope (basically low level dungeon crawl) - the games success depends very heavily on the individual DM.  

Now, you and I stuck with it.  But how many people didn't?  How many people's first and possibly last experience with RPG's was very bad to the point where they dropped it entirely?  Sure, great DM's bring in new players.  But, do they bring in enough new players to replace those driven away by bad experiences?

I have no idea.  

But, at a guess, I would say that 4e is attempting to ameliorate the experience so that people will stick around long enough to buy a couple of books, rather than trying it once and never looking at it again.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Oct 19, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Essentially, (sorry) I'm for fattening the goose rather than killing it.



 Ah, so what you're saying is, when it comes to D&D, _pate de foie gras_ is preferable to _coup de grace_.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 19, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I don't think you are really hearing me.
> 
> You don't get friends or spouses of friends to start playing by showing the stacks of rule books, and you don't need to read through 800+ pages of rules to get started with a game. Frankly, I prefer to sit down to a new RPG without knowing any of the rules and without touching a rule book. Reading the rules probably will get in the way of my enjoyment of the game.




I disagree.  To me not knowing the basic rules is akin to not understanding the rules of physics in the world.  But I'm at one end of the spectrum here.



> This is the way I play an RPG:
> 
> 1) I make a proposition.
> 2) I interface with the rules under the guidance of the DM.
> ...




Add in
1b) I make my own estimates about whether the proposition is valid influenced by both the world as we've seen it and the rules of the game.



> All irrelevant. You don't start playing an RPG by buying the books. You start playing an RPG with a GM says, "Would you like to play?"
> 
> And you don't even make new GMs by selling books. You make new GMs by players going, "You know; I think I want to GM.", or in some cases by, "Well, our GM moved to Indiana/joined the military/got married. Who wants to GM?"




And you encourage people to say "I want to GM" by making a system that's nice to GM - low prep time, easy to make evocative, minimal chance of being utterly derailed or a serious arms race.



> See. Exactly my point. You are arguing here against what you just said. You have a rules light system - a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references




That's not a rules light system.  That's an incomplete and poorly designed rules-heavy system masquerading as rules light.  A rules light system is something like Dread where the rules go as follows:

1  Is what's being tried remotely plausible.  If no, stop.  If it involves god-moding, ask them to rephrase.
2: Is what's being tried challenging?  If no, they succeed.
3: Name a difficulty in number of blocks needed for them to do what they are trying.  Tell them to pull that many blocks.  If they succeed, they succeed.  If they bottle, they bottle.  If they knock the tower over they die.

Neither vague nor difficult to apply other than working out how many blocks for a given action.  And covers almost every situation that might come up.



> - and so when you actually have to use the rules, you find that you spend most of the time making up new rules that there after become 'common law rules' which determine how similar future situations will be resolved.




You seem to be working under the assumption that D&D was a rules light system.  That it never was.  The approach was always rules heavy and inelegant.



> This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are never highly successful in the RPG market place.




That they take more conceptual work and that you can't do very much in terms of expansions being two more.  I have Dread.  I can't see how they can sell me a second book.  So it's not worth a big company marketing them.



> This ends up creating an inflexible system that is complex only where the designer cared to be complex, and ignores or oversimplifies where someone else might care to have complexity, and in short which is good for only one sort of game without massive effort from a GM to make it work.




You seem to be working under the assumption that versatility automatically makes a system good.



> Ok, now we are beginning to get on the same wavelength. Yes, this is how people learn the game. In particular, this is how GMs learn the game and some of this sinks by osmosis into the rest of the players at the table. In other words, once you resolve a problem in one way, the players remember that, "In a similar situation in the past you had me roll a D20, add my dex bonus, and I succeeded with a 16. So that is 'the rule'."




*eyeroll*

The situation is similar.  It would be d20+dex.  But the situation isn't the same.  16 need not be a success this time.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 19, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I disagree.  To me not knowing the basic rules is akin to not understanding the rules of physics in the world.  But I'm at one end of the spectrum here.




You don't know the physics of the real world, but you manage pretty well.  And even if you do have a Ph.D. in physics, then most people don't and they manage just fine.  

You don't have to know the physics - or more precisely the math - behind outcome resolution to have a sense of the world.  You don't need to know the rules.  If you do need to know the rules, it betrays a fundamental distrust of the system and/or the DM, because the only reason to know the rules is to try to wring out every last bit of advantage out of them, or to exploit or avoid their edge cases.

But none of that is IMO essential to enjoying an RPG, and to a certain extent it just gets in the way.



> And you encourage people to say "I want to GM" by making a system that's nice to GM - low prep time, easy to make evocative, minimal chance of being utterly derailed or a serious arms race.




Maybe.  I suspect that those things are more essential to making people enjoy GMing.  What grabs peoples interest in GMing initially has more to do with the text of the game inspiring their imaginations.   It wouldn't matter if prep time was low, the rules were coupled to the setting in fascinating ways, the game was inherently well balanced, and the fortune mechanic inherently cinematic and evocative if the rules didn't inspire imagination or show the GM what the game looked like in play.  

And it wouldn't be hard to come up with examples of games that seem like they should work but utterly fail in the end because its not at all clear to the would be GM how to play the game afterall no matter how clear the rules are.



> That's not a rules light system.  That's an incomplete and poorly designed rules-heavy system masquerading as rules light.




Ok, here I'm just going to have to note your condescension and how misplaced it is.   There are many things you can accuse me of with good cause, but if you are of the belief that I don't know RPG rules and how to judge them or to craft them then you are just simply quite wrong.  I know what a rules light system is and how they work, and from your example, I dare say I've considered the problem more seriously than you are at the moment.



> A rules light system is something like Dread where the rules go as follows:
> 
> 1  Is what's being tried remotely plausible.  If no, stop.  If it involves god-moding, ask them to rephrase.
> 2: Is what's being tried challenging?  If no, they succeed.
> ...




Quite right.  _And this is exactly my point._ 

Moreover, you have completely failed to notice a problem that you might have noticed had you actually spent more time listening to me rather than getting grumpy about what I was saying.   You are caught up entirely in the notion of a pass/fail fortune mechanic, and you've failed to consider that at the game table, a very large percentage of player propositions aren't of the pass/fail type and don't have 'yes/no' answers.   Converting analytic analog propositions into simple binary ones requires a bit of rules alchemy, and that process of _'working out how many blocks for a given action_' is far more of an art form than you seem to realize.

A game like Dread is built for an evening's entertainment, and for that, I'm perfectly happy to use (and probably prefer to use) a rules light system because the rules holes don't have time to become deep enough to fall into or even stumble over that much.  The game is over too quickly.   The same is not true of a game that continues continiously for 400 hours or more of play.



> You seem to be working under the assumption that D&D was a rules light system.  That it never was.  The approach was always rules heavy and inelegant.




What would we ever do without très chic D&D bashing.  I don't believe that I said that D&D was a rules light system (at least, not in the ordinary sense of the term).  In fact, I think I said that it was the most rules heavy system of all time; though I made it quite clear as well that whether it is due such an honor depends greatly on how we define 'rules heavy'.

And as for 'inelegant', I quite agree, but I don't think this is nearly so damning of a charge as you seem to think it is.  Many things which are very functional are 'inelegant', and a great many things which are elegant are not particularly functional.   So, this depends very much on whether you think true elegance is a matter of artistic form, or whether you think its a matter of functionality.  I prefer the latter, and I find - after playing many many systems and reading many many more over nearly 30 years - that D&D is an intensely functional and gameable system, and I'm rather embarassed now to think how much like you I sounded 20 years ago when I was a teen aged DM that thought I knew everything.



> That they take more conceptual work and that you can't do very much in terms of expansions being two more.  I have Dread.  I can't see how they can sell me a second book.  So it's not worth a big company marketing them.




Well, at least we are in agreement on this point.



> You seem to be working under the assumption that versatility automatically makes a system good.




Not at all.   I'm working under several assumptions loosely or tightly held, but none of them are that.  I'm working under the assumption that versitility is a desirable trait.  I'm working under the assumption that its a trait in an RPG that has considerably more economic value to the publisher than virtually any other trait, making it sort of the opposite in this way of 'rules light' and 'elegant'.   And I'm working under the assumption that its a trait that tends to make a game popular, because more people will tend to fit their game to that game than they would otherwise.   In this way, being versatile has been alot better for D&D than being 'elegant' would have been. 

Of course, you might discern by this point that I consider that to be a sign of more true elegance than the traits proposed by many of the artsy fartsy theories about what makes a game elegant.  I'll have more respect for such theories when they manage to make as gameable of a game, and when their proponents understand better why D&D works and don't stupidly (as I once did in my ignorance) blame its success merely on being first.



> *eyeroll*
> 
> The situation is similar.  It would be d20+dex.  But the situation isn't the same.  16 need not be a success this time.




For provoking an eyeroll, you sure manage to not do much to contridict me here.   If the sitaution isn't the same (and indeed, isn't exactly the same), then yes the number need not be '16' this time, but far from contridicting me this is exactly my point.  Already we see how quickly some fuller grasp of the system and how to interface with it intuitively reaches the player even though they know nothing yet of the rules under the hood that are used to produce those numbers.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 19, 2010)

celebrim said:


> many things which are very functional are 'inelegant', and a great many things which are elegant are not particularly functional.




Daleks have no concept of elegance.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I totally agree that eliminating the DM is a very bad idea.




But do you really _totally_ agree with that? 

It seems to me that you probably do, but that you haven't fully considered the implications of totally agree with that.



> OTOH, if you take the route, as 4e has done, of giving the players (including the DM) a ruleset that covers most of the expected actions that you're going to commonly run across, and then advise DM's to create content that fits within that ruleset and uses that ruleset, you gain some degree of standardization across tables.






> In other words, if (and that's a big if) a given DM does what he's advised to do, the game designers can be fairly sure that everyone at the table will have a good time.  Maybe not a fantastic time, maybe not the time of their life, but, a good time.




If I had one theme I wanted to emphasize in all my contributions to this thread, it is that this is wrong.   It's precisely this attitude towards rules design and games design that ends up heading in the wrong direction.   The logic underneath this is something like, "Ok, maybe we can't entirely elimenate the DM, but we can mitigate the DM sufficiently by providing elegant rules that the minimally required role of the GM will simply be mechanical.   If the rules are elegant enough and capture the intention of the designer sufficiently, then the car will simply drive itself provided the GM turns the crank and pedals."   This is entirely wrong because it imagines that running an RPG is mostly something of a science, when in fact an RPG is mostly an artform and its qualities are mostly aethetic regardless of how much math and numbers are involved in resolving its in game propositions.   You can no more have an enjoyable RPG session by providing elegant rules, than you can insure an enjoyable novel by providing concise advice and a mechanical structure to the writer.

Much of the problem I have with 4e - or more precisely, much of the problems I have with the 4e design process and its criticism of 3e - is it consistantly failed to see the problems which annoyed the designers as problems of game management and game design, and instead consistantly say them as mechanical problems that were solvable with rules design.   This is something like finding a dysfunctional culture and thinking that what it mostly needs is more laws and regulations.   It misses the point entirely.  So it attempted to fix problems that really couldn't be fixed with rules alone (like 'how do you design a trap', 'how do you pace the game cinematically', or 'how do you make skills matter'?), and ended up leaving in the problems more or less intact while trading one set of rules artifacts for another.

Not that 4e is a 'bad' system.  I don't want to turn this into a narrow system bashing session.  But in the context of the original topic, I keep trying to point out that the system doesn't really matter that much and certainly not as much as some here think it does and not for the reasons that they think it does.   Modern D&D variants (by which I primarily mean 4e) are unlikely to attract new players because they attract less strongly existing GMs than say 3e did (though they do attract some and for good reasons, don't get me wrong), and they do little to actually inspire new GMs.   They generally seem to think that system matters, but in this context what really matters is the GM.

I'd be alot more sanguine about WotC's abiity to attract new players if I had any hope they could write a book that was less dry than a cookbook and more interesting to read than a dictionary.   But I can tell by who they've chosen to retain in their employment that they just don't get it.  (Note, I'm not knocking cookbook writers or lexicographers; both are useful.)   At least, in their favor, Paizo seems to get it better than WotC does.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 19, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Daleks have no concept of elegance.




On the contrary, in the sense that its being bandied around by some I could name in the RPG theory and rules community, Daleks have a very high degree of elegance.

1) All Daleks are of the same consistant design.  Once you've encountered one Dalek, you can pretty much grasp the essentials of every Dalek in every situation.
2) All Daleks manipulate everything through the same very small set of universal tools.  Indeed, their unverisal plunger tool that they grasp things with is the very height of elegance in manipulative tools.
3) The Dalek form is the very model of simplicity with few moving parts.

It is however not particularly functional, as for example, it seems to have never considered stairs, nor for that matter do I think that universal plunger tool has quite the range of utility as an awkward looking set of thumbs and fingers - to say nothing of two actual hands that are inelegantly not of the same shape (in the human case, one is the mirror image of the other; horrors!).


----------



## Wicht (Oct 19, 2010)

Actually I find the hand quite elegant: form and function together in a well designed package of versatility. Beauty, however, is always in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 19, 2010)

Well said Celebrim.

Heh, I obviously disagree, but then, that's fair enough.  I think system very much does matter.  I think that systems that put so much emphasis on the person running the game to constantly have to devise rulings for actions that are reasonably expectable within the context of the game are poorly designed.  How far can my character jump?  Well, if Bob runs the game, then I can jump this far.  If Dave is running it, I can jump that far.

No thanks.  I played that long enough and have no interest in that kind of game again.

Then again, I have never drawn inspiration particularly from the mechanics.  The mechanics, to me, are simply a tool that I use for exploring the particular story that me and the group want to explore.  Whether that's a very free form sandboxy style or heavy plotsy style, doesn't matter.  The mechanics are a tool, nothing more.

In the same way that I have never been inspired by looking at a hammer or a paintbrush, I've never found rule mechanics much of an inspiration.  Typically, it goes the other way around.  The GM has a cool (in his mind at least) idea and then goes to the rules to see how to best implement it.

Obviously tastes differ.    For me, given the choice between a 1e DMG and a 4e DMG, I'd take the 4e DMG hands down every time.  Function over form every single time.  But, that's just my taste.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 19, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Good DMs sell D&D. The best DMs aren't casual players. They are dedicated players, they are "hard core" gamers.
> 
> [. . .]
> 
> ...




Chrono, you are absolutely right that WotC would be foolish not to develop and exploit the excellent resource that is the dedicated D&D DM. These guys do more to get players in that a million ads.

But isn't that what they're doing with Encounters? Every Encounters DM is a local volunteer; the vast majority are likely dedicated players. WotC's doing a great job for herding new players into the arms of these evangelists through Encounters.

I think you're wrong, though about abandoning new players. Where do the long-term, dedicated players come from? I was a newbie once, and I'm sure you were too. Yeah, a lot of them might try it and move on, but some portion of new players go on to become long-term players, and just the sort of dedicated, hard-core gamers we need to bring new generations into the game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 19, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> You don't know the physics of the real world, but you manage pretty well. And even if you do have a Ph.D. in physics, then most people don't and they manage just fine.




I know a fair amount of the physics of the real world even if not numerically defined.  I know that if I jump off a house I'm likely to break my legs.  This does not hold in D&D.



> You don't have to know the physics - or more precisely the math - behind outcome resolution to have a sense of the world.




No.  But you need to work hard to tell me in three paragraphs as much as three lines of math will.



> You don't need to know the rules. If you do need to know the rules, it betrays a fundamental distrust of the system and/or the DM, because the only reason to know the rules is to try to wring out every last bit of advantage out of them, or to exploit or avoid their edge cases.




Are you trying to be personally insulting?  The first reason I want to know the rules is that because if you try to hide them from me, my brain is going to spend half its effort reverse-engineering them.  This is not a choice.  It is a matter of how my brain is wired.  That yours isn't must be relaxing for you.  In complex games (e.g. GURPS, 3.X, 4e, Pathfinder) the next reason to want to know the rules is so I can get my character to represent what I want to play.  I have a better idea what my character is than any DM (or anyone else).

For that matter, the only sort of RPGs where I exploit the rules right up to the hilt are ones like old-school D&D where they are partially concealed and I've had to discover them in play.  And that's because my character has discovered most of those rules in character and so has mastered them.



> But none of that is IMO essential to enjoying an RPG, and to a certain extent it just gets in the way.




But not knowing the rules at all makes me itch between the shoulderblades.  It really gets in the way of enjoying a RPG unless the goal is to find the rules of the new world.  Different strokes for different folks.  But please don't tell me mine are Badwrongfun.



> Maybe. I suspect that those things are more essential to making people enjoy GMing.




I'll concede the point with the proviso that a GM who burns out fast is probably worse than none at all - you've not only had a bad campaign, you've even reduced your pool of potential GMs.



> And it wouldn't be hard to come up with examples of games that seem like they should work but utterly fail in the end because its not at all clear to the would be GM how to play the game afterall no matter how clear the rules are.




Indeed. The map is not the territory.



> Ok, here I'm just going to have to note your condescension and how misplaced it is. There are many things you can accuse me of with good cause, but if you are of the belief that I don't know RPG rules and how to judge them or to craft them then you are just simply quite wrong. I know what a rules light system is and how they work, and from your example, I dare say I've considered the problem more seriously than you are at the moment.




If a rules light system is "a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references" then it's badly written even if it's a good game.  And you do have a point when you take another interesting rules-light game like Dogs in the Vineyard.  I want to sneak past someone (or worse yet several someones) in that game.  How do I do it?  What sort of fallout do I take if I fail?



> Moreover, you have completely failed to notice a problem that you might have noticed had you actually spent more time listening to me rather than getting grumpy about what I was saying. You are caught up entirely in the notion of a pass/fail fortune mechanic, and you've failed to consider that at the game table, a very large percentage of player propositions aren't of the pass/fail type and don't have 'yes/no' answers.




1: If my computer can work on binary pass/fail, yes/no checks as long as I break it down enough then so can an RPG.

2: That's one of the reasons I really like skill challenges.  There is a target but the things _aren't_ strict pass/fail.



> Converting analytic analog propositions into simple binary ones requires a bit of rules alchemy, and that process of _'working out how many blocks for a given action_' is far more of an art form than you seem to realize.




And ultimately comes down to picking a number between 1 and 5.  Normally 1.  



> A game like Dread is built for an evening's entertainment [snip]




There is that.



> And as for 'inelegant', I quite agree, but I don't think this is nearly so damning of a charge as you seem to think it is. Many things which are very functional are 'inelegant', and a great many things which are elegant are not particularly functional.




And in terms of game/rules design, elegance involves simple but functional.  "As simple as possible to do the job desired and no simpler".  



> So, this depends very much on whether you think true elegance is a matter of artistic form, or whether you think its a matter of functionality.




Functionality _every time_.



> I prefer the latter, and I find - after playing many many systems and reading many many more over nearly 30 years - that D&D is an intensely functional and gameable system,




What are you calling D&D?  But I'm running two campaigns at the moment.  And not because I don't have players who'll try other systems.



> Not at all. I'm working under several assumptions loosely or tightly held, but none of them are that.




That was the consequence rather than the reason, I'll grant.



> Of course, you might discern by this point that I consider that to be a sign of more true elegance than the traits proposed by many of the artsy fartsy theories about what makes a game elegant. I'll have more respect for such theories when they manage to make as gameable of a game, and when their proponents understand better why D&D works and don't stupidly (as I once did in my ignorance) blame its success merely on being first.




I'm normally on the other side of this debate   But a large part of why D&D works is that it grew organically rather than was a system designed from the top.  People don't fit into neat little boxes and D&D was tinkered with until it worked.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Heh, I obviously disagree, but then, that's fair enough.




I don't think we disagree all that much.  We are just talking abit cross purpose.  In the details though, I think we are much on the same page.



> I think that systems that put so much emphasis on the person running the game to constantly have to devise rulings for actions that are reasonably expectable within the context of the game are poorly designed.  How far can my character jump?  Well, if Bob runs the game, then I can jump this far.  If Dave is running it, I can jump that far.




For example, we are very much in agreement there and it echos much of what I've been saying for the past few pages.  The point where I think you fail to understand me, is that while that is very much true, that point of failure is not really very important with respect to attracting new players to the game.  And, were that really the issue, then 3e had a very high degree of 'casual realism' (obligatory citation here) and there would be no reason to think we'd need another sort of game to attract new players.



> Then again, I have never drawn inspiration particularly from the mechanics.  The mechanics, to me, are simply a tool that I use for exploring the particular story that me and the group want to explore.  Whether that's a very free form sandboxy style or heavy plotsy style, doesn't matter.  The mechanics are a tool, nothing more.




See, we do agree.



> Obviously tastes differ.    For me, given the choice between a 1e DMG and a 4e DMG, I'd take the 4e DMG hands down every time.




Unmodified, I might do the same.  But, more likely, I'd take my own modified version of 1e that takes lessons from 20+ years of playing D&D in several editions to smooth out the problems with the system I know about.   I look at 4e though and don't have a clue what I'd do to fix the problems I see save gird my loins and just trudge on bearing them in as manly of a fashion as I could.  Which might point to the main difference between me and you being how much we expect or want to be able to tinker with the system.  There are some other differences of course in our tastes, and that's a matter of taste and so I'm not knocking you for your choice of 4e.   It's just that not only is it not the game for me, but its so designed such that I can't turn it into a game for me.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 19, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Are you trying to be personally insulting?




Says the snide snippy condescending eye-roller?  But as a matter of fact, no, I'm not.  I don't expect you to be all happy with what I'm saying, but if I wanted to be personally insulting I'd be a lot more direct about it than I am.



Neonchameleon said:


> I know a fair amount of the physics of the real world even if not numerically defined.  I know that if I jump off a house I'm likely to break my legs.  This does not hold in D&D.




That is just a huge can of worms, and I'd not want to open it here.   We had that one many times before, and its really interesting, but it usually ends with people shouting at each other.

Suffice to say:

a) Even if you can't possibly break your leg by jumping off a house in D&D, it doesn't necessarily follow that the game is improved if the player nows that.
b) It might actually be excellent versimilitude with any heroic setting that a hero can jump off a house with no chance of breaking his leg, but depending on the setting it isn't necessarily also excellent versimilitude if the hero acts as if he can jump off houses (or skyscapers!) without breaking his leg.
c) That assumption, if applied at my table, would likely get you the player in a lot of trouble in the long run.  While I don't feel any need to keep my falling rules secret, assuming you didn't know them, you'd actually be better off with the assumption that jumping off a house occasionally means a broken leg than with the assumption that, "Since this is D&D, I can exploit known limitations in the rules to jump off houses without breaking my leg."   And indeed, I feel this is true regardless of what the rules happen to be.
d) The particular thing you site is such a notorious example, that not only is it the case that it has made people unhappy for years and years, but its been patched and altered from the base rules probably more than any other single rule.  Sitting down at a random D&D table, I'd pretty much assume that a house rule for falling was in play until it was demonstrated otherwise. 



> The first reason I want to know the rules is that because if you try to hide them from me, my brain is going to spend half its effort reverse-engineering them.  This is not a choice.  It is a matter of how my brain is wired.  That yours isn't must be relaxing for you.




I don't know.  I do know that I can't enjoy a movie without thinking about it and that I can't turn my brain off to do so.  I just guess I don't find it very distracting to work out the rules over time, and am in no particular hurry to do so.



> In complex games (e.g. GURPS, 3.X, 4e, Pathfinder) the next reason to want to know the rules is so I can get my character to represent what I want to play.  I have a better idea what my character is than any DM (or anyone else).




Ok, sure, but you don't need to know the rules in order to do that.  It's perfectly possible to separate rules for chargen from the resolution rules.   Most games are pretty up front about the chargen rules, and then have resolution rules in latter chapter which may or may not be perused by players but usually certainly do not have to be.  Why do you think you need to know the resolution rules in order to 'get my character to represent what I want to play'?



> And that's because my character has discovered most of those rules in character and so has mastered them.




???  




> But not knowing the rules at all makes me itch between the shoulderblades...But please don't tell me mine are Badwrongfun.




I'm not.  I don't however think you are typical of a new gamer though, and to be honest I think you are pretty far down the spectrum of how much rules/system mastery you feel you need to have as a player.   In your case, I'd hand you my 500 page house rules document and say, "Have fun.", and fully expect you to come back with, "The rules for X are incomplete.  What happens when..."  And that's fine.  It's just not what I'd expect of a new player and while it might be what you enjoy, for your average new player I'd probably tell them that they were worrying to much about knowing the rules.  This would especially be the case if I saw they were worried about knowing the rules but very unanxious to consume a 500 page densely written document.



> If a rules light system is "a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references" then it's badly written even if it's a good game.  And you do have a point when you take another interesting rules-light game like Dogs in the Vineyard.  I want to sneak past someone (or worse yet several someones) in that game.  How do I do it?  What sort of fallout do I take if I fail?




Dogs in the Vineyard is neither badly written or a bad game.  It is simply a rules light game and so will have the inherent limitations of any rules light game, among which are "doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references".  Good designers of course mitigate against this by matching the intended game to the rules light mechanics of the game so that this problem gets in the way as little as possible.   But, every rules light approach invariably involves heavy reliance on narrative versimilitude, DM fiat, and improvised mechanics.

Let's take the Dread example.   Dread is interesting in that it uses an unusual fortune mechanic.  The particular fortune mechanic it uses causes the difficulty of a task to steadily increase over time, so that a 'pull 1' task early in the game is not nearly the same as a 'pull 1' task later in the game.  What this means is that we have a non-simulation.  We have a game where the difficulty isn't determined by the task, but by the needs of the story.   The GM is constantly fudging to achieve a particular story arc.  His constraints and interests aren't really in, "How likely is this to succeed?" or even in, "How much can be accomplished?" but rather, "How much time is left in the story?"  The fortune mechanic is such that virtually any task has almost a 100% chance of success very early on, but eventually the odds of any task succeeding approach 0% in the long run.  The art is in running into that high chance of failure at the right time - neither too late nor too early.  That's the expectation of the system. It's a fortune mechanic designed to run a story to a definite and tense conclusion.  You couldn't run the same game with a coin flip.

Now, it should be perfectly clear then that the mechanic is in fact, "a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references", because the art of the game is in the pacing of the story and the challenges - inventing pulls where needed to pick up the pace and avoiding them elsewhere to slow it down.  There is no way that he rules can do more than give vague and difficult to apply guidelines for this, and so its up to the GM to come to understand and apply the art of the game. 

(Incidently, if you are living in the central Ohio area and think you've mastered this art, I'd love to be invited to sit in on a game to play and to learn.)



> 1: If my computer can work on binary pass/fail, yes/no checks as long as I break it down enough then so can an RPG.




First of all, your computer can't run an RPG.  If it could run an RPG, it could also pass the turing test.   And if you understand the art of an RPG well enough that you can teach a computer to do it, then I suggest that your skills are very underused and that you should be applying for a faculty position at UT, GT, CMU, MIT, CalB, or the like ASAP for your own good and the good of mankind.

Secondly, that "as long as I break it down enough" is the phrasing hiding all the art and complexity there, and within it is hid even things that make the most rules heavy system shudder.   The question is not whether any system is comprehensive, because it certainly isn't.   The question is whether the tools are there with good guidelines on how to use them.  In a rules light system, those guidelines must inherently be quite general and unspecific, and the rules themselves are likely to be of the same sort.   This doesn't make them 'bad rules', and they might even be better rules than heavier rules that consistantly give bad answers (especially in the hands of a good GM).   But it does mean that the GM has less in the way of guidance and must rely - like the users of the afore described school handbook - more on their own judgment.



> And in terms of game/rules design, elegance involves simple but functional.  "As simple as possible to do the job desired and no simpler".




Yes, it is the very same standard that is used for programming.  But sometimes this means something incredibly complex and 'janky' looking indeed because the simple things just don't do the job. 



> But a large part of why D&D works is that it grew organically rather than was a system designed from the top.  People don't fit into neat little boxes and D&D was tinkered with until it worked.




Yes.


----------



## Camelot (Oct 19, 2010)

Celebrim, you mentioned that the D&D books were "as dry as a cookbook."  I think you need to rethink that simile, because as I see it, it fits D&D perfectly.

When you want to eat food, you need to make it first.  You get out your cookbook and find a recipe that sounds and looks good, based on the description that the author provides and the pictures of the completed food.  You then must go through the steps of creating the food.  You might add in your own ingredients or take out suggested ingredients that you don't like.  Of course, you might also mess up some of the measuring or timing during the preparation.  Once you are finished, you can then eat the food.  You may find that it is just as you expected, but you might also find that the meal didn't turn out as you had hoped.  You could go back and try again, or you might make something completely new.

When you want to play an RPG, you need to make a character first.  You get out your Player's Handbook and find a class and race combo that sounds and looks good, based on the mechanics that the author wrote and the pictures and flavor text of those characters.  You then must go throught the steps of creating the character.  You might add in your own homebrew mechanics or change some roleplaying aspects that you don't like.  Of course, you might also mess up some of the math or misunderstand the mechanics.  Once you are finished, you can then play the RPG.  You may find that it is just as you expected, but you might also find that the character didn't turn out as you had hoped.  You could go back and rework the character, or you might make something comepletely new.

The point is, you need those rules to make the food/play the RPG as the author intended it.  You could also make up your own recipe/game rules, but it might not turn out as good as it would have with the cookbook/rulebook, because the author of that book has had a lot more experience than you at making the food/game rules taste good/be fun.

The rulebook may be dry, but that's because it isn't the game by itself.  There is some effort involved, in any game, to actually play the game instead of just reading a book.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 19, 2010)

I have quite a few cook books. The ones that get the most use are the ones which make me want to cook the things in them. There are two ways they do this. Either they have good pictures of the food, or they have some sort of narrative or facts about the food, telling me what it goes good with, what its history is, things like that. The cook books that have recipes with no commentary or pictures simply don't get used as much.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 19, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> It is simply a rules light game and so will have the inherent limitations of any rules light game, among which are "doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references".  Good designers of course mitigate against this by matching the intended game to the rules light mechanics of the game so that this problem gets in the way as little as possible.   But, every rules light approach invariably involves heavy reliance on narrative versimilitude, DM fiat, and improvised mechanics.
> 
> In a rules light system, those guidelines must inherently be quite general and unspecific, and the rules themselves are likely to be of the same sort.   This doesn't make them 'bad rules', and they might even be better rules than heavier rules that consistantly give bad answers (especially in the hands of a good GM).   But it does mean that the GM has less in the way of guidance and must rely - like the users of the afore described school handbook - more on their own judgment.
> /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 19, 2010)

Camelot said:


> Celebrim, you mentioned that the D&D books were "as dry as a cookbook."  I think you need to rethink that simile, because as I see it, it fits D&D perfectly.




Hardly. A cookbook is a script meant to be followed. The presumption is that if you do exactly as you are told*, you will get the result you want--and that result will be good regardless of whether you find the cookbook inspiring or entertaining, or whether you have any fun following the directions, because the goal is to produce a tangible thing which is distinct from the process of producing it.

Games don't work like that. If you're just performing rote directions from a book, why bother? The goal is to enjoy the process, not the nonexistent product; and in D&D, a central part of the process is the exercise of the imagination. Therefore, a good D&D book should fire the imagination of the reader.

Now, a dry, boring D&D book is not necessarily a total loss. Skilled gamers can bring the inspiration without the book's help, and one does need a good set of rules. Still, such a book is not doing as much as it could or (IMO) should to strengthen the game. Say what you will about 1E's mechanics, the books were fascinating to read and filled with creative fuel.

[size=-2]*Certainly a skilled chef can vary the recipe and will likely enjoy the process. But the point is that you don't _need_ to vary the recipe or enjoy yourself to achieve the basic goal.[/size]


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 19, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> Chrono, you are absolutely right that WotC would be foolish not to develop and exploit the excellent resource that is the dedicated D&D DM. These guys do more to get players in that a million ads.



I couldn't agree more with this assessment! Go DMs!


> But isn't that what they're doing with Encounters? Every Encounters DM is a local volunteer; the vast majority are likely dedicated players. WotC's doing a great job for herding new players into the arms of these evangelists through Encounters.



I'd say, no. Many, many previous editions DMs felt disenfranchised with DnD 4e's direction. Many decided to get off the bandwagon and play other games. Which would have been fine, except that they aren't just enthusiastic DMs- they are enthusiastic gamers. Many took some or all of their "herd" with them. Now those GMers are advertising for other games and systems.
But many did stick with it, and gave 4e a fighting chance. For many 4e is a hit, and its emphasis on balance is everything they could want in an RPG.
Then where does Essentials come in? Simplified rules, fewer choices, and a smaller range of advancement options. You have a game that is tailor made to hook the casual player niche of gamers. With little investment required in a character concept or comprehension of the rules, Essentials enables even a casual player to try out the D&D experience.
But essentials and other systems lack something CRPGs have: Accessibility. Affordability. All the effort in the world to make D&D the game of choice will be for naught so long as games happen once or twice a week. So WotC's solution is Encounters- walk in play. Casual players can get a mouthful at a time, at their leisure. But why doesn't this work? Because the people running it aren't casual players.
Encounters leaves dedicated DMs in the lurch. Stuck in a series of one offs, with the same repetitive 2 dimensional casts and mechanics, and with no ability to make meaningful changes the published encounters or events... can you imagine? How boring. How uninspiring. How unfulfilling. Encounters may be attractive to casual players, but actually DMing it sounds repulsive to me. But then I guess the renown points system just seems like a gimmick to me, so that might be part of it.




> I think you're wrong, though about abandoning new players. Where do the long-term, dedicated players come from? I was a newbie once, and I'm sure you were too. Yeah, a lot of them might try it and move on, but some portion of new players go on to become long-term players, and just the sort of dedicated, hard-core gamers we need to bring new generations into the game.



I'd say, the long-term dedicated players come from the friends of other long-term dedicated players. They aren't some elusive niche with a bizarre enthusiasm for technology and cheetos. Dedicated players can come from any walk of life- but all of them have friends who play. The people that walk into a gaming store, and start playing with a bunch of strangers, aren't (in my experience) the people that create a long-lasting personal connection to the game.
So what WotC really needs to do, is something like Gamers Seeking Gamers. A way for the entire gaming community to seek eachother out. Constantly repackaging their rules and using Encounters (or Living Forgotten Realms) to advertise their lastest offerings isn't cutting it.
I really wish DDI had produced the Game Table, as was advertised.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 19, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Faithful customers who stick with you for 30 years are easier to plan around than potential customers who might be tempted to give you their patronage if you revamp your entire inventory.




Except there really are no 30-year customers for WotC. They've "only" had the D&D brand since 3E for one thing. For another, many people either skipped entire editions or didn't go beyond certain others. All the people still playing OD&D/1E/2E aren't really WotC customers at all unless they come back with 4E, Essentials or some later product. Scads of people simply skipped 3E and came back with 4E. Another group stopped with 3E (just like every other previous edition). 

The only 30-year customers of D&D (the brand) are playing 4E and in their 40s or older (and many with overwhelming competition for their free time).  Not exactly a fertile vista of new gamers to grow an industry.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 20, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> You seem to be working under the assumption that versatility automatically makes a system good.



Given how many different things people have used the game for in the past and how many different ways they've played it (even within the same edition), I'd say this is an excellent base assumption.


> For that matter, the only sort of RPGs where I exploit the rules right up to the hilt are ones like old-school D&D where they are partially concealed and I've had to discover them in play.



Which in my view goes exactly against the spirit of the game and how it should be played.  It's not a game of "find the loophole", and if that's how you've been approaching rules-light or rules-concealed games no wonder they haven't worked for you.


			
				Camelot said:
			
		

> The rulebook may be dry, but that's because it isn't the game by itself. There is some effort involved, in any game, to actually play the game instead of just reading a book.



True, but the books also set the tone for the game; and if the books are a new player's first exposure to the game the books need to *be* the game.

1e books are like a dungeon - dig a little deeper and you'll find something new.
4e books are like a battlemap - it's all laid out and what you see is what you get.


			
				Herschel said:
			
		

> Except there really are no 30-year customers for WotC. They've "only" had the D&D brand since 3E for one thing. For another, many people either skipped entire editions or didn't go beyond certain others. *All the people still playing OD&D/1E/2E aren't really WotC customers at all* unless they come back with 4E, Essentials or some later product. Scads of people simply skipped 3E and came back with 4E. Another group stopped with 3E (just like every other previous edition).



Speaking from purely personal experience I can refute the bold-text part of this argument entirely.  I'm a warrior for 1e and I've been playing it continuously since 1982, but I've still bought more than enough 4e stuff - and 3e stuff before that - to (I would hope) qualify as a WotC customer.

If WotC puts out decent stuff, people playing every edition will buy it.  Even more so if they could find a way to put out decent edition-neutral stuff, but that thought never seems to enter their heads.

Lan-"does the D+D cookbook have a recipe for roast elf?"-efan


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 20, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> c) That assumption, if applied at my table, would likely get you the player in a lot of trouble in the long run.  While I don't feel any need to keep my falling rules secret, assuming you didn't know them, you'd actually be better off with the assumption that jumping off a house occasionally means a broken leg than with the assumption that, "Since this is D&D, I can exploit known limitations in the rules to jump off houses without breaking my leg."   And indeed, I feel this is true regardless of what the rules happen to be.




I'd say that's exactly the complaint. Is this a known limitation in the rules, or a design feature? No sane person is going to charge enemies with a rocket launcher across an open field. D&D characters charge enemies with fireballs all the time, knowing that the damage is going to be inconsiderable. I wouldn't jump off a ten feet wall; should my character be equally terrified of doing so? If no, then how tall should the wall be? 

There are all sorts of complaints where DMs and players had different expectations; one of the repeated ones on the board is a bridge across lava. If you kill my character because I should have known that running across a bridge five feet above lava would be fatal, or kill my character because he stood and fought instead of run across a bridge that was obviously perfectly safe, I'm going to be annoyed, and rightfully so in my opinion.



> Ok, sure, but you don't need to know the rules in order to do that.  It's perfectly possible to separate rules for chargen from the resolution rules.




There's problems, both big and small. You want to make a monk that can fall/float down a wall safely. Is this going to be a useful ability in game? What about a kit that reduces damage to 1d4 per 10', max. 20d4? Is that close enough? Should your first-level ranger in D&D 3.x pick Dragons as a favored enemy? The fact that dragons are a rare enemy for a party of less than fifth level is not chargen knowledge, but a player who doesn't know that and picks dragons as a favored enemy at first level is going to be less happy then one who made a good choice.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 20, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Encounters leaves dedicated DMs in the lurch. Stuck in a series of one offs, with the same repetitive 2 dimensional casts and mechanics, and with no ability to make meaningful changes the published encounters or events... can you imagine? How boring. How uninspiring. How unfulfilling. Encounters may be attractive to casual players, but actually DMing it sounds repulsive to me.




So you don't personally enjoy the play style or the edition. Fair enough. But the evidence from where I'm sitting (and I organized the launch and first three seasons of Encounters for the entire UK market, which included all the play data) is that Encounters is a runaway success. Far and away the most successful OP and public-play program for D&D ever. And terrific at bringing in new players.

Is it the end-all and be-all of the RPG experience? Hell no. But as a method for connecting new players to experienced DMs, it is undeniably working.

(And while DMing that sort of event may sound as boring to you as it does to me, Encounters offers a different thrill which is unresistible to many hardcore DMs: the joy of teaching the game and seeing new players get into it.)



> But then I guess the renown points system just seems like a gimmick to me, so that might be part of it.




I'm with you there. If I were to prognosticate, I'd guess that this will eventually fall by the wayside. It's extraneous and doesn't really add anything to the experience. Maybe it works as a hook to encourage players to attend _every_ session instead of _some_ sessions, but my guess is that the activity itself is a far stronger hook.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 20, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> ... it is undeniably working.




Mr. Ryan, your choice of words indicate that your are new to the concept of Internet discussion.

Therefore I would advise you to prepare for the unevitable denial of the success of the D&D Encounters. But don't feel that as a personal failure of yours! As you grow accustomed to the discourse found on this new fangled Internet, you will discover that there is nothing that can't be denied when discussing just about anything.

And the success of anything D&D is, I believe ranked as number 3 in things that are popular to deny, ranking only after the actual validity of the moon landing in 1969 and the theory of the ball-shaped Earth.



/M


----------



## nedjer (Oct 20, 2010)

Among the various steps WoTC seem to be taking towards making their game more accessible, Encounters is the toffee apple 

Makes new players, makes new connections, makes new GMs - doesn't get much stickier 

And no they're not going to be ninja GMs after a few games, but I've been working on that for years and there's some way to go yet


----------



## Camelot (Oct 20, 2010)

I coincedentally came across this article.  It's at least funny, if not somewhat relevant.

Killjoy_Cooking


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I have quite a few cook books. The ones that get the most use are the ones which make me want to cook the things in them. There are two ways they do this. Either they have good pictures of the food, or they have some sort of narrative or facts about the food, telling me what it goes good with, what its history is, things like that. The cook books that have recipes with no commentary or pictures simply don't get used as much.




Sadly, all my cookbooks call for infinite oregano.

Wait...erm, what were we talking about?

Overall, I've grown disillusioned with the current D&D, I think because it feels like the game has become a law text.  I've found myself longing to play BE(CMI) D&D and 2E (something I'd sworn never to touch after a year of playing 3E), though I've really been taken by the likes of the Savage Worlds game.  It feels to me that the game has been become lost in the mechanics over the actual play of the game.


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 20, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> So you don't personally enjoy the play style or the edition. Fair enough. But the evidence from where I'm sitting (and I organized the launch and first three seasons of Encounters for the entire UK market, which included all the play data) is that Encounters is a runaway success. Far and away the most successful OP and public-play program for D&D ever. And terrific at bringing in new players.
> 
> Is it the end-all and be-all of the RPG experience? Hell no. But as a method for connecting new players to experienced DMs, it is undeniably working.




I'm kind of curious now. Where are you sitting, exactly? Virginia? That's kind of distant from Europe, isn't it? Understand that none of us have the information you have at your disposal... and unless you're planning on sharing, the rest of us are in the dark. 

See, I'm not contending that is isn't a success... on your terms. The thing is, I'm looking at the success of the hobby as a whole, not just as a money-making venture.
So, to reiterate: as a way to advertise product, encounters is a great success. As a way of bringing long-term players into the fold, I don't think so. It's a good tactic in a losing strategy... because D&D is trying to compete in an arena where it cannot win.

In any case, I really don't have a reason to believe anything you say, simply on the basis that you have been employed to organize some events in Europe (never mind I can't really verify your identity or your claims). You have a vested interest in having this venture seen as a success by the wider gaming community, so it's not like you can claim any kind of impartiality on the subject. If you would be willing to supply this data you are referring to, I'm sure the rest of the community would appreciate it. If we all see the information that is backing up your claims, we wouldn't have to rely on your word alone.

*EDIT: I've scaled back and edited my warning below, under the assumption that Chrono22 wasn't deliberately trying to be rude. 

Admin here. Chrono22, Charles Ryan was brand manager of D&D for several years (Scott Rouse's position before he left WotC) and was WotC's main point of contact for D&D in England and the UK. It's cool if you ask people to back up facts, but please be sure to do so in a manner that isn't rude. Your post here definitely didn't come off that way.  - Piratecat*


----------



## Gimby (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> See, I'm not contending that is isn't a success... on your terms. The thing is, I'm looking at the success of the hobby as a whole, not just as a money-making venture.
> So, to reiterate: as a way to advertise product, encounters is a great success. As a way of bringing long-term players into the fold, I don't think so. It's a good tactic in a losing strategy... because D&D is trying to compete in an arena where it cannot win.




Is speed dating a substitute for a commited relationship? 

This is what I'm seeing Encounters as.  Something you can pop in and do on a whim with a low level of commitment that puts you in contact with like minded people.  I don't think that the idea is that people play Encounters and only Encounters - part of it is to introduce people to groups and to lower the barrier of entry to DMing.

-edit And calling the chap a liar is really beyond the pale.


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 21, 2010)

Since when has asking for proof equated to an accusation of lying?


----------



## Wicht (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> In any case, I really don't have a reason to believe anything you say, simply on the basis that you have been employed to organize some events in Europe (never mind I can't really verify your identity or your claims). You have a vested interest in having this venture seen as a success by the wider gaming community, so it's not like you can claim any kind of impartiality on the subject.




Mr. Ryan is a long time member of the Gaming industry. You can find his face book page here. He is pretty well known as being who he says he is, and as he is no longer employed in the UK, arranging D&D events, he does not have a present vested interest other than the interest that comes from wanting to see a personal endeavor continue to succeed once it is out of one's own hands.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 21, 2010)

The renown system is quite interesting; it's basically a development of the earlier Player Rewards system, except - as the DM Rewards have become - is now being made available through directly participating in Organized Play, not through general mailouts.

The trouble is this: the rewards aren't really that exciting. Yes, I get a card that I can use in the Encounters, but it isn't that special. Interestingly, it's currently almost impossible to get the 100 Renown points needed for the final card in the current season - especially with the rewards for creating a Character Builder character unachievable without Essentials being in the CB!

Charles, if I might ask, how well did the Wednesday-only restriction go down in the UK? Were catch-up sessions scheduled?

Cheers!


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 21, 2010)

Thanks Wicht, that clears alot up for me. I'd never heard of him before.

Still, it would be nice to see some of the figures that make encounters an undeniable success...


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Overall, I've grown disillusioned with the current D&D, I think because it feels like the game has become a law text.  I've found myself longing to play BE(CMI) D&D and 2E (something I'd sworn never to touch after a year of playing 3E), though I've really been taken by the likes of the Savage Worlds game.  It feels to me that the game has been become lost in the mechanics over the actual play of the game.




I find myself in a similar situation as well; I'm burned out on 3e and its ilk, didn't like 4e (though essentials came close) and am seriously considering running either Basic Fantasy or 2nd Edition again. 

I'd be willing to PLAY in anything, but running? That's a different story...


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Thanks Wicht, that clears alot up for me. I'd never heard of him before.
> 
> Still, it would be nice to see some of the figures that make encounters an undeniable success...




Come on. He can't publicize WotC financial data just to make a point on a message board, and at this point you're just quibbling. If he says it's a success (in the financial sense), I think we can take it that he knows what he's talking about.

As to whether financial success will translate into long-term benefits for the hobby? Hard to say, but it seems likely to me. At least some of the Encounters players will have a blast and decide they want to try "the real thing," so in an absolute sense it will increase the player base.

The danger is over-focusing on the Encounters market at the expense of the committed, long-term DM base, which as several people have pointed out really is the core of the hobby; they'll have to go through a lot of Encounters players to find a replacement for a single experienced DM. And of course we don't know what the "conversion rate" is between Encounters and traditional D&D. (On the plus side, WotC has an incentive to push that conversion. A traditional D&D player/DM is surely going to buy more stuff than an Encounters player or DM.)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Hardly. A cookbook is a script meant to be followed. The presumption is that if you do exactly as you are told*, you will get the result you want--and that result will be good regardless of whether you find the cookbook inspiring or entertaining, or whether you have any fun following the directions, because the goal is to produce a tangible thing which is distinct from the process of producing it.
> 
> Games don't work like that. If you're just performing rote directions from a book, why bother? The goal is to enjoy the process, not the nonexistent product; and in D&D, a central part of the process is the exercise of the imagination. Therefore, a good D&D book should fire the imagination of the reader.
> 
> ...




See, this is where I differ.  I don't particularly enjoy the process.  Prepping the game, building worlds, that sort of thing is not why I play D&D.  I play D&D for the fun that is had at the table with my friends.

This could go a long way to explaining why I run a lot of modules.  And always have.

For me, I prefer straight up instructions of a dry cookbook to somethat that rambles on, presuming that I can find whatever they're talking about in the cookbook.  

I've never particularly viewed gaming as my artistic outlet.  It's something I enjoy doing and something I've enjoyed doing for years.  But art?  Meh.  It's no more artistic than my Poker night as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Still, it would be nice to see some of the figures that make encounters an undeniable success...



Undeniable? Teeheehee!   

Nothing is undeniable. The very concept of denial is based on ignoring facts - see:
Denial


----------



## Maggan (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> If we all see the information that is backing up your claims, we wouldn't have to rely on your word alone.




I trust Mr. Ryan's words.

/M


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Since when has asking for proof equated to an accusation of lying?




It isn't.  It is an important part of the rational process.  You are allowed to determine the burden of proof required before you will believe anything.  Someone who doesn't accept your right to do this is probably selling something......  



Dausuul said:


> Come on. He can't publicize WotC financial data just to make a point on a message board, and at this point you're just quibbling. If he says it's a success (in the financial sense), I think we can take it that he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> As to whether financial success will translate into long-term benefits for the hobby? Hard to say, but it seems likely to me. At least some of the Encounters players will have a blast and decide they want to try "the real thing," so in an absolute sense it will increase the player base.
> 
> The danger is over-focusing on the Encounters market at the expense of the committed, long-term DM base, which as several people have pointed out really is the core of the hobby; they'll have to go through a lot of Encounters players to find a replacement for a single experienced DM. And of course we don't know what the "conversion rate" is between Encounters and traditional D&D. (On the plus side, WotC has an incentive to push that conversion. A traditional D&D player/DM is surely going to buy more stuff than an Encounters player or DM.)




Very good post.  Sorry I couldn't XP you for it.



Jhaelen said:


> Undeniable? Teeheehee!
> 
> Nothing is undeniable. The very concept of denial is based on ignoring facts - see:
> Denial




The very concept of denial of a claim, in a rational sense, is that a burden of proof hasn't been met.  Any conclusion you will ever draw will be based on sifting what evidence you have, and deciding which you think is most likely to be true.  

From a rational standpoint, denial of a claim is not a claim that the denied claim is false; it is a statement that the denied claim is "not proven" and therefore should not be assumed to be true (although it may well be).

Thus, I deny that the moon landing was faked, not on the basis of ignoring facts, but because the claim is not proven.  I might be wrong; the moon landing might have been faked.



Maggan said:


> I trust Mr. Ryan's words.




As do I.  AFAICT, he is a straight shooter.


RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> If he says it's a success (in the financial sense), I think we can take it that he knows what he's talking about.




Actually, to be clear, that's not what I meant to say. I meant that it's a success in the sense of bringing lots of players into the program on a weekly basis, seeing lots of NEW players in those sessions, and having the numbers grow over time. An OP program's goal is to increase trial and regular play; D&D Encounters has been terrific in meeting that goal.

Again, I agree that Encounters doesn't reflect a style of play that gets the most out of RPGs. But it's bringing new players in by the thousands, and some of those will become long-term players, and some of those will become the next generation of evangalists. And that's the most you can ask out of any promotional strategy.

And, back to the point in contention, it does so by effectively putting new players into contact with experienced DMs.

(By the way, thanks for the kind comments, everyone.)


----------



## JeffB (Oct 21, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I'd be willing to PLAY in anything, but running? That's a different story...




This has always been my case as well. I totally burnt out on 3E after a couple years, and while 4E is MUCH better for my own enjoyment, it is still "too much" as a game system. Some old lapsed players of mine recently asked me to run a 3.X or  Pathfinder game, and just to get some game time in, I said OK. I purchased the PF books and despite several attempts to really get into reading/learning and getting inspired by the system, after an hour my eyes just glazed over. I shelved the books and told them, "sorry,  no can-do". I offered to run some B/X or S&W:WB, 2E, or C&C. They are currently contemplating.

It's the same thing when I bought the recent Mongoose Runequest II book- From a player persepctive I can enjoy the more complicated combat & technical aspects but as a GM-rules up the ying yang stifles my creativity and enjoyment. Many RPGs have become way too complicated for me to enjoy. 

as to the original intent of the OP- I have a son turning 11 at the end of the month- I have attempted several times to spark an interest in  D&D in previous years using the 4E basic kit (the original one) as well as the 3.5 version, and the only moderately successful time was when I gave him the Mentzer players book (Frank's original hand erratta'ed copy, no less!). He's on occasion pulled the book out to read. I am hoping being slightly older and  4E red box which he will receive this sunday, which will generate some interest.  I think a GOOD D&D game for the Nintenod DS/Wii or some other console would probably be a better catalyst for most young folk these days. The current rules systems are IMO just too complicated to have mass appeal. the original Basic Sets did a much better job in not only sparking imagination, but provided a far simpler play experience in combination with those old basic modules. In addition they had much extended play value as they were pretty compatible with AD&D modules.  Todays young player gets into red box, and then gets slammed with a very complicated book in HOTFL or the PHB1- and 3.x was even worse. 

Then again, D&D is not the world wide "cult hit" it was in the late 70s and early 80s, and I don't think we will ever see that again- kids are blasted with so much more Fantasy & Sci-Fi TV/Movies/Video games these days , D&D is comparitively "weak".  Very unlike my youth in the 1970s- when the fantastical & the sense of wonder was far less commonplace and the medium was the the original Star Wars movie (EP IV), an old white cover copy of The Hobbit/LotR, or the incredible graphics of a Atari 2600


----------



## Wicht (Oct 21, 2010)

JeffB said:


> ...as to the original intent of the OP- I have a son turning 11 at the end of the month- I have attempted several times to spark an interest in  D&D in previous years using the 4E basic kit (the original one) as well as the 3.5 version, and the only moderately successful time was when I gave him the Mentzer players book (Frank's original hand erratta'ed copy, no less!). He's on occasion pulled the book out to read. I am hoping being slightly older and  4E red box which he will receive this sunday, which will generate some interest.




If you are having trouble getting interested in D&D and feel the rules are too much its not suprising to me your son would reflect this ambivelance. I have four children, 10-14, and all four are chomping at the bit to play whenever possible. They cut their teeth on 3.0 and are now all playing Pathfinder.

EDIt: Which is to say, the best way to interest your son is for you to play the game with him, using the ruleset you enjoy the most and talk the most positively about. This post was not meant to be a dig and rereading it, I realize my brevity might have been read that way.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22, please see my warning above. Thanks.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 21, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> I'd say that's exactly the complaint. Is this a known limitation in the rules, or a design feature?




It's not a design feature, so if the only other option is 'limitation in the rules' then I'd go with that one. 

If you go back and read the first few years of Dragon, you'll see this issue coming up all the time.  I might as well go and explain why.

In the early days of the game, falling was treated primarily as a trap because that's the context it primarily came up in.   The problem was, there was no rules for traps.  There weren't even rules for traps in the 1e DMG.  No one seemed to think you needed rules, and so traps were ad hoc'd by different designers and DMs to all sorts of different standards.  The same was true for falling.  Early on, you'll find 10' and 30' falls even in published modules having all sorts of different mechanics.  Gradually though, things started to get standardized around the idea of 1d6 damage per 10' of fall.

For low levels of play, this works pretty well and makes sense both from gamist and simulationist viewpoints.   Although it may be hard to remember it now, a d6 of damage at one time was quite lethal to first level characters, and if more lethality was desired deeper pits could always be used.  There was a casual realism to d6/10' damage through the first few levels of the game.  

But falling is very different than getting hit by battleaxes in D&D in one very important point.   Hit points in D&D are abstract, and so attacks in D&D are likewise abstract.  When a character is hit for d8 damage from a battleaxe, we don't know what has happened until after we inspect the remaining hit points.   That is to say, if the character has 40 hit points and takes d8 damage from a battle axe, we know that he took only a shallow superficial wound, whereas when a character with 4 hit points taking d8 damage we know that they took 'a battle axe to the face'.  But falling doesn't work exactly like this because we know (more or less, and here is the source of the argument) ahead of time before we roll for damage what has happened.   So in the case of the attack and the fall we are using the mechanics for different purposes.  In the case of the attack we use the mechanics to find out what happened, but in the case of the fall we know what happened and we use the mechanics to simulate it.  

I don't want to get into the various approaches that have been used to fix this except to say that they are very common and each address more strongly a different percieved shortcoming in the rules.   All though make falling more lethal and all basically have in mind that a hero ought to usually survive a fall but should generally fear a fall nonetheless.



> No sane person is going to charge enemies with a rocket launcher across an open field. D&D characters charge enemies with fireballs all the time, knowing that the damage is going to be inconsiderable.




Leaving aside that if you aren't in a vehicle, charging a hostile guy with a rocket launcher is probably a lot saner than standing still, I don't agree that the two situations are neatly comparable.   And, more importantly, this statement indicates to me that you haven't really considered how fireballs are (potentially) different than falling.  (Hint: A fireball is a kind of an attack.)



> I wouldn't jump off a ten feet wall; should my character be equally terrified of doing so? If no, then how tall should the wall be?




I think terrified is the wrong word.  I think you would jump off a ten foot wall if you had a good reason to do so.   Likewise, heroes aren't terrified and don't balk at doing dangerous things when the time comes, but I think they should still respect a fall as something not to be desired.   And, I think players should play the game that way regardless of what the rules are. 



> There are all sorts of complaints where DMs and players had different expectations; one of the repeated ones on the board is a bridge across lava. If you kill my character because I should have known that running across a bridge five feet above lava would be fatal, or kill my character because he stood and fought instead of run across a bridge that was obviously perfectly safe, I'm going to be annoyed, and rightfully so in my opinion.




Yes, but not necessarily for the reason you think.  You are IMO looking at the problem wrong.  You think that the failure is the DM failing to communicate the meta-information - how many dice of damage are dealt for being within 5' of lava.  The problem isn't that at all.   The problem is the DM failing to communicate the in game information.   If running across a bridge 5' above lava is lethal because of the heat of the air, then long before I reach the point where I suffer lethal heat, I should first feel a blast of heat like that from an newly open oven, and after that a scorching heat that dries my skin and eyes and causes great pain and discomfort.  Only after that should my hair and clothes (and body!) spontaneously combust.   But in the case of the DM who has you die for charging across a bridge, you apparantly recieved no information between going from an area that was cool and an area that was lethally hot.   That is the poor DMing, and not that the DM didn't tell you how many dice of damage you would take by going over the bridge.

In the real world, many people - having watched too much Hollywood - don't know that it is lethal to be within 5' of large body of glowing hot lava.  So its reasonable that your characters dont' have the exact mechanical knowledge either.   What is unreasonable is that they can't recieve in game knowledge.   Whether you had Hollywood understanding of lava or not, you'd soon get a real understanding of it were you in the real world and near to it.



> There's problems, both big and small. You want to make a monk that can fall/float down a wall safely. Is this going to be a useful ability in game? What about a kit that reduces damage to 1d4 per 10', max. 20d4? Is that close enough? Should your first-level ranger in D&D 3.x pick Dragons as a favored enemy? The fact that dragons are a rare enemy for a party of less than fifth level is not chargen knowledge, but a player who doesn't know that and picks dragons as a favored enemy at first level is going to be less happy then one who made a good choice.




All of these to me betray a mindset that is far to concerned with the metagame than the game.  And all of these problems are addressed by having a DM who, when working with a new player, advises the player of the benefits and potential drawbacks of the character concept that they imagine using plain language, for example:

"It's cool that you want to be a Dragon Hunter.  I think it sounds like a great concept.  I do want to warn you though that Dragons are a relatively rare enemy, and so you might not necessarily get to use that bonus very often and it might be some time before you meet a dragon."

Or...

"It's cool that you want to be a Dragon Hunter.  I think Dragons might be a common opponent in this campaign, and while you might not get a huge benefit out of 'favored enemy: dragon' immediately, in the long run you won't regret the choice."

Or whatever is appropriate to the game.   What's really important isn't the mechanics, but that the character has a cool concept like 'Dragon Hunter' and that the DM, if he's willing to approve it, is also willing to work with it.   For my part, it would just remind me as a DM to make a special effort to include draconic challenges/encounters in my plans.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Thanks Wicht, that clears alot up for me. I'd never heard of him before.
> 
> Still, it would be nice to see some of the figures that make encounters an undeniable success...





Be nice to know what evidence you have that it doesn't work? From an educational perspective it seems a 'no brainer'. Provide materials, a venue, a group, a scenario and a tutor and you get a tutorial. Not sure how this, i.e. Encounters, differs from what a GM does when they recruit at home?


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 21, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> In the early days of the game, falling was treated primarily as a trap ...  Gradually though, things started to get standardized around the idea of 1d6 damage per 10' of fall.
> 
> For low levels of play, this works pretty well and makes sense both from gamist and simulationist viewpoints.   Although it may be hard to remember it now, a d6 of damage at one time was quite lethal to first level characters, and if more lethality was desired deeper pits could always be used.  There was a casual realism to d6/10' damage through the first few levels of the game.
> 
> But falling is very different than getting hit by battleaxes in D&D in one very important point.   Hit points in D&D are abstract, and so attacks in D&D are likewise abstract.



SWSE's Wound-Vitality point system is the answer here.

Weapon/spell damage goes against Vitality points first, like normal.  Falling damage and other similar pain goes half to Wound points, half to Vitality. (or all straight to Wound, if you're a true RBDM); you could in theory die and still have VP left!

Lan-"help! I'm standing and I can't fall down!"-efan


----------



## MerricB (Oct 21, 2010)

I'm a big non-fan of Vitality/Wound systems, especially that of Star Wars. (SWSE? You mean the edition that got *rid* of that system? )

You could get something of the same effect in 3e by taking damage directly to your constitution. Entertaining for the DM, if not the player, it must be said.

Cheers!


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 21, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Be nice to know what evidence you have that it doesn't work? From an educational perspective it seems a 'no brainer'. Provide materials, a venue, a group, a scenario and a tutor and you get a tutorial. Not sure how this, i.e. Encounters, differs from what a GM does when they recruit at home?




Just anecdotal evidence. Most of the people I see playing encounters aren't young. That implies to me, that they probably aren't a new generation of players either.
Plus, I kind of think you need to have friends participating to really get into the game. Having friends that share a common interest with you, keeps everyone enthusiastic about the whole affair. IME, alot of the people in pickup groups at stores are throwbacks from more regular D&D groups. You know who I mean- the kind of guys that epitomize the most negative stereotypes of our beloved hobby. I'm sure plenty of awesome people play it too, but my experiences with such games were made very negative because of such players.
Also, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. An undeniable claim requires undeniable evidence.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 21, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> SWSE's Wound-Vitality point system is the answer here.
> 
> Weapon/spell damage goes against Vitality points first, like normal.  Falling damage and other similar pain goes half to Wound points, half to Vitality. (or all straight to Wound, if you're a true RBDM); you could in theory die and still have VP left!
> 
> Lan-"help! I'm standing and I can't fall down!"-efan




I'm aware of the WP/VP mechanic.  It has its purposes, but it IMO tends to make the game less gameable.  One of the reasons that HP's are the defacto standard mechanic not only in RPG's but in games generally is that they mitigate against bad luck.  The tendency of WP/VP is to create a lot of random deaths, which may be realistic and appropriate for some settings/games, but does reduce gameability somewhat.   

But let's not get side tracked into debates over mechanical design.  I don't think a WP/VP mechanic would make D&D more attractive to novices, and none of the current incarnations make use of it.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 21, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Leaving aside that if you aren't in a vehicle, charging a hostile guy with a rocket launcher is probably a lot saner than standing still, I don't agree that the two situations are neatly comparable.   And, more importantly, this statement indicates to me that you haven't really considered how fireballs are (potentially) different than falling.  (Hint: A fireball is a kind of an attack.)




I don't care whether it's an attack or not. The rules are my interface to the world. If a small fireball and a 50' fall both do 5d6 points of damage, averaging 18 points, then my character knows that, even if not quantitatively. He probably is more familiar with the damage that a fall does than the damage a fireball does, given how often parties fall in pit traps. Taking pain and damage is all part of the job and if you want my character to fear falls, they need to be something to fear in game.

I don't buy the fireball is a kind of an attack thing. When a fireball goes off at the feet of someone in plate mail, they're encased in a ball of fire, no escape. It is a lot more plausible to me that someone could learn how to fall well--acrobats do it all the time--then someone encased in plate mail could learn to deal with a ball of fire in such a way that it would seriously reduce the amount of damage they take (and even negate the change of being killed.)



> but I think they should still respect a fall as something not to be desired.




I think many do; damage is damage. But on the other hand, at higher levels, these are people who have died, repeatedly. In some cases, a little luck, maybe a touch of the gods (DM), was all that left anyone alive to keep them from being turned into undead lich toys. And that little light in their head that should have told them they had more than enough money and fame to retire and live the good life, free of poison gas, arrows, fireballs and, oh yeah, pit traps, it didn't turn on. For whatever reason, PCs no longer respect pain, injury and even death in the way that any reasonable person would.



> And, I think players should play the game that way regardless of what the rules are.




I can't. If a 50' fall isn't going to seriously hurt my characters, and I know that, and my character knows that, it's going to be seriously frustrating to me to be told that I've act as if my character doesn't know what falls feel like.



> You are IMO looking at the problem wrong.  You think that the failure is the DM failing to communicate the meta-information - how many dice of damage are dealt for being within 5' of lava.  The problem isn't that at all.   The problem is the DM failing to communicate the in game information.




Okay. But when a character does decide that the lethal heat behind him is less scary then the multitenticalled stinging ooze demon in front of him, the mechanics need to match the description. My character has been through his share of fireballs and attacked his share of Fire subtype creatures; he knows the difference between a little singeing and real damage. And again, he's fighting a multitenticalled stinging ooze demon that could drive a dozen Call of Cthulhu characters insane by just looking at them; why should he be terrified of a little heat that he's faced before?



> All of these to me betray a mindset that is far to concerned with the metagame than the game.  And all of these problems are addressed by having a DM who, when working with a new player, advises the player of the benefits and potential drawbacks of the character concept that they imagine using plain language, for example:
> 
> "It's cool that you want to be a Dragon Hunter.  I think it sounds like a great concept.  I do want to warn you though that Dragons are a relatively rare enemy, and so you might not necessarily get to use that bonus very often and it might be some time before you meet a dragon."
> 
> ...




Playing a weak character sucks. I've played many characters with cool concepts that never worked out in play. So knowing these rules, knowing whether or not something will be useful in play, is key to how much I enjoy the game. I'd argue strongly against one of your suggestions; unless the DM really pushes it, taking Favored Enemy: Dragon, for 3.x ranger at first level means that you're going to get less time to shine and are more likely to feel like a redundant fifth wheel. And given the distance between the rules and the reality you encourage, I don't see why it matters what they write down on the sheet. Even in game, you can argue that wanting to be a dragon hunter doesn't mean you have the skills to be a dragon hunter. 

If someone is willing to work with them, a new player doesn't need to know any rules. "You want to play a dragon hunter? Here's a dragon hunter. Oh, you don't know how to fill out the skills; let me do that for you." But if you want to play a really brave character you have to know the rules that tell you that Iron Will is the feat that will make your character less likely to fail Fear checks, and you'll have to consider the cost-benefits of taking Iron Will versus a feat that will make you more bad-ass in battle. Making a D&D character is part of the game for most people, and without knowing the rules, it's not going to be as satisfactory part of the game.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 21, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> I can't. If a 50' fall isn't going to seriously hurt my characters, and I know that, and my character knows that, it's going to be seriously frustrating to me to be told that I've act as if my character doesn't know what falls feel like..



Know? Nobody knows that.

If realism is your concern in this then you need to make the scale of damage for a fall zero-death. People have survived amazing falls without any damage. People have died from slipping and hitting their head on the ground.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 21, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> I don't care whether it's an attack or not. The rules are my interface to the world.




If you really believe that, then we have so little in common that we can do nothing but speak past each other.



> Taking pain and damage is all part of the job and if you want my character to fear falls, they need to be something to fear in game.




A 30' unexpected fall is potentially lethal to a character of any level in my game.  Granted, the odds are tiny (somewhat less than 1 in 20,000 depending on the assumptions you make), but the possibility exists.  So, to that extent I agree with this claim.



> I can't. If a 50' fall isn't going to seriously hurt my characters, and I know that, and my character knows that, it's going to be seriously frustrating to me to be told that I've act as if my character doesn't know what falls feel like.




To a certain extent, I agree.  I believe that the rules should match the reality being simulated to as great of extent as possible.  That this feeling is common is to a large part why the D&D default rules for falling are so frequently questioned and changed.  Certainly that's why I changed them.



> Okay. But when a character does decide that the lethal heat behind him is less scary then the multitenticalled stinging ooze demon in front of him...




Your character only knows what you would know in the same situation.  You can't expect to have perfect information about the environment.  I'm not going to tell you how many hit points the moster has, or how much damage it can do, or anything at all in terms of the rules if I can help it.  In the real world, there are many things you don't know until you try them, and that remains true even after you are experienced with them - which is why even experienced real world  'adventurers' can get themselves into trouble.



> And again, he's fighting a multitenticalled stinging ooze demon that could drive a dozen Call of Cthulhu characters insane by just looking at them; why should he be terrified of a little heat that he's faced before?




Because, quite arguably, your character knows that he's escaped all those situations only by at least some reliance on luck and good fortune, and his luck and good fortune might suddenly run out.  The default understanding of hit points is not that they make your character immune to crossbow bolts in the chest, but that they represent to a large extent your heroic luck that protects you so that crossbow bolts fired at you don't hit you squarely in the chest.  But from your character's prespective he knows that on those few occassions he does get squarely hit, he's as mortal as any other man.  So sure, he knows his luck and good fortune protect him, but why should he try his luck?  In point of fact, if your character fell 50' and lived, in D&D that doesn't mean that falls aren't lethal, that the force of gravity is lesser, or that stone is less solid.  So your character doesn't 'know what falls feel like' in the sense that he knows that falling doesn't hurt.  He knows rather, "It's a good thing that I managed to land on that patch of mud, didn't fall head first, was able to slow my fall on the way down, etc. because otherwise I'd be dead."

I could be widely off base here, but you bear the marks of a player who has been repeatedly screwed over and even abused by bad DMs.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 21, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Just anecdotal evidence. Most of the people I see playing encounters aren't young. That implies to me, that they probably aren't a new generation of players either.
> Plus, I kind of think you need to have friends participating to really get into the game. Having friends that share a common interest with you, keeps everyone enthusiastic about the whole affair. IME, alot of the people in pickup groups at stores are throwbacks from more regular D&D groups. You know who I mean- the kind of guys that epitomize the most negative stereotypes of our beloved hobby. I'm sure plenty of awesome people play it too, but my experiences with such games were made very negative because of such players.




Fair comment  But to stick to the dull tutorial analogy - I've seen plenty of teachery/ tutory types have a nightmare start. But they improve the materials, build 'social contracts', start to anticipate problems before they occur . . . TRPGs are pretty new to making themselves more accessible; it'll get better if they stick at it.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 22, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I'm aware of the WP/VP mechanic.  It has its purposes, but it IMO tends to make the game less gameable.  One of the reasons that HP's are the defacto standard mechanic not only in RPG's but in games generally is that they mitigate against bad luck.  The tendency of WP/VP is to create a lot of random deaths, which may be realistic and appropriate for some settings/games, but does reduce gameability somewhat.




But isn't any system where falling damage has lethal potential going to run into this same issue? I mean, either high-level PCs can die from a 30' fall, or they can't. If you regard dying from such a fall as "random death," then any system in which such a thing is possible is going to have random deaths.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 22, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> A 30' unexpected fall is potentially lethal to a character of any level in my game.  Granted, the odds are tiny (somewhat less than 1 in 20,000 depending on the assumptions you make), but the possibility exists.  So, to that extent I agree with this claim.




It's not a fix I'd be terribly happy with; for one, odds of more then maybe one in 400 (18 on 3d6, or 2 20s in a row on a d20) are too unlikely to have any result but causing random destruction once in a blue moon. For another, Rolemaster is right; any attack can bring the sudden death of an unlucky victim. If it really started to annoy me, I could see a quadratic system--(distance / 10')^2 d6 or something. But singling out falls as having a low probability of sudden death strikes me as weird.



> Your character only knows what you would know in the same situation. You can't expect to have perfect information about the environment. [...] anything at all in terms of the rules if I can help it.




I am not my character; my character is a very-much larger than life experienced adventurer. There is no way you can convey the information my adventurer knows about this situation in mere words. If you want to try and feed me everything in description, I don't feel unreasonable in wanting that description to give me a solid understand of just how dangerous a trained professional thinks it is.



> which is why even experienced real world  'adventurers' can get themselves into trouble.




I'm playing D&D, not E6 or Rolemaster. The Crocodile Hunter is not a medium or high level D&D character. 



> Because, quite arguably, your character knows that he's escaped all those situations only by at least some reliance on luck and good fortune, and his luck and good fortune might suddenly run out.




That's some characters. But that's not necessarily all characters; some may trust their god to have their back, some may believe their luck will never run out, and some may just stop caring.



> But from your character's perspective he knows that on those few occassions he does get squarely hit, he's as mortal as any other man.




From my character's perspective, he's had a few occasions where he's been squarely hit by a crossbow bolt. Most people were killed by the first, and never got a raise dead. He's clearly not as mortal as any other man. You're making a lot of assumptions about how people respond to these things, and while I think that some PCs may be reasonably cautious people, I think others may well believe themselves immortal or think they have nothing to lose.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 22, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> But isn't any system where falling damage has lethal potential going to run into this same issue? I mean, either high-level PCs can die from a 30' fall, or they can't. If you regard dying from such a fall as "random death," then any system in which such a thing is possible is going to have random deaths.




Yes.  It's hard to have a system where there is meaningful risk and 0 chance of death.  But typically WP/VP systems tend to generate fairly high risks of death in a wide variaty of situations.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 22, 2010)

I do think Prosfilaes has a point.  The primary interaction that any player will have with the game world will be through the rules, whether those rules are filtered through the GM or not.  Take two example players:

Player 1 plays in a system where the rules are very open to all players and he knows the books reasonably well.  He comes to a pit.  He knows, from the rules that this fall will not do enough damage to kill his character.  His decisions about how to cross this pit will incorporate that information.

Player 2 plays in a system where the rules are kept hidden behind the DM wall.  He comes to a pit.  The first time this happens, his decisions will be based on guesswork.  But, after he falls in that pit the first time, the second pit trap he comes to will no longer involve guesswork.  He knows the rules now and he's in the exact same position as Player 1.

So long as the GM is consistent (and a good GM will be consistent) it doesn't matter at all whether the resolution mechanics are pre-written in the rules or spring from the forehead of the GM.  At least, it doesn't matter to the player after the first time.

What is gained by hiding the rules behind the GM wall?  After a very short period of time, the rules will be known to everyone at the table and both groups will base their decisions on that knowledge.

About the only difference I see is that when Player 1 moves to a different DM, he knows the rules up front.  Player 2 has to relearn them again with the new GM.  But, again, after a fairly short period of time, both players are in the exact same position - all interaction with the game world is based on the mechanics.

And, really, this is a good thing, IMO.  Using different mechanics means a very different play experience depending on the game and genre.  I want certain mechanics if the game is meant to emulate particular genres - more or less lethal combat, more or less integrated social skills, more or less task resolution skills.  More or less buttons to fiddle with depending on the game.

Knowledge of the game mechanics allows players to make informed decisions regarding their play.  If the mechanics are suited to a particular genre, they should reward some actions while possibly punishing others.  Or at least provide a disincentive to follow certain actions.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Yes.  It's hard to have a system where there is meaningful risk and 0 chance of death.  But typically WP/VP systems tend to generate fairly high risks of death in a wide variaty of situations.



Where did the "fork thread" button go???

Starting new thread in General on this topic...don't know how to link from here.

Lan-"no fork, no knife, no spoon - what's this place coming to?"-efan


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 22, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> It's not a fix I'd be terribly happy with; for one, odds of more then maybe one in 400 (18 on 3d6, or 2 20s in a row on a d20) are too unlikely to have any result but causing random destruction once in a blue moon. For another, Rolemaster is right; any attack can bring the sudden death of an unlucky victim. If it really started to annoy me, I could see a quadratic system--(distance / 10')^2 d6 or something. But singling out falls as having a low probability of sudden death strikes me as weird.




I'm not singling out falls.  

So, just so you understand the rules.

1) Falls do 1d20 damage per 10' of falling, divided by the results of 1d6.  This generates an average damage very near to 1d6 per 10' of falling, but as you might expect has a very broad multimodal distribution where 'anything is possible'.  
2) Any single blow/attack of any sort which does 50 or more points of damage forces a traumatic damage save.  This is a DC 15 fortitude save.  If it fails, you roll against a table with results varying from things like broken limbs, to internal hemoraging, to crushed skulls.   Since a 30' fall can conceivably do 50 damage (50+ on the result of a 3d20, and a roll of 1 on the mitigation die), and since any saving throw can be failed on a roll of 1, any character that falls 30' unexpectedly is at risk of dying.  This greatly increases at greater heights.  Falling off of great heights is almost never automatic death, but it is always the risk of it.  Both are highly desirable traits as far as I'm concerned. 
3) Any fall which reduces you to zero or less hit points is automatically considered traumatic damage.  This is also true of any critical hit which does so, so I'm not particularly picking on falling I just don't want to make resolution any more complex than it is by treating the ground as attacking you.
4) PC's have a stock of 'destiny points' which can be used to buy rerolls or to force critical blows to become non-critical as well as many other useful things.  So, in general, bad luck can be mitigated unless you make too much of it for yourself.

The results of this are pretty straight forward.  The results of falling are on average pretty much exactly what you'd expect if I had used the standard rules, but exactly as I desire, every player is very much careful around heights because any mishap means potentially burning all important destiny points or outright death.  Death is always lurking just a round away, but so far the players in my current campaign have managed to avoid it - though at least once (involving the harpoon trap in the shrine of the traps god) I was certain that they wouldn't.  

And the simulationist in me likes that you can fall out of an airplane an live, or fall out of a tree house and die.



> There is no way you can convey the information my adventurer knows about this situation in mere words.




Errr..... yeah.  Right.  So, I continue to feel like this conversation is going to become more and more pointless.



> If you want to try and feed me everything in description, I don't feel unreasonable in wanting that description to give me a solid understand of just how dangerous a trained professional thinks it is.




How about, 'Very'?  I'm having a hard time relating this request to anything real people know about real situations.



> I'm playing D&D, not E6 or Rolemaster. The Crocodile Hunter is not a medium or high level D&D character.




I'm not sure you can state anything definatively about what is or isn't high level except with respect to a particular campaign.  What was 'high level' on Krynn was low level on Faerun.  High level for Eberron is probably different than high level for Planescape.



> You're making a lot of assumptions about how people respond to these things, and while I think that some PCs may be reasonably cautious people, I think others may well believe themselves immortal or think they have nothing to lose.




Maybe.  I am making some assumptions here, but I note so are you about how D&D plays as if there was one answer to that question even in published works to say nothing of homebrews.  I'm not even sure that characters that you envision as the default D&D character exist in my worlds.

You want to play a reckless devil may care sort of character, I'm perfectly fine with that.   But unless you are a particularly skilled role player, chances are you are going to end up dead in a hurry trying to personify that.  More importantly though, I find your argument to be a bit spurious because you don't seem from your discussion to be the sort of person who leans strongly toward 'role playing your character is more important than success' much less one that deliberately chooses less than optimal strategies because 'its what my character would do'.  In fact, the some of your statements convey to me exactly the opposite.  You want to play 'strong' characters.  You want to have full knowledge so you can choose the winning strategy.  You talk about knowing whether something is useful is critical to your enjoyment.  You seem to me to be inventing this notion of the reckless character to justify precisely the opposite sort of play.

Look, you are talking to the guy who spent most of his 1st edition career playing a thief - a class with virtually no advantages at all in 1st edition, with an attack progression worse than a 3e mage, poor hit points, bad saves, and no class abilities that weren't obseleted by spells before 10th level.  Your talking to a guy who cut his teeth as a player in a game system where you weren't that worried about the save or dies - it was the die no saves that you had to be particularly careful of.  You are talking to a guy that played the game at a time when reading the DMG as a player was considered somewhat less than bad form.   I just have hard time being sympathetic with your position that you need all this control and metagame information to enjoy the game.  And in any event, I don't think that that is the way you nuture up new players.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 22, 2010)

Edit: Taking it to Lanefan's thread on WP/VP systems.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Well, that depends on how it's implemented, doesn't it?




All other things being equal, if you allow some forms of damage to effectively skip past some of your hit points, you are increasing the risk of PC death. The more forms of damage skip past, the greater the increase in risk.  You'd have to nerf some other damage forms, or give some other benefit, in order for risk to be equivalent.  That's just the math - make some things hurt more, risk increases.

You may feel the increase in risk is something you feel you can ignore, of course, or you may feel that the increased risk is worth the verisimilitude, or actually enhances some flavor in your game, or is otherwise acceptable.  But that's perhaps a separate question.

For me - if the change isn't a raise in risk worth worrying about, I'd have to wonder why it was done.  Special rules for rare cases are usually not worth their weight in paperwork.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 22, 2010)

FWIW when I decided to revamp falling rules, I decided to introduce uncertainty by agreeing that when you fell you would take 1d6 lots of the falling damage, determined by how badly you landed. A successful jump or tumble check could reduce that 1d6 by 1 (to a minimum of 1).


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I do think Prosfilaes has a point.  The primary interaction that any player will have with the game world will be through the rules, whether those rules are filtered through the GM or not.




I'll probably want to come back to this at a latter point, but I disagree.  The game world generally isn't even discoverable from the rules.  It's not in there.  And, with the exception of a few GMless systems, if all you are interfacing with are rules and not a GM then you don't even have a game.



> Player 1 plays in a system where the rules are very open to all players and he knows the books reasonably well.  He comes to a pit.  He knows, from the rules that this fall will not do enough damage to kill his character.  His decisions about how to cross this pit will incorporate that information.




Ok.  That's unavoidable.



> Player 2 plays in a system where the rules are kept hidden behind the DM wall.  He comes to a pit.  The first time this happens, his decisions will be based on guesswork.  But, after he falls in that pit the first time, the second pit trap he comes to will no longer involve guesswork.  He knows the rules now and he's in the exact same position as Player 1.




No.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for a rules wall here, but you are just wrong.  

Consider for example what you know after falling in the pit once under my rules.   You know, for example, that after falling 20' that you took 12 damage.   So, you might say, "The rule is that if I fall 20' I take 12 damage."  But, you'd be wrong.  You have only one data point.  You as of yet have no idea what the range of possibilities are.   Maybe I threw 2d6 and you got really unlucky.   Maybe I threw 2d100 and you get really lucky.   You have no way of knowing what the rule is, nor do you now how it scaled.   For example, you might suppose that the rule is, "You take 6 damage for every 10' you fall."   But if I'm using the common cummulative damage rule, the 30' fall will do on average twice the damage of the 20' fall.  That's not a feature that would be obvious from the rules.  Under my rules the actual damage range for that 20' fall was 0-40, and there are emergent features that might not be immediately apparant.



> What is gained by hiding the rules behind the GM wall?




Let's try not to drift too much from the topic.  We aren't actually discussing the utility of rules walls generally, which I wouldn't support.   What we are discussing is attracting new players to the game, and in that situation an actual 'rule wall' isn't useful but it is I think quite useful to approach playing the game from something other than a rules first perspective.  



> After a very short period of time, the rules will be known to everyone at the table and both groups will base their decisions on that knowledge.




It probably won't be nearly so short of a time, but yes, it's inevitable and even useful that the players will eventually acquire some knowledge of the rules.


----------



## UHF (Oct 22, 2010)

As much as I feel that my brain has atrophied and I can't handle more complex rules, I have to admit that I tried lots of other rules (when I was young and foolish), and I didn't enjoy them.  I never got into 3.x because it was a leap up from 2e, and my career was just taking off.  Years later I've got my built in gamers (kids), and 4e was coming out the door.

I feel that 4e is just right.  Kids grok 4e fast. (I have a 6 year old daughter with a penchant for backstabbing, and a son who likes sticking arrows in things.)  My friends kids (7, 8, 10, 12) all play 1e (and they all grok that), and when they come over they quickly pick up what is going on, use cards, and get playing.

On the other hand, I feel 4e is easy to understand, but hard to run.  The mechanics hurt my brain some days.  I don't think this issue is easily escaped.


I've taught many new kids in the neighborhood how to play D&D using 4e rules.  One household I know has picked up the 4e Red Box, and I'm mentoring their father as a DM.   My formative D&D years well and truly sucked.  I didn't meet good DMs for a solid 10 years.  I hope to improve other gamers' experiences.

I do feel that all this Paizo vs WOTC talk is misplaced.  Castles and Crusades is something kids can sink their teeth into, and not get lost in the rules.  AD&D is a treasure trove of material for kids to get into.


From what I'm hearing we don't so much need a basic set of rules, as a set of youtube videos clearly showing how its done.  Watching a DM is very different from being one. How did you fudge that, and do the players even know?  Are they being railroaded?  Do they know?  How do you adapt a game to your player's capabilities?  Is your game satisfying their needs?

I know that if I had seen a 'how to' video 30 years ago, I would have enjoyed my games more.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Look, you are talking to the guy who spent most of his 1st edition career playing a thief




You're talking to someone who played a kobold for his longest 3.5 campaign and who played a dwarven wizard for 4ed. I also tend to play things like ogre barbarians, because ogre barbarians are never sitting on the sidelines because what felt cool is completely useless in play.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 23, 2010)

I don't mean to point out the obvious, but there are plenty of magic items and abilities in 4E which help to make falling little more than a minor setback; regardless of what the damage rules for falling are.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 23, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I don't mean to point out the obvious, but there are plenty of magic items and abilities in 4E which help to make falling little more than a minor setback; regardless of what the damage rules for falling are.




One of the problems with long threads like this is that it can be very easy to forget what is being argued and why.   In this case, we don't actually care that much about the mechanics of falling rules (although granted, such discussions are interesting in themselves) except to the extent that they impact the main argument.

That main argument is over the question of whether a new player needs to know the minutia of the resolution rules of an RPG in order to enjoy it.  I'm arguing that in order to enjoy the game a new player almost certainly does not need to know the resolution rules, and indeed attempting to force all those rules on a new player is likely to reduce their enjoyment of the game.   Others have claimed that its best if the new player does know the resolution rules.  Falling rules are being used as an exemplar of this point.   Or in other words, "In order to enjoy the game, does a new player need to know the rules for falling?"

The outcome of that argument is only important in as much as it impacts the question of, "What sort of game should you design to attract new players?", because the OP of the thread made the claim that, "A game that will attract new players should not be complicated."


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> One of the problems with long threads like this is that it can be very easy to forget what is being argued and why. [...]
> That main argument is over the question of whether a new player needs to know the minutia of the resolution rules of an RPG in order to enjoy it.  I'm arguing that in order to enjoy the game a new player almost certainly does not need to know the resolution rules, and indeed attempting to force all those rules on a new player is likely to reduce their enjoyment of the game.   Others have claimed that its best if the new player does know the resolution rules.  Falling rules are being used as an exemplar of this point.   Or in other words, "In order to enjoy the game, does a new player need to know the rules for falling?"




I wouldn't force or encourage a new player to know all the rules. I would, however, upon first encountering a pit trap (or the like)  stop the game to point out the rules for falling--"it's 1d6 per 10', provided there's not spikes or other nasty things at the bottom"--and maybe hang a lampshade on the fact that all these monsters live right here and manage to avoid it, if it's that type of game. (And then beam with happiness if my protege immediately demanded why the footprints around the trap but not on it weren't a dead giveaway.)

And for another example, if I had a new player wanting to play a ranger, when they were making a character, I would go over what the different favored enemies were and where they'd likely appear or not in the game, in some depth.


----------



## Phaoz (Oct 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> One of the problems with long threads like this is that it can be very easy to forget what is being argued and why.   In this case, we don't actually care that much about the mechanics of falling rules (although granted, such discussions are interesting in themselves) except to the extent that they impact the main argument.
> 
> That main argument is over the question of whether a new player needs to know the minutia of the resolution rules of an RPG in order to enjoy it.  I'm arguing that in order to enjoy the game a new player almost certainly does not need to know the resolution rules, and indeed attempting to force all those rules on a new player is likely to reduce their enjoyment of the game.   Others have claimed that its best if the new player does know the resolution rules.  Falling rules are being used as an exemplar of this point.   Or in other words, "In order to enjoy the game, does a new player need to know the rules for falling?"
> 
> The outcome of that argument is only important in as much as it impacts the question of, "What sort of game should you design to attract new players?", because the OP of the thread made the claim that, "A game that will attract new players should not be complicated."




The OP's argument that 4E or Pathfinder won't attract new players because they have rules ( or charecter sheets, as the op later argued) that are too complex dosn't really work simply because
far more complex games (champions for example)have been around longer then 3E and 4E combined


----------



## teach (Oct 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The outcome of that argument is only important in as much as it impacts the question of, "What sort of game should you design to attract new players?", because the OP of the thread made the claim that, "A game that will attract new players should not be complicated."




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.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 23, 2010)

Phaoz said:


> The OP's argument that 4E or Pathfinder won't attract new players because they have rules ( or charecter sheets, as the op later argued) that are too complex dosn't really work simply because
> far more complex games (champions for example)have been around longer then 3E and 4E combined




But 3.5 PHB is 286 numbered pages, probably 300 with the Dragon labeled FAQ in the back. The 4.0 PHB is 317 pages. Pathfinder is 575 pages, with 396 before we hit the section labeled gamemastering. Champions is 345, sans character maker manual, 228 pages before the gamemastering section, and looks to have a larger font than 3.5 or especially Pathfinder. If we're talking about GMs, we should add in DMG for the D&Ds. (Monster Manual/Bestiary is harder to compare like with like, as Champions has no core book for monsters/enemies, but a lot of non-core material.) For sheer intimidation, I'd say the Pathfinder book beats the Champions book hands down; thicker, heavier and smaller font.

As for complexity, D&D has a lot of fiddly bits. I suspect whether or not Champions is more complex for someone depends on whether they find long, long lists of feats and spells and options harder than a smaller group of orthogonal building blocks.

And lastly, the question is not whether Champions attracts players. The number of nonroleplayers who picked up Champions and taught themselves to play without other people are around can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, and even outside that, I suspect few people had their first roleplaying experience with Champions. A game that's made for experienced roleplayers can survive, but it hardly says anything about games attracting new players.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 24, 2010)

teach said:


> 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.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


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



Including D&D where you are expected to start at level 1 and gain new spells, features, and powers as you level.  Oh, and a starter deck in Magic is probably as complex as a paragon level character sheet in 4e.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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.


----------



## webrunner (Oct 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 30, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.



Hussar said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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.)


----------



## nedjer (Oct 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> . 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.


----------



## Daazimal (Oct 30, 2010)

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.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 30, 2010)

Daazimal said:


> 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.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 30, 2010)

Daazimal said:


> 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.




That was not my experience.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2010)

Daazimal said:


> 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.




This chestnut gets brought out time and time again.  Why is that?  Why is this meme that, at some mythical time in the past, we were all deeply involved role players, who scoffed at combat and each session was a performance equaled only by the greatest actors of the time only to be subverted by new games which turned us all into mindless combat wombats who do nothing but throw dice at imaginary monsters?

Does people not actually go back and READ those old materials?  Or read through the "Let's Read Dragon Magazine" thread?  

Hack and slash have been part and parcel for D&D since the very first days.  Hell, Dragonlance is actually panned for trying to bring plot into the game!  It took nearly twenty years from the days of Chainmail until 2e D&D to actually get REWARDS for role playing into the game.

The more things change...


----------



## nedjer (Oct 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This chestnut gets brought out time and time again.  Why is that?  Why is this meme that, at some mythical time in the past, we were all deeply involved role players, who scoffed at combat and each session was a performance equaled only by the greatest actors of the time only to be subverted by new games which turned us all into mindless combat wombats who do nothing but throw dice at imaginary monsters?
> 
> Does people not actually go back and READ those old materials?  Or read through the "Let's Read Dragon Magazine" thread?
> 
> ...




Let's roast that chestnut . . .

Meme #1

That roleplaying is about Oscar winning handwringing

Is roleplaying getting deep in character by affecting a characterisation, or is it participating in the life and deeds of a character? I.e. wearing a hood and talking with a lisp v's planning and conducting an assassination attempt.

Meme #2

That it's hack and slay v's roleplaying

Combat is part of roleplaying, along with exploration, investigation and imagination. Why does any one necessarily preclude or devalue the others? 

(With the possible exception of gaming while wearing a Gimli costume and talking in a fake Scottish accent)


----------



## Daazimal (Oct 31, 2010)

I think I have read that dungeon magazine too. Hack and Slash vs. Roleplaying. When I think of hack and slash, it is more of let's see what we can throw against the characters and see what happens. If I recall they had a funny cartoon about one of the players running a game, because the DM and a few other of the player were going to a convention, not sure on that one. And the player, DMing just ran all the monsters out of the Monsterous Manual, starting from A-Z. Very boring I would think. 
  Not to say that 3rd edition is like this, but I do know that when characters reach around 12 level or so, that you would have to throw overwhelming odds just so the characters would be more challenged. When it involved combat. 2nd edition had it's flaws like that, but not to the extent 3rd edition had. Then start adding prestige classes, and those orcs no longer were a threat to players. 
  As a DM, it can be quite frustrating when your characters have a way of walking through a game that you spent hours on trying to be some sort of challenge. 
   As for the bread and butter of FRPGs it was the roleplaying element. You created a character based on a story that you gave that character. Anyone can play a ranger, but not anyone could play a ranger that told dirty limmericks in taverns, or the bard who sang comical parodies of the deeds that the player characters had done. Not to mention a fighter who was wimpy but was very brave and strong underneath, Not to mention the bad mouthed, hot tempered dwarf priest who gave the others strength when they so desperately needed it. 
   That was what kept us playing. Never knew what was going to happen next. It was very common for my players to just sit and come up with this stuff, and not do anything in a game. I remember sessions where the time was spent in a tavern talking about the last adventure and all the things, the dirty rhymes, the parodies, the hot tempered foul mouth of the dwarf, and the weakness of  the fighter would have us all laughing for hours. Somehow it just all added up together into a very humorous spectacle of the wimpy kid, and the dwarf arguing, whilst the dirty limmericks issue forth, not to mention a comical parody of the last adventure comming out. We would rolling. So as far as wearing gimili, any day of the week. Not to mention it is banana colored. Not this gamer!!!!

No, I am not talking of actors. Or people being great actors. Just those few times, when the great idea is more rewarding than the PC's vs the world. Where every game is dire combat or die. The save the world conundrum. No, I am talking about Tony, who went on vacation during the summer, and wrote some wacky tune to one of the adventures we played, but turned out to be the corniest thing we ever heard, or Sara who played the grumpy bad mouthed, hot tempered dwarf, ever heard a girl try to sound like a dwarf, not to mention have a bad mouth,  then William telling dirty jokes that his dad had told some people to fill the time and make everyone laugh, and lastly Jonathon who was the bigger than any two of us put together, play the wimpy fighter. Imagine what we picked on him about.

In the end, I don't think it matters what version of any game you play, or how many different versions you played. I think people are going to easily find themselves settled into the version they had the most fun with and just not want to give up the memories that they share. My group while we don't play very often, our lives have gone on to other things, but everyone of us keeps in contact with each other, and when we do get together our discussions usually lead to those late nights, of throwing dice and fighting monsters and saving the kingdom from certain doom. It is a lot of "Do you remember whens" and " Wasn't such and such doing such and such."  Not to mention the being picked on for this foolishness or that. That is what ir boils to around the table, whether square or round, or partially there of.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 31, 2010)

Daazimal said:


> Not to say that 3rd edition is like this, but I do know that when characters reach around 12 level or so, that you would have to throw overwhelming odds just so the characters would be more challenged. When it involved combat. 2nd edition had it's flaws like that, but not to the extent 3rd edition had. Then start adding prestige classes, and those orcs no longer were a threat to players.




I'm afraid that this also has not been my experience. If anything, higher level combat is always more deadly, filled with unexpected twists.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 1, 2010)

World's Largest Dungeon - 27 PC deaths between levels 1 and 17 over the course of 80 sessions. 

Needless to say that my experience, like Wicht's, differs greatly from yours.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 1, 2010)

Daazimal said:


> Not to say that 3rd edition is like this, but I do know that when characters reach around 12 level or so, that you would have to throw overwhelming odds just so the characters would be more challenged.




Isn't this pretty tautological?

Every so often I'll see people saying stuff like this, and I'm just not following the logic. At higher levels you have to use encounters that challenge the PCs in order to challenge them? Okay. Yeah. That's true. What's your point?

And, how, exactly is that supposed to be incompatible with swapping stories about it back at the local tavern?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2010)

I am no fan of 4e, and I am no longer playing 3e.  I do not play Pathfinder.  

(I do, however, use 4e, 3e, and Pathfinder modules.)

Being aware that these games have all attracted new players, though, I find that any discussion of why they will not do so founders upon the hard rocks of my experience.  Likewise any discussion of how they are so good they will remove the need for any other games.

They all have weaknesses and strengths.  They all will appeal to some people more than others.  They all will appeal to some people greatly, and to others not at all.

The same thing is true for all earlier editions, all retroclones, all para-editions, and all game rulesets that don't fall under any of those categories.

And, because it is the nature of the beast, there will be a 5e.  And a 6e.  Market forces -- and the law of diminishing returns -- demand that it should be so.


RC


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 1, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I'm afraid that this also has not been my experience. If anything, higher level combat is always more deadly, filled with unexpected twists.




It's pretty easy to show why this is true using the rules.

1) Base saving throw bonuses generally increase at the rate of +1 per 3 levels.
2) DC of saving throws generally increase at the rate of about +1 per 2 levels.
3) The enhancement of saving throws bonuses and DC bonuses from magic, stat upgrades, and feats about even out.  
4) So, generally you are more likely to fail a saving throw the higher you are in level.   Or more specifically, your 'poor' saves get worse and your 'good' saves only about keep up with the challenges you face.
5) The consequences of failing a saving throw increase as you increase in level.

This in my opinion was one of the biggest problems with 3rd edition.  In 1st edition, you were pretty much gauranteed to have better saves as you increased in level (and face monsters with better and better saves as well).  The impact of this problem wasn't limited to a greater expectation of random death at high level.  It also was largely responsible for the necessity of maintaining a large array of defensive buffs on all members of the party at all times.  And it was the effectiveness of 'save or suck' that caused players and NPCs to sling around alot of those debuffing spells that inflicted statuses, ability damage, level drain, different named bonuses/penalties, and the like on each other.  It was the maintenance and application of large numbers of buffs and debuffs each modifying things in a large number of ways which helped to make high level 3rd edition combat a potential nightmare to run.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 2, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> In 1st edition, you were pretty much gauranteed to have better saves as you increased in level (and face monsters with better and better saves as well).



Which, as a perhaps-unintended side effect, also served as a means of keeping casters' power levels from getting too out of hand at high level...

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Which, as a perhaps-unintended side effect, also served as a means of keeping casters' power levels from getting too out of hand at high level...
> 
> Lanefan




Well, yes and no.  Since most spells had no cap, the saving throw became moot in many cases.  If they survived the first fireball, it still did so much damage that the second one took them out.  Really, the saving throw didn't matter so much to the monsters because the monsters had so few hit points that a lucky die roll was enough to kill them regardless of whether they saved or not.

Or, put it another way, an 8 hd creature only has 32 hit points on average.  A pair of 8 die fireballs is generally enough to mop the floor with most of the creatures.

I know that when I played 1e and 2e, I generally used 75%  to 100% hit points for most monsters, just to keep them alive long enough.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Well, yes and no.  Since most spells had no cap, the saving throw became moot in many cases.  If they survived the first fireball, it still did so much damage that the second one took them out.  Really, the saving throw didn't matter so much to the monsters because the monsters had so few hit points that a lucky die roll was enough to kill them regardless of whether they saved or not.
> 
> Or, put it another way, an 8 hd creature only has 32 hit points on average.  A pair of 8 die fireballs is generally enough to mop the floor with most of the creatures.
> 
> I know that when I played 1e and 2e, I generally used 75%  to 100% hit points for most monsters, just to keep them alive long enough.



Same here - particularly with solo monsters - but not just because of the casters.  The warriors can give it out just as well.

3e had the answer here, if one wants to go to the trouble: give monsters the same Con. bonus to h.p. as PCs get.  The average Giant, for example, is going to have about Con. 20 - a pretty big deal in 1e - so I have no problem at all giving them an extra 4 or 5 h.p. per die.  That takes yer 8 HD creature from about 30-35 h.p. to about 65-70, still very killable but now it's at least gonna stick around long enough to provide some entertainment.

The other answer can sometimes be setting.  If said 8 HD creature is in a small enough area that to fireball it means frying your own party as well then the tactics have to change a bit... 

Lan-"topic? what topic?"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Same here - particularly with solo monsters - but not just because of the casters.  The warriors can give it out just as well.
> 
> 3e had the answer here, if one wants to go to the trouble: give monsters the same Con. bonus to h.p. as PCs get.  The average Giant, for example, is going to have about Con. 20 - a pretty big deal in 1e - so I have no problem at all giving them an extra 4 or 5 h.p. per die.  That takes yer 8 HD creature from about 30-35 h.p. to about 65-70, still very killable but now it's at least gonna stick around long enough to provide some entertainment.
> 
> ...




Heh, tangent?  What is this tangent thing of which you speak?  

The issue comes in even with spells like magic missile.  I remember in one of the Gygax conversation threads, he talked about wanting to have a monster supplement similar to the original Unearthed Arcana to bump up the monsters as well and adding the six stats to monsters was one of the things he wanted to do.

42 hit point giants died like lemmings when we faced them in Against the Giants.


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Heh, tangent?  What is this tangent thing of which you speak?
> 
> ...
> 
> 42 hit point giants died like lemmings when we faced them in Against the Giants.





Ah, now that explains it. I was considering running AtG late in 3.5 and thought it was impossible. That explains why it was possible under the older edition. That does bring back to mind my 1/2-orc brothers that were dragon hunters via their two-handed swords (nothing like 18/x str + 3d6 damage in 1e - mmmm, those were the days). I loved chopping up them 1e dragons.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2010)

amerigoV - IMO, probably the single biggest change going from AD&D to 3e was the MASSIVE bump that monsters got.  When you look at those old AD&D modules and you see the encounter numbers, you really get a sense of how incredibly powerful AD&D characters really were.  Sure, they could be killed, but, IME, to do it through straight up combat damage, you had to bury them under a small army to do it.

Save or die was something else entirely.  

In 3e, a given creature of equal CR to a PC's level could (not easily, but could) outright kill a PC in a single round quite often, and could certainly do it in two rounds.  The giants, especially, got a huge powerup.  Everything from ogres and trolls (50 points of damage in a single round!) to true giants just got a massive power bump.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> amerigoV - IMO, probably the single biggest change going from AD&D to 3e was the MASSIVE bump that monsters got.  When you look at those old AD&D modules and you see the encounter numbers, you really get a sense of how incredibly powerful AD&D characters really were.  Sure, they could be killed, but, IME, to do it through straight up combat damage, you had to bury them under a small army to do it.




The bump for giants and dragons came between AD&D 1e and 2e, actually. Giants in 2E are far, far more difficult to kill than in 1e.

Cheers!


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In 3e, a given creature of equal CR to a PC's level could (not easily, but could) outright kill a PC in a single round quite often, and could certainly do it in two rounds.  The giants, especially, got a huge powerup.  Everything from ogres and trolls (50 points of damage in a single round!) to true giants just got a massive power bump.



That was done at the design level, and backed off a bit for 4e.  3e really went in for the big set-piece battle against a single significant foe, and thus had to jump up the foes in order to make 'em significant.  4e goes more for battles against a varying (though usually fairly small) number of mixed foes, meaning each individual one doesn't need to have as much going for it.  That said, 4e solos can also bring the heat when needed.

I've found solo monsters in 1e never have a chance, no matter how tough they seem to be on paper.  But throw in even just a few minor idiots to disrupt the party's focus on the big guy and it makes a surprising amount of difference.

Lan-"tonight I'm a wandering tangent generator"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2010)

MerricB said:


> The bump for giants and dragons came between AD&D 1e and 2e, actually. Giants in 2E are far, far more difficult to kill than in 1e.
> 
> Cheers!




This is true, although, IMO, they didn't go far enough.  Given that 2e characters also got a pretty significant bump in power between 1e and 2e, my experience was that even though dragons and giants did get a pretty big bump, they still went down easier than their 3e counterparts.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This is true, although, IMO, they didn't go far enough.  Given that 2e characters also got a pretty significant bump in power between 1e and 2e, my experience was that even though dragons and giants did get a pretty big bump, they still went down easier than their 3e counterparts.




The maths underlying 3e was extremely erratic.  Get the right party, and the giants go down extremely quickly. Get the wrong party, and the opposite occurs. And sometimes you just have standoffs.

Of course, the difference between an AD&D fighter with a 17 strength and one with an 18/90 strength is also astonishing...

Cheers!


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Given that 2e characters also got a pretty significant bump in power between 1e and 2e, my experience was that even though dragons and giants did get a pretty big bump, they still went down easier than their 3e counterparts.



Ah, really? What power bump would that be? I have to admit don't remember anything of the kind.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 4, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Ah, really? What power bump would that be? I have to admit don't remember anything of the kind.




Depends. If you went from AD&D to 2E and missed Unearthed Arcana, the first thing you'd notice was weapon specialisation.

However, soon after 2E came out, there were a bunch of Complete * books, which occasionally had some delightfully broken combinations.

When I went from AD&D + UA to core 2E, I admittedly didn't see a big power bonus. But the bonus that UA or basic 2E gave to fighters was a major power-up. (An additional +1 to hit, +2 to damage and +1/2 attack per round? Scary!)

Cheers!


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 4, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Depends. If you went from AD&D to 2E and missed Unearthed Arcana, the first thing you'd notice was weapon specialisation.
> 
> However, soon after 2E came out, there were a bunch of Complete * books, which occasionally had some delightfully broken combinations.



Ah, alright. We had been using UA before we started with 2e. 

I imagine some of the class kits from the Complete * books would result in a noticable power-up.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 5, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Depends. If you went from AD&D to 2E and missed Unearthed Arcana, the first thing you'd notice was weapon specialisation.



And a bunch of spells far more powerful for their level than you'd seen before - UA gave us those too.


> However, soon after 2E came out, there were a bunch of Complete * books, which occasionally had some delightfully broken combinations.
> 
> When I went from AD&D + UA to core 2E, I admittedly didn't see a big power bonus. But the bonus that UA or basic 2E gave to fighters was a major power-up. (An additional +1 to hit, +2 to damage and +1/2 attack per round? Scary!)



We had to tone down a lot of UA to avoid it completely breaking our 1e game - for all that, I'm still toning it down today: I recently got done fixing _Chromatic Orb_, something I'd been meaning to do for 20+ years.

As for the various 2e splatbooks; yes, some of those got a bit out of hand by the end.  Best ignored all round, if you ask me. 

Lan-"splat"-efan


----------

