# Pramas on 4E and New Gamers



## CaptainChaos (Jun 16, 2008)

Chris Pramas of Green Ronin posted an interesting article on his blog talking about 4E and new players.

"When I heard that 4E was going to radically rebuild D&D, my biggest hope was that the new iteration would be good acquisition game. The hobby needs more roleplayers, plain and simple, and I hoped 4E might help deliver them.

My assessment after having the books for a few weeks: it fails."

Rest of the article here: 

http://www.chrispramas.com/

I'm an experienced gamer and I know I found the classes chapter (or, as Pramas calls it, "The Great Wall") to be daunting. I can only wonder how a total noob would react. 

Worth a read.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm disappointed with Pramas's disappointment.


----------



## JeffB (Jun 16, 2008)

Everything since the Moldvay& Mentzer Basic sets has pretty much failed at being a good "draw" for newbies.

2E's Basic sets (Intro to AD&D, etc)  blew, and the core books were mildly easy on newbies (at best)

3E and 3.5? Ha! Again the basic products weren't very good , and the core books are laughable as newbie friendly.

I dont see why D&D with as complicated as it's become in the last 15 years would be any better with 4E. 4E may be LESS complicated than 3E, but it's still a big bloated set of 3 hardback rulebooks. Not friendly at all.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 16, 2008)

Pramas's article definitely makes sense. I can see what he's saying.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 16, 2008)

I think he's right though. How many new people are going to be able to pick up that book and understand it enough to play? 

I've got 7 dedicated gamers, and they have tons of questions! 

I like 4E, and I think its a good system, but Pramas is right about how daunting its going to be for new blood. 

There aren't even any sample characters. That would have gone a long way towards helping a newbie understand what they were looking at, and give them a quick way to start playing. 

4E will make tons of money, but will it bring in lots of new blood? 

Honestly, that's what the hobby needs.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm disappointed with Rechan's disappointment in Pramas' disappointment.


----------



## mhensley (Jun 16, 2008)

The man speaks the troof.  



> I've been gaming since I was 10 years old and my eyes glazed over the first time I tried to make it though Chapter 4.




This was my experience as well.


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm disappointed in WisdomPenalty's disappointment in Rechan's disappointment in Pramas' disappointment. I think.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> The man speaks the troof.
> 
> 
> 
> This was my experience as well.



Really? I leaped into Chapter 4, got excited, and never looked back. 

Where's the problem? I don't see what's causing the confusion and eye glazing.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 16, 2008)

Pramas makes solid points.

Seriously. Mechanically it is allright, but it isn't "entry level".

But if they were hoping to retain the current crop of gamers, they couldn't have dumbed it down much more than they did.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 16, 2008)

Without 3e (and to an extent 2e, and 1e) as a solid rpg base, i couldn't pick up 4e and just start playing.  No way.  He IS right about the lack of examples in the book.

I like 4e pretty well, but there's definitely something about it i DON'T like that i can't put my finger on yet.

Edit:  What would make me happy is if Tome of Horrors had some fluff text worth a crap, unlike the bare bones stat blocks in the MM.


----------



## smootrk (Jun 16, 2008)

I think the blog entry reflects my own experience in trying to read through the copy I got... I just stalled upon getting into the class chapter.

fyi, I was biased against the game to begin with, but purchased a PHB anyhow to facilitate the inevitable game I would be drawn into.  As it stands, now that I have my copy and spent several occasions trying to decipher and absorb its contents, I am even less likely to try to move to the system.  I am in fact, looking forward to going backwards to a Basic/Expert game or using the Basic Fantasy RPG rules which also emulate the red/blue box editions of the game.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 16, 2008)

First off, all Chris' specific criticism seem to be pretty damn near the mark.

However, what I question is whether ANY PHB including the 1E PHB, has EVER been a truly entry-level product. Virtually everyone I know who plays D&D "entered" by one of two ways:

1) They knew people who played D&D already, who taught them the ropes.

2) They bought a boxed set.

I was slightly different.

I heard about AD&D from a new friend, it sound totally awesome, so my brother and I bought a PHB, the DMG, and FRA (haha didn't know you needed the MC).

This did not give us a playable game. Reading the books did not teach us how to play, and did confuse us a great deal (at 9 and 11 respectively, I believe). Not until a week or two later, when amazingly fortuitously, a second cousin of mine who turned out to be a big D&D player turned up did we discover how to play, when she explained everything and designed and ran an awesome adventure for us.

So I think the PHB is reasonable for people who are playing because they know players already, who said "Get a PHB", but I do think, just like in previous editions, it's a bit much for a GENUINELY new player, and it does completely fail to sell itself, that's for sure.

Hopefully WotC has some really genius and CHEAP entry-level products on the way. Seems like an BD&D-style boxed set with levels 1-10, 4 races, 4 classes (or maybe 6 of each) and a campaign or at least a handful of quick adventures for a GM to run would be a very good idea.

One thing I don't see how to overcome, though, is that D&D 4E is "hardcore balanced", in the sense that if you don't use teamwork, aren't equipped right, and didn't choose smart abilities and don't use them intelligently, you're likely see TPKs very frequently. Then again, BD&D saw constant TPKs, so maybe it's not a big deal.


----------



## Najo (Jun 16, 2008)

I respectfully disagree on certain points too. 


No Sales Text: How do you "sell" Role Playing to new players? Each person makes a different experience of it. D&D is trying to do this with visuals, its brand name and the promise of adventure. The World needs Heroes is vague but intriguing and anyone who could become a D&D player is likely to pick up the book and flip through it. Doing this will give the reader an idea of what D&D is. 

The new edition does do something very well, it is viral and easy to pick up once you are playing with a group. My wife was always frustrated with 3.5 character creation and the PHB. She had no problem making characters and using this PHB. My best friend started playing D&D and roleplaying with this edition and he picked up all the rules and got the basics down for DMing by watching me (which I've been playing/ DMing for 25 years+) and after 20 hours of D&D4e he planned an adventure and ran a evening's session with very few hitches and did a great job. I've never seen previous versions of D&D do that. 4e got something right to make the game more viral. 


The Great Wall: I agree with some of these points. I think there are some places where rules could have been indexed or laid out a bit better. The [W] was an issue for us at first. 

No Newb Class: I would argue that all of the classes (except the warlock, warlord and wizard) can be played by new players. D&D 4e characters are easier to throw together but have lots of tactical choices. Basically pick your 2 at will, 1 encounter, 1 daily and class skills and go. This is less complicated than learn all of your different class special rules, pick the one you like, choose feats for the class (like fighter) or spells (like cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard) and spend your skill points (which is very frustrating to a new player to get right). 

If the classes are still complicated you can use the two pre built ones in each section, and then if still, use Keep on the Shadowfell (which is the true entry product, though it should be clearly marked as such and isn't).

Not Enough Examples: Agree. Character creation examples would be very strong. We had some trouble with defenses, armor, and figuring out the attack and damage workspace's intentions. One of my players had issues with the initiative area because the DEX didn't say DEX mod.

Poor Reference Tools: They are ok, not great, but ok. I expected a bit more too, but so far I can use the index and TOC that is there to find most of what I need, and powers are listed by level in the class chapter any ways. I'd be curious how much trouble a true new player has, my wife had no trouble finding anything. 

Core Experience Is Hardcore: Yes, it is hardcore and it should be. Ironically, we have one camp on here saying it is not hardcore enough (which it is guys, promise) and here is the very respectable Chris Pramas saying it is too hardcore. I think its hardcore level is very spot on, with a tad leaning to too much like Chris says. The powers, multiclassing options and combat section are going to overwhelm new players but veterans are going to love them. I think if the PHB didn't have this, alot of hardcore players wouldn't be crossing over to 4e. 

A basic set (releasing in Sep-Nov I think) is going to use visuals, come with minatures and tiles/ maps, and give a simplified 4e experience that leads you to the PHB. I think this is going to work very well as the quick start rules in KOTS did a great job preping us for the PHB, we just flowed into using it.

WOTC knew they needed a strong word of mouth, community supported game that new players could be pulled into. Hence the lack of a true starter product right now, WOTC is getting all of us ready to demo 4e to the new players, heck the DMG even teachs DMs how to do this. 

Give 4e a few months to get the rest of its pieces into play. I think before the end of the year most of the elements are going to be working nicely. Knock on wood for the DDI


----------



## BryonD (Jun 16, 2008)

I also think Chris has some good points.  However, I'll stick to my belief that, by and large, gamers are gamers by nature, not because they worked up to it.  (I think I'm in line with Ruin Explorer's first point there).  I really don't think that being to complicated will stop the next generation of gamers from getting in to 4E.  Competition from other activities is another story, but people who take to this kind of activity are bright and tend to be a bit obsessive   .  They will dig in and devour 4e just like they would any other edition.  

But for the attracting new gamer part, to spin off of Teflon Billy's point, I really don't think there is any level of dumbing down that would draw a significant number of people not already inclined to gaming to start sitting around a table playing pretend.  I'm not saying there are none, but I really don't believe the target audience exists in large enough numbers to really matter.

So I think Chris is exactly right, but it may not matter as much as it sounds.  The attempt to grow the gamer base will just have one more reason on the list of why it didn't happen.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 16, 2008)

While I'm loving 4E so far, I can definitely see where Pramas is coming from.  Fortunately, I think it's more a flaw in presentation than a flaw with the system and I believe a good DM can do a fair job of easing newbies in.  They need someone there to tell them what [w] means so that they don't have to spend 10 minutes trying to find out for themselves and stuff like that...but once they know the terms and how to navigate the book, it becomes a lot less daunting for the inexperienced.  

Of course, I've yet to have anyone truly new to RPGs try to make a character yet...just a couple of very inexperienced players, which is a little different than the totally uninitiated.


----------



## mhensley (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Really? I leaped into Chapter 4, got excited, and never looked back.
> 
> Where's the problem? I don't see what's causing the confusion and eye glazing.




Mainly?  It bored the crap out of me.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 16, 2008)

Heh...let's make a WoW comparison.

A new player has been hearing about WoW forever and decides to try it out and picks up and installs WoW.

Would you rate WoW (or any other MMO equivalent) harder for a newbie to grok than the 4E PHB?

I've played both so I'm no longer a newbie and even when I started WoW, coming from D&D gave me a firm basis of understanding so I wasn't gobsmacked by WoW.

That said, looking at the WoW entry game, I actually consider it harder for a newbie than the 4E PHB.


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 16, 2008)

“No Sales Text” Really?  Maybe I am a minority but I don’t think I have read any sales text in a decade or more.  If it is a leisure book (fiction/non-fiction) I buy it because a friend of mine said it was good and if it is anything else I am getting it because of an online review.  I honestly thought ‘Sales Text’ was there to miss guild you into buying a bad book… it would never occur to me that would be useful to someone hehe.

“The Great Wall” Yea.  There were lots of ways they could have done it maybe should have made each class a chapter.  But I don’t think putting all the abilities in one area would be much better.
“No Newb Class” Nice.  How can someone actually complain that all the class are interesting to play?  LOL

“Not Enough Examples” Yeppers.  Need a lot more pictures and examples.  Needed 2 full write ups for each class for instance.

“Poor Reference Tools” Humm.  I have not had any trouble at all finding something… once I knew what I was looking for, which is another issue and that is what really kills the n00b experience.  And why in the world would you need a alphabetical list of all the powers in one place?  A fighter could give a rats arse what a wizards powers are.  I love not having to wade through all the other classes junk to see what is important to me.  And I think that makes it easier for a n00b as well.  Everything you need for you class is in one place.

“Core Experience is Hardcore” Yeppers.  Is he saying 3.x was not hardcore?  Because it is.

What this all comes down to is who among you just went into Waldon’s and picked up your 1e Players Handbook in late twentieth century and starting playing? That day?  The Players Handbook is to get new people playing in a game that has experienced players.  The Starter Set is designed to get people who have never played the game into the game… or so the “Sales Text” says… LOL

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217120000

Should that be on the shelf right now?  Probably.  Is using the Starter Set good business?  Don’t know.  But that is what they are trying to do.  The PHB and DMG are not going to create new players out of whole cloth.  They are much more for teaching.  At least that’s how I see them.


----------



## mhensley (Jun 16, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> That said, looking at the WoW entry game, I actually consider it harder for a newbie than the 4E PHB.




Really?  I'm not a big fan of WoW (quit playing after about a month due its repetitious play), but I found it extremely easy to create a character and start playing.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 16, 2008)

ki11erDM said:
			
		

> “Poor Reference Tools” Humm.  I have not had any trouble at all finding something… once I knew what I was looking for, which is another issue and that is what really kills the n00b experience.  And why in the world would you need a alphabetical list of all the powers in one place?



You have a power called "Feather Me Yon Oaf" written on your character sheet, but there's a question of how it works or interacts with another game element.  You desire to look it up.  The game is in progress, so you don't want to waste a lot of time on looking it up.  What page is it on?


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 16, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Really?  I'm not a big fan of WoW (quit playing after about a month due its repetitious play), but I found it extremely easy to create a character and start playing.




Like I said, I'm not certain if my experience with D&D made character creation easier for me than a true WoW newbie.


----------



## Slander (Jun 16, 2008)

Has there been any other confirmation of the last comment from that post? :


_"WOTC has let us retailers know that the launch of 4E is aimed at veteran gamers.

New players will be targeted in a separate marketing campaign in the fall, likely coinciding with the new starter game in November."_


Having the intro primer come later may not be a bad thing. Assuming the primer doesn't have _different_ rules, only _less_ rules, I think it makes sense to have a strong base of happy veterans players available with whom new players can game. 

In this day and age, I personally think large majority of new players are going to come to the game through the veterans, whether directly ("Hey, guy, you wanna try out this new game") or vicariously (through reviews and comments). I'd think only a small portion of new players would arrive by browsing the shelves at B&N, seeing the PHB cover and thinking "Hmm, this looks interesting. Let me try this." In this context, positive word-of-mouth buzz is worth far more than any artificial marketing buzz they could pay for.

Therefore, the goal of the initial release was to get a respectable, happy veteran player base which could generate that buzz. If the PHB was a stripped down version of its current form, I think a lot more of the "veterans" would have been PO-ed. As it is, there are already complaints from some veterans of DnD being "dumbed down" or what have you. My personal observation has been there is more positive buzz than negative (for whatever that's worth), which may not have been the case with an even more simplified version. In that respect, the release was a success.

But, and this is a big but, they *have* to deliver on a simplified, accessable, and _compatible_ primer (no "one-off" rules in the primer that don't apply to the real game). And Jeff is right, in the past 20 years, there has not been an especially successful primer for new players. And to be honest, I'm not sure they will be successful this time around either. Here's hoping I'm wrong ...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You have a power called "Feather Me Yon Oaf" written on your character sheet, but there's a question of how it works or interacts with another game element.  You desire to look it up.  The game is in progress, so you don't want to waste a lot of time on looking it up.  What page is it on?




What class are you, what type of power, and what level is it?


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 16, 2008)

1. No sales text: Fair enough.

2. The Great Wall: My fiance didn't find it a problem.  She's a non roleplaying gamer (she plays boardgames).  She read the textual descriptions of the character classes, and of the races, and made a character.  She didn't venture into the powers sections until she had the basics down, so she never got stuck there.  I guess someone else's experience might vary.

3. No Newb Class: If Pramas believes that Newb Classes are a feature, then I question his judgment.  Newb classes are a moronic design choice.  This is a hill I am willing to die upon.  Newsflash, people- D&D is played over a long period of time.  If you start someone in a newb class, they'll be stuck there long, long, looooong after they've ceased being a newb.  And if you make the newb class fill a decent, worthwhile role, you've just forced anyone who wants to play that role into playing the newb class.  Lovely.  A GOOD game design would make newb LEVELS, not newb CLASSES.  And those newb levels might be levels, I dunno, 1 and 2?  4e has a complexity ramp.  You start with one, maybe two per encounter powers, one daily power, and no utility powers.  This grows from there.  Characters seem easily handled by newbs, in my opinion.  If you can master attack rolls and the various power recharge rates, you can pretty much play level 1.  The crazy synergies grow into place as you level up, and as you gain commensurate experience.

4. More examples: I also could have done with more examples.  I like examples.

5. Poor reference terms: I found the index to be pretty efficient.  I haven't had any problem with finding powers because I always write down the power's level on my character sheets, but I can see where I might get confused if I didn't.

6. Core experience is hardcore: Its a real rpg in the gaming system most beloved for its combat rules, so... it was going to have _some_ complexity.  Personally, I don't think the modifiers are unmanageable, since they tend to be short term.  And there aren't even that many of them.  Remember, level 1 is the test level for new players.  And at level 1, you've basically got marking, and... occasional one round status effects from encounter or daily abilities?  Plus whatever it is the monsters do to you?


----------



## IanB (Jun 16, 2008)

I think he's missed the point entirely. You don't bring in a new player by handing them the Player's Handbook and saying "OK absorb this."

You do it with a product like Keep on the Shadowfell, with premade characters, etc. I can say from personal experience that this works well. We have a very new player in one group I play in, who never really "got" 3e combat (and who gave up on it after 2 sessions) but took to 4e very easily. 

The system _is_ much easier for newbies. Looking to the core rulebook to provide the introductory experience is a mistake. KotS is the intro product.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 16, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Give 4e a few months to get the rest of its pieces into play. I think before the end of the year most of the elements are going to be working nicely.




I don't care.  Its not for me.  I glanced through some of the pages (must have been the class section) and all the colors for the title of the powers made my eyes hurt.  Mind you I was with my 5 year old daughter so I didn't have long. That is some poor layout.  Color should make the words go pop, not make the eyes go pop.  If I had flipped through the pages, it probably would have given me a seizure.  

The little I read made my brain go numb.  It confirmed my negative predisposition to the game.  So, no I have no intention of giving 4E a playtest run.  Poor marketting, poor layout.  That's enough for me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 16, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> That said, looking at the WoW entry game, I actually consider it harder for a newbie than the 4E PHB.




As a long time MMORPG and TT RPG player, I can't remotely agree.

WoW is incredibly easy to get in to. You select a race based on a vague description. You select a class based on a vague description. You enter a name. You are in the game.

So character creation was already a HELL of a lot more newb-friendly.

Then you get to playing. Depending on your class your have what two or one abilities? Both of which will likely be extremely clear on what they do. You use the movement keys to approach a quest-giver. You click on him. You read the quest and press accept. You walk towards the nearest enemy (which is usually near-ish the quest-giver), and you press a button with a picture of a weapon or lightning bolt or the like on it. Worst case you just healed yourself. More likely, you threw a bolt of energy, or hit the enemy with a sword, or fired an arrow.

There ain't no PICKING STATS, there ain't no BUILDS, there ain't no "Choosing abilities". Ain't no choice at all!

Perhaps even more to the point, you don't ever have to "learn the rules" until you've been playing for days. All you need to know is you want to make the enemy's bar get smaller whilst not letting your green bar go empty. D&D wishes it could teach people that easily!

If you think D&D 4E EVEN VAGUELY COMPARES to that, then you are severely misremembering WoW. WoW gets more complex fairly quickly, but by then it's "too late", they've already started playing and having fun! I'm not saying you could replicate WoW with a TT game, either, it'd be like your first adventure you started with fixed stats based on your class, and one at-will ability, and got the rest of level 1's stuff over the course of an adventure (which isn't actually a terrible idea, but hard to implement well), but it's clearly easier for Mom to get started playing WoW than it would be for her to get started playing D&D (good god, the number of people's mothers and dads and non-gaming brothers I know who play WoW, really a lot).

*BryonD* - I agree, if you're a "natural gamer", the PHB will probably work okay for you (better than previous PHBs, certainly), and if you're not, it won't.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2008)

Cad:

I think you hit ona  number of thoughts I have as well.

It's an RPG, so yeah it's going to be more complicated then the average non RPG out there. 

The book is laid out ina  way that makes finding things a snap in my opinion. Powers are with powers, and per class. Combat stuff is with combat and ALL in combat. Skills are with skills etc... I've gone to he index once durring game, because mainly the ToC is actually very well done.

But mainly, I think it will have a chance to bring in new blood because the game overall, is much easier to learn the basics of. Less chance for someone to give up and say this is too damn complicated.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Mainly?  It bored the crap out of me.



... huh? 

We really must be from different planets.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 16, 2008)

All his points are valid. This doesn't make it a bad game, just not a good game for new players.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 16, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You have a power called "Feather Me Yon Oaf" written on your character sheet, but there's a question of how it works or interacts with another game element.  You desire to look it up.  The game is in progress, so you don't want to waste a lot of time on looking it up.  What page is it on?




Now suppose you're the DM running from a published adventure and you've got a bunch of NPCs to manage and find their powers easily, some with multiclass characters.
An index of powers would be very helpful to that scenario.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 16, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> just not a good game for new players.




That's the problem.  D&D has more name recognition then every other RPG has combined.  If D&D doesn't bring in new gamers, what game will?  Hell I know some 20+ year gamers that refuse to play anything but D&D (not out of poor experiences, but because "its not D&D").  

D&D fails to attract new gamers, New gamers fail to come to RPGs.  This type of scenario is what made Vampire outsell D&D for a time.  I wonder what the next Vampire will be because it sounds like that 4E will induce.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 16, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> All his points are valid. This doesn't make it a bad game, just not a good game for new players.




Yep. Agreed. I believe this is what Pramas was saying more or less. Good game. Not good for luring new players into the hobby.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 16, 2008)

Oh yeah, ANOTHER problem with newb classes instead of newb levels.

Sally: I was looking through the pictures, and I think I'd like to play a Wizard for my first character.  They seem cool!  I'm really excited about playing one!

DM: Oh, I'm sorry, Sally.  Wizards are too hard for you!  They'd give you pains in your pretty little head.  You should play a fighter.

Sally: But I want to play a wizard.  They look interesting.  The fighters didn't look interesting to me.

DM: I'm sorry, you have a choice.  You can play a wizard and turn out to be useless because you don't know what you're doing, and then have some guy tell you what to do and practically run your character because otherwise you'll suck, and besides he thinks he's being helpful and maybe ingratiating himself to you in hopes of getting a date sometime.  Or, you can play a fighter.

Sally: This game is dumb.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 16, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Yep. Agreed. I believe this is what Pramas was saying more or less. Good game. Not good for luring new players into the hobby.




The only question is, "how much more newbie friendly" can you make it without totally losing your current audience?

Notice, many people consider the 1st 2 chapters of the 4E PHB a total waste yet for a new player, I would consider them essential.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Now suppose you're the DM running from a published adventure and you've got a bunch of NPCs to manage and find their powers easily



All of their powers should be on their stat block. Every NPC that wizards has put out has that. So why wouldn't the DM put the NPC's relevant numbers and detail of the power on the statblock, since that's how every monster and NPC has been designed?


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, ANOTHER problem with newb classes instead of newb levels.
> 
> Sally: I was looking through the pictures, and I think I'd like to play a Wizard for my first character.  They seem cool!  I'm really excited about playing one!
> 
> ...




Or:

DM:  Sally, how about a Sorcereress instead.  Not as difficult to manage as the wizards while still doing most of the same things.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> ... huh?
> 
> We really must be from different planets.




Same planet, different worlds...

PS


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Or:
> 
> DM:  Sally, how about a Sorcereress instead.  Not as difficult to manage as the wizards while still doing most of the same things.



Except, you know, understanding all the odds and ends of spells, which are best, which look good but are duds (shocking grasp; get in a fight, have to roll an attack, for a measely 1d6). 

Sally may not _know_ that magic missile is far superior to any other single-target spell. Or how illusions work at all.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 16, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You have a power called "Feather Me Yon Oaf" written on your character sheet, but there's a question of how it works or interacts with another game element.  You desire to look it up.  The game is in progress, so you don't want to waste a lot of time on looking it up.  What page is it on?



I would just check my character sheet, where I noted the page number.

I agree that the index is terrible, but that's a problem with the book, not the game.


----------



## edbonny (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Where's the problem? I don't see what's causing the confusion and eye glazing.




I am a decades-long gamer and a DnD fanboy who will be porting over to 4e completely... I am also having great difficulty with classes. 

The "Great Wall" chapter (an apt name) has been very difficult to get through. This chapter needed to be more simplified. I would have recommended: a separate advancement chart breaking out powers for wizards; a better explanation behind the need for so many different powers - encounter/daily/utility/utility that are also daily/at will); a walkthrough of a character advancing a few levels; sample characters for each class at various levels; a free PDF guiding your 3e-to-4e transition ("Here's what's different!").

By rereading the class chapter, reading through Enworld posts and  posting rules questions, I have more or less muddled through the class chapter. It is important to note that I have never had such difficulties with any of the earlier edition changes. I started with the Basic Set and have transitioned to 1st - 2nd - 3.0 - 3.5 to 4.0. 

I don't know whether Chris Pramas will be proven right in terms of 4e thwarting the interest of new players, but the obstacles he discusses have been a hassle for me, a long time player of the game.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Except, you know, understanding all the odds and ends of spells, which are best, which look good but are duds (shocking grasp; get in a fight, have to roll an attack, for a measely 1d6).
> 
> Sally may not _know_ that magic missile is far superior to any other single-target spell. Or how illusions work at all.




And that's a poor DM for 1) telling Sally that she cannot play what she wants instead of helping her find something close to what she wants and 2) not helping Sally understand how her character works.  A new edition is not going to fix that poor DM. 

(Editted to remove Edition flaming comments.)


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jun 16, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> WoW is incredibly easy to get in to. You select a race based on a vague description. You select a class based on a vague description. You enter a name. You are in the game.
> 
> So character creation was already a HELL of a lot more newb-friendly.



If WotC is smart, they'll make the Character Builder on D&D Insider both free and as newbie-friendly as WoW character creation.  But yeah, asking somebody to learn D&D from the PHB is like asking somebody to read the entire WoW instruction manual and web site before actually playing the game.

I do think it's premature to criticize 4e's accessibility to new gamers when WotC has explicitly targeted existing customers with their initial products.  That said, I am skeptical of their forthcoming starter set.  I suspect most new players will enter the hobby the way they always have, through recruitment by existing gamers.  The kid who picks up the PHB (perhaps inspired by a D&D CRPG or whatever), reads it cover to cover, and starts his or her own game will always be the exception.  Even then, that kid is the one who will teach his friends to play.  They may not know what they're doing at first, but they'll play and, I hope, have fun.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> What class are you, what type of power, and what level is it?




How about:

"I'm a 25th level ranger multiclassed with warlord (named Aragorn  ), I'm not sure what level the power is or what type. Is it a feat? A class ability? A power? Race or magic item stuff? Something else?"


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

edbonny said:
			
		

> I am a decades-long gamer and a DnD fanboy who will be porting over to 4e completely... I am also having great difficulty with classes.



Again, I just don't see it.

I understand you are having problems. I hear what you are saying, and see what is confusing you. I just... don't get confused or bored when I look at the book, and don't understand how others _don't_ get it when they look at it. 

But then, I've met gamers who just couldn't get/didn't want to bother with the complexity of the 3e Bard, or just scratched their head at the 3e spells, etc.

Maybe it's because I've followed every little kernel of information that's seeped out of WotC in the last ten months, and just built up an understanding so I knew exactly what I was looking at when I opened the book the first time.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 16, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> What class are you, what type of power, and what level is it?



You know your class obviously.  The power level is unknown because frankly, why would that be important enough to write down?  So you go to the ToC, see what page your class is on, then you have to flip through the block of power descriptions to find it.

That's why an index of powers would have been useful.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I agree that the index is terrible, but that's a problem with the book, not the game.



Uh... and?  This thread was sparked by comments regarding the organization of the PHB.  What the heck does that have to do with the game itself?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> That's why an index of powers would have been useful.



Odd. I don't remember ever hearing anyone complain about there not being a Feat or Spell index in the 3e PHB.


> The power level is unknown because frankly, why would that be important enough to write down?



Because, frankly, it helps you find it? Or because it lets you know what level you got it, if you want to retrain?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I would just check my character sheet, where I noted the page number.
> 
> I agree that the index is terrible, but that's a problem with the book, not the game.




Exactly... Pramas, much as I;ve enjoyed his companies stuff in the past, is just picking nits on the PHB, and ignorning the system as a whole.

As a whole, the system is relatively easy to pick up and digest.

Powers work like powers
skills work like skills
feats work like feats
races work like races

Everyone has a combination of the above, and they all work the same mechanicswise.


----------



## IanB (Jun 16, 2008)

I'd be interested to know how many of the people criticising the game's accessibility have actually tried to introduce a truly new player to the game with it.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Again, I just don't see it.
> 
> I understand you are having problems. I hear what you are saying, and see what is confusing you. I just... don't get confused or bored when I look at the book, and don't understand how others _don't_ get it when they look at it.



People are saying, the first time they sat down with the 4e PHB, that they get to page after page of very similar powers, the effects of which and the differences between which they do not yet comprehend, and their eyes glaze over.  It's informational overload.  It's also boring as hell to read little blurbs of attack after attack that all do just about the same thing.  I hit this when I first saw the PHB and ended up just skipping the walls of text.  A friend of mine made a similar comment after trying to read the book.

Once you have a feel for the system, the powers make sense, and they're easy to digest in little levelling-up chunks, as you're never looking at more than 4 at a time.  To read through 80 of them in a row is a different matter.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Except, you know, understanding all the odds and ends of spells, which are best, which look good but are duds (shocking grasp; get in a fight, have to roll an attack, for a measely 1d6).
> 
> Sally may not _know_ that magic missile is far superior to any other single-target spell. Or how illusions work at all.




Are you really trying to suggest the spontaneous spellcasting mechanics of 3e sorcerers are not easier for a new player to play than the vancian daily preparation resource management choices of a wizard are?

Both have issues of spell choice complexity. One has those issues once then they can just manage spell slots per day and cast spells known appropriate to the situation. The other has spell selection choices once plus judging daily arrays with estimations of what will be appropriate to expected challenges and judgment calls for every spell casting opportunity of whether it is worth expending them at that time or not based on what specifically has been prepared.

Sorcerers and warlocks seem much easier mechanically to manage and play than wizards in 3e.

In 4e every PC class appears to be the same mechanical complexity.

There are no less complex options.


----------



## Zil (Jun 16, 2008)

edbonny said:
			
		

> I am a decades-long gamer and a DnD fanboy who will be porting over to 4e completely... I am also having great difficulty with classes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'll have to chime in a "me too" with regard to getting through the "great wall".   I started playing D&D back with AD&D in 1980 and I've never had so much trouble getting through a chapter in a PHB.  It was just ugly, especially all the [W] references that were not explained until much later on.   There must have been a better way to present this information than what they did.   It was almost enough to make me give up completely.

Fortunately the game play later on was fun so I was able to forget about my earlier frustration with the PHB, but I should never have been so frustrated with it.  If it is frustrating to old-timers, and potentially impenetrable to newbies, then they clearly have done something wrong with that book and especially that chapter.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Odd. I don't remember ever hearing anyone complain about there not being a Feat or Spell index in the 3e PHB.



Feats & spells are arranged alphabetically in their own chapters.  In previous editions where spells were arranged by class & level.... there were spell indexes.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 16, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> I think he's right though. How many new people are going to be able to pick up that book and understand it enough to play?



I was 8 years old when I got my hands on the 1e AD&D hardbacks.  My friends and I immediately read the books from cover to cover and misunderstood the crap out of them.  Then, using our flawed understanding of the rules, we went on to have years of fun playing the game totally wrong.  I admit the 4e Classes chapter is kind of daunting.  But is it any more daunting than the 1e DMG explanation of initiative or unarmed combat?

I think most nerdy kids who pick up the 4e D&D books will love the complexity of the classes chapter.  So many possibilities, so many loopholes to exploit, so many hours of arguing over whether power X is "broken".  That's the kind of Saturday afternoon full of entertainment that my love of gaming was built on.  I suspect it will be no different for the 4e generation.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You know your class obviously.  The power level is unknown because frankly, why would that be important enough to write down?  So you go to the ToC, see what page your class is on, then you have to flip through the block of power descriptions to find it.
> 
> That's why an index of powers would have been useful.




There are certain things that you write down on a character sheet. 

When you copy the stats for your weapon it has a space for damage, type, crit mods etc.

Same is true for a power. There are certain things that are important. level is one of them.

Sure, a power index would be great, but lack of one is not as insurmountable a problem as is being indicated.

You know your class, and the power level and type, and you know exactly what section to look at.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> and 2) not helping Sally understand how her character works.



Ergo, the newb class is unnecessary if the DM is willing to help the player.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Feats & spells are arranged alphabetically in their own chapters.



And it's still a PITA to look up, because you're flipping through the book. 

You need your power, flip to your class, flip a few pages. Bam. 

I really don't see the problem.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Ergo, the newb class is unnecessary if the DM is willing to help the player.




Whatever...


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Are you really trying to suggest the spontaneous spellcasting mechanics of 3e sorcerers are not easier for a new player to play than the vancian daily preparation resource management choices of a wizard are?.



No. I wasn't even _touching_ spontaneous casting vs prepared casting at all.

I was talking about the information about *spells themselves*. Areas of effect, durations, range, damage caps, what saving throw each spell keys off of, and how all of those add up to determine superiority of one spell over another.

A newb who plays a sorcerer and picks grease and mage armor is likely going to have a less stellar experience than one who picks more enjoyable spells.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 16, 2008)

I'd say Pramas is right on the mark with his points: 
 1 - no sales text on book cover
 2. the great wall, the classes section is really dense and has a lot of stuff for a newbie to try to absorb
 3- no newb class- there is no startign point for a raw beginer , i usedrecomend folks start off as a fighter or a rogue (as thief, people understand playing a cat burglar)  but the way classes are now they require just as much gear-headedness to start out with.
4- not enough examples, it's true theee arent' enough examples.
5- poor reference tools- i hadn't even thought about this yet as i haven't tried to play it yet but acckk..the powers in chapter 4 aren't indexed or listed alphabetically in the PHB. 
6- Core Experience is Hardcore- Noobs dont' stand a chance ot being able to tackle this sucker wihout a lot of hand holding.


----------



## La Bete (Jun 16, 2008)

I think Chris has some very valid points.

However, based on my recent experience in introducing new players to D&D 3.5 (at 1st, 3rd and 9th level), and playing (and about to DM) 4e, there is simply no contest  betweeb the editions in how easy it is/would be for a averagely experienced GM to introduce new players to the game. 4e FT freaking W.

(I'm sorry, maybe it's just having been in the trenches with new players with 3e, 4e seems like manna from heaven on this particular point to a harassed GM.)


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> People are saying, the first time they sat down with the 4e PHB, that they get to page after page of very similar powers, the effects of which and the differences between which they do not yet comprehend, and their eyes glaze over.



Oh. 

Well, if you're going from page 1 to 320 in one sitting, yeah. But I went to what interested me the most. Jumped back and forth. Flipped through something else. Skipped entire sections (Cleric, looking at you). I also didn't bother reading past level 9 for any class, until I went back for a further look.

I assumed that's how most people read them the first time: they look at what interests them. When all you want to know first is how a wizard works, you read just the wizard, and maybe the rituals. And then you look for wizard feats. And then you compare it with the Warlock, etc.

In fact, there was a thread a few months ago that asked, "How will you read the books when they first came out", and many gave specific sections they would eat up first.


----------



## hewligan (Jun 16, 2008)

An index would have been useful for MANY people. Clearly not all, because Rechan obviously would never find a use for one, but I think we can safely say that for MANY people it would have been fluffy nice nice.

I too am a long time gamer, dating back to AD&D, and when I hit the classes chapter I just stalled. It was like hitting a wall for me. I tried to work through it, but eventually gave up and decided I would get back to it, eventually. It hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I really don't see the problem.




How many times, exactly, Rechan, are you going to have to post in the same thread, that you "don't see/understand the problem"? Really, we get that you don't get it. You don't need keep saying it. Frankly you've gotten into the territory of "threadcrapping" now, because you're not adding anything, and it really seems like the your repetition can have only one underlying motive: to disparage people expressing problems with 4E. If I was a mod, I'd say "Move on", but I'm not, so I'll just suggest maybe you could stop saying that and offer something more specific or useful?

I mean, I didn't have a problem with the classes chapter, but in no way does that make it hard for me to understand why people did, nor to recognize that clearly quite a few people did (and I had no idea anyone did prior to this thread/Pramas blog post).


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> How many times, exactly, Rechan, are you going to have to post in the same thread, that you "don't see/understand the problem"?



1) At first, I said "I don't see the problem."
2) Then, edbonny responded by where he found the problem.
3) I thus acknowledged what he said, and replied, "I understand that you are confused, but I'm still sure how those can trip someone up," and then went on to say that perhaps it's a complete disconnect; if I think in a different way than you do, then it may be impossible for me to follow your thought train to see where the problem is. I even said that I have met other long-time gamers who are confused with how the 3e bard works, to illustrate that confusion with the class density is nothing new.
4) Then Spatula then replies to say that the confusion perhaps lies in people reading through from the start of the chapter to the end straight, and how that the number of similar abilities, especially how they relate to the rules (pushing, pulling, weakening - the significance can be lost on those who haven't fully digested those conditions and their significance) may not see the relevance of power differences. 
5) Finally, I replied that makes sense; the disconnect is coming from the way in which I read the books, and assumed that many others read it the same way: not start to finish, but jumping around, looking at what is relevant to your interests first, contrasting and comparing, and skipping whole sections. Reading start to finish would indeed be *boring*.

That, in my mind, is a *conversation*.

If I was repeating the same thing and not saying anything else, you'd have a case. But I see myself contributing to the conversation, which leads me to...



> If I was a mod, I'd say "Move on", but I'm not, so I'll just suggest maybe you could stop saying that and offer something more specific or useful?



How about since you're not a mod, if you think that I'm threadcrapping, you report me and see what a Mod has to say?


----------



## Aqua Vitae (Jun 16, 2008)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> "The hobby needs more roleplayers, plain and simple, and I hoped 4E might help deliver them."




The paradox of 4E is that any gain of new players will be significantly offset by the loss of much of its original fan base.

I don't even recognize "Dungeons & Dragons" anymore.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2008)

Aqua Vitae said:
			
		

> The paradox of 4E is that any gain of new players will be significantly offset by the loss of much of its original fan base.
> 
> I don't even recognize "Dungeons & Dragons" anymore.




On the opposite end, I've heard from several people who've said it feels more like D&D then the game has in a while.


----------



## hewligan (Jun 16, 2008)

Just out of interest, and more for future reference, how does one report someone to a mod?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

hewligan said:
			
		

> Just out of interest, and more for future reference, how does one report someone to a mod?



At the bottom left of a post, there are two icons. A blue globe, and a white triangle with a ! in the middle. Left click on the latter, and it will take you to an email window to let you send a note to a moderator.


----------



## hewligan (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> At the bottom left of a post, there are two icons. A blue globe, and a white triangle with a ! in the middle. Left click on the latter, and it will take you to an email window to let you send a note to a moderator.




Thanks - and embarrassingly I see it now and it is called "report post" on my GUI (I use stealth). Apologies for my stupidity and for the thread hijack. I feel educated and  stupid at the same time. How special!


----------



## Filcher (Jun 16, 2008)

I don't see a problem w/ loving 4E _and_ conceding that it is complex.

Fortunately, the Basic game is coming out in November. This version is for us. The next one is for new folks. Nuff said.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 16, 2008)

People keep mentioning that veterans will be the ones to attract and introduce to the hobby new gamers. But I have to cast a doubt since 4e is as hardcore gamist as it can be. If it were simpler, I could imagine people's curiosity could get along with the introductory process. But at hardcore levels such as this one it seems a bit hard. 

Btw world of warcraft will launch a miniatures-skirmish game. If it reaches mainstream market and is a success, the irony is that this could manage to introduce more new blood to d&d 4e than d&d itself.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 16, 2008)

I agree with Chris. I even started a thread about getting new players to enter the RPG market and ideas that might actually work. The 4E PH sure isn't friendly to new players. Its intimidating.


----------



## IanB (Jun 16, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I agree with Chris. I even started a thread about getting new players to enter the RPG market and ideas that might actually work. The 4E PH sure isn't friendly to new players. Its intimidating.




Have you tried to introduce a new player to the game using it yet?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 16, 2008)

Pramas is speaking from a solid base.

What's interesting to me -- in a perverse kind of way -- is that if 4e were to be more accessible to newbies, it would have to jettison EVEN MORE than it already has. Thus alienating even more fans of previous editions (probably). The things that are attracting new people (new cosmology, simple powers descriptions) are the things that a lot of people are crying the loudest about.

I mean, 4e is MORE accessible...(especially the DMG does a great job on this front)....but it still might not be good enough in that respect, if Pramas is accurate.

I do think that part of that might be the intense focus on tactical combat as the core of the game. The powers, the minis, the characters, the monsters, the NPC's....D&D has too many "moving parts," and these mostly relate to combat resolution, which has always been the heart of the game.

Perhaps the one sacred cow that 4e didn't wind up slaying that it maybe should have killed is D&D's fixation on combat as the core experience?

...interesting ideas...


----------



## ruemere (Jun 16, 2008)

Just an observation on organization of information:
- alphabetical order, as per dictionary or encyclopedia, is superior for large quantity of elements. "Large" - as in "Too many to remember".
- ordering items by category (or by several categories) allows for faster access than that of alphabetical ordering, but it requires reasonable familiarity with categories and sufficiently clear rules on presenting categories.

Rechan here has probably both good knowledge of the contents of PHB, so categorical ordering is more useful to him. However, people with less experience or with worse memory will probably find alphabetical ordering significantly more usable.

Finally, in my opinion, PHB should provide alphabetical index for powers/feats/class abilities (all lumped together, as it's fairly unlikely for the names to overlap) along with page numbers (for quick reference), class/level information (for mnemotechnical reasons - looking several times through the index, one will eventually memorize additional information). The index should be placed at the end of the book and should be separate from general index (specific and general indices should be kept separately).

Of course, it's easy to make if you have SRD in electronic form.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## IanB (Jun 16, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Perhaps the one sacred cow that 4e didn't wind up slaying that it maybe should have killed is D&D's fixation on combat as the core experience?




I think that would be a huge mistake. Over the years, as I've dealt with a lot of new players, the one thing they all seem to latch onto first is the combat system. Things like actually talking in character, roleplaying out encounters, stuff like that makes people very self-conscious and often nervous the first time they do it and they really need something else to bring them into the game.

Combat is concrete and more like a boardgame and just generally easier to understand what the goals are. I'd say with 95% of the new players I've dealt with over the years, combat is the main fun thing for them at least at first, whereas the roleplaying part stays intimidating for quite a while.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 16, 2008)

Anyone find the amusing irony in the fact that 4e gets some grief for being *too complicated*, and then gets some grief (often from the same folks) for being *too simple*?

Yep, yep - I knew you did.

Wis


----------



## BryonD (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I really don't see the problem.



Frustrating, isn't it?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> How about since you're not a mod, if you think that I'm threadcrapping, you report me and see what a Mod has to say?




Whilst I think your idea of a "conversation" is a little out there, I don't think there's much point in that if I just tell you what I think, unless you keep doing it 

*IanB* - I have, and even as someone who is considered extremely knowledgeable about several complex MMORPGs (more complex, I would argue, numerically, than most TT RPGs), they were fairly put-off by it by themselves.

When I *helped* them character creation went extremely smoothly and quickly (unlike 3E), but they did need a bit of help. Even my brother, who has played D&D with me since 1989 says he was rather overwhelmed by the 4E PHB at first and note that he was NOT overwhelmed by the 3E PHB.

I think with even a little guidance from an experienced player or DM, this PHB is great, but it can be quite threatening otherwise. Just experience with it so far.


----------



## Andre (Jun 16, 2008)

Philomath said:
			
		

> If WotC is smart, they'll make the Character Builder on D&D Insider both free and as newbie-friendly as WoW character creation.




This.

The single best element of the 3.0 PHB was the Character Generator. Yes, it was a beta. Yes, the interface was ugly as heck. But it made creating a character easy. My gaming group was able to jump into the game with far less trouble than if we had tried to craft characters by hand.

Add in that many very experienced players have far less time (and patience) for RPG's than we did when we were younger, and I just don't understand not making a character generator available with the PHB a priority. Start with the assumption that no one has the time or inclination to muddle through and design accordingly. WOTC should be making it as easy as possible for players - new and existing - to give 4E a try.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 16, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> Combat is concrete and more like a boardgame and just generally easier to understand what the goals are. I'd say with 95% of the new players I've dealt with over the years, combat is the main fun thing for them at least at first, whereas the roleplaying part stays intimidating for quite a while.




Agreed. In some ways, the D&D mini game is a good "intro set." Enough of the same rules to catch the drift, but not the choices to confound.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 16, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Anyone find the amusing irony in the fact that 4e gets some grief for being *too complicated*, and then gets some grief (often from the same folks) for being *too simple*?
> 
> Yep, yep - I knew you did.
> 
> Wis



Amusing, yeah.  But it isn't really ironic.

It is possible to simply be in the middle of the road and end up run over.

Too simple to keep all the old players, but still too complicated to woo in a new base.....


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

ruemere, interesting points.

I found it interesting that part of the combat chapter is in alphabetical order, but _only_ the "Actions in Combat" section. 

Also, I do acknowledge the usefulness of an index, but I find it _weird_ that WotC by far has so few indexes! It was so bad that Keith Baker had to make his own index and put it on his website for one of the supplement books. Supposedly, the reason there is a dearth of indexes is due to the time it takes to compile them, but jeez.

And on the topic of organization, I did find it troubling they stuck the advancement chart all the way in the back of Chapter 2, where you have to hunt for the damn thing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 16, 2008)

Andre said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> The single best element of the 3.0 PHB was the Character Generator. Yes, it was a beta. Yes, the interface was ugly as heck. But it made creating a character easy. My gaming group was able to jump into the game with far less trouble than if we had tried to craft characters by hand.
> 
> Add in that many very experienced players have far less time (and patience) for RPG's than we did when we were younger, and I just don't understand not making a character generator available with the PHB a priority. Start with the assumption that no one has the time or inclination to muddle through and design accordingly. WOTC should be making it as easy as possible for players - new and existing - to give 4E a try.




You're both dead right, you know. The PHB character generator was a real pos, but it was STILL useful and DID speed up character creation in a way even the Excel spreadsheet stuff people have hasn't. I really hope the terms of the GSL let someone else put together good chargen software, but I'll be surprised if they do.

Personally I'm worried about this because rumblings from WotC indicated strongly that they wanted to make the character generator something you had to pay to use fully, rather being something that could really help people get into the game. As so little has been said about the DDI for so long, I can only hope they're working towards a different model now, one where the character generator, at least, is free and easily available.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm embarrased to say this but despite having run a few sessions of Keep, I'm STILL reading through the PHB. I agree that every class is a wizard and there are no 'dummy' classes.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Amusing, yeah.  But it isn't really ironic.
> 
> It is possible to simply be in the middle of the road and end up run over.
> 
> Too simple to keep all the old players, but still too complicated to woo in a new base.....




Thing is, I feel the game is less complicated then it's been in a while. 

For the simple fact thatt hings are standardized.

I think the very fact that there isn't an "intro" character is part of this.

All characters work the same, so once you get the basic understanding of how the systems work, you can start on how to best use them.

Before, you had to learn the system, and then which sub system a given class had to use, and then finally how to use them to best effect.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 16, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Amusing, yeah.  But it isn't really ironic.
> 
> It is possible to simply be in the middle of the road and end up run over.
> 
> Too simple to keep all the old players, but still too complicated to woo in a new base.....




True enough.

WotC has to hope (I'd say 'we' have to hope, but I bet you'd disagree with me  ) that they are able to keep enough - not all - of old players and bring in enough new blood to kickstart this hobby again. 

I agree with Pramas on the driving, irrefutable need for new gamers. That wasn't happening, apparently, and may not have happened since back in the hey-days of the early 80s. 

But I agree with you (Sign: Apocalypse) that "gamers" generally don't _need_ simple stuff. Hell, they may not _want_ simple stuff. I still curl up with the 1E DMG and PHB, just to read the dang things, and I haven't played 1E in nearly 20 years.

Yes, yes - so I'm a loser. But it's my hope there are other losers out there that get a thrill from complexities and powers and options and potential stories. Losers that, until now, have not - for whatever reason - been bitten by the D&D bug.  

Here's hoping their bit(ten).

Wis


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 16, 2008)

WP said:
			
		

> Anyone find the amusing irony in the fact that 4e gets some grief for being too complicated, and then gets some grief (often from the same folks) for being too simple?




I haven't noticed it being the same folks. Simplicity, as far as I am concerned, is a pretty good thing, and 4e is in many respects a simpler game. It might not go too far enough, though, for the newbies.

I think it's kind of perversely hilarious that if it DID go this direction, the outcry would be even greater. 



			
				IanB said:
			
		

> I think that would be a huge mistake. Over the years, as I've dealt with a lot of new players, the one thing they all seem to latch onto first is the combat system. Things like actually talking in character, roleplaying out encounters, stuff like that makes people very self-conscious and often nervous the first time they do it and they really need something else to bring them into the game.




Maybe I should have worded it better.

Combat will always be (and should always be) an important part of D&D. D&D had its roots in wargaming, and has always had wargame elements: tactical positioning, number-cunching bonuses, blah blah blah.

Maybe a region where 4e could have broadened the appeal would have been in cutting some of this wargaming out, thereby killing one of D&D's sacred cows. 

I mean, why do you need so many powers? Because there are so many different things to do in a fight. All those different things you can do blow up complexity to a huge level, and can get overwhelming quite fast. There's a lot of "moving parts." The great quantity of powers and bonuses that you get to various different things in combat just increase the complexity of these "moving parts."

If combat was streamlined, simplified, modified to be a quick few die rolls or something, it could maintain the appeal (combat is a vital part of the game, after all) without getting bogged down in the shifting pushing pulling morale insight feat power electricity acid poison ongoing recharge opportunity attack battlemat miniatures minor action BLARGH that...well, honestly, every edition has probably suffered from to varying degrees. 

Keep combat.

Get rid of the complexity of combat.

That's the sacred cow that could make the game instantly easier to grok right off the bat.

Add a "miniatures handbook" or something for a more detailed combat system later down the line.

Keep the core system neat and elegant and quick and easy with a minimum of "moving parts." They should be interesting, but limited in quantity.

I'm just spitballing, here, but I think it might be a promising idea.



> Combat is concrete and more like a boardgame and just generally easier to understand what the goals are. I'd say with 95% of the new players I've dealt with over the years, combat is the main fun thing for them at least at first, whereas the roleplaying part stays intimidating for quite a while.




Right, which is why I probably slightly mis-spoke.  Definitely keep combat. Slay the sacred cow of "wargaming roots" that the game has to make combat easy to resolve quickly and without a lot of fiddly bits. 

This cuts down on your need for powers (reducing the Chapter 4 Wall), and cuts down on your need for things that affect those powers (reducing the number of game-specific terms), making it more approachable to newbies, because they can quickly understand the moving parts there are, because there aren't that many of them.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 16, 2008)

I think Pramas has valid points, though as it's been pointed out, they are mostly more issues of organization and presentation than criticisms of the game mechanics themselves -- which, frankly, appears to be how he intended the post.  Comments:

Newb class: I think the idea of a newb class insults new gamers.  Having introduced a new gamer to 3.5 who decided to join an ongoing campaign at 8th level by playing a druid, I think it's better to cater to the character a new player wants to play than to give them something they don't like but that you think is easier to grok.

The Great Wall.  Amen.  My eyes glaze over if I try to flip through it.  My first few read throughs I just read the basic class descrptions, then when I got to the powers listings I flipped to the next class.  Admittedly, I do this with spell and magic item sections in 3E books too.  It wasn't until I actually decided to roll up a character that I went back to study the particular power selections.  I've now gone in detail through 3 or 4 classes ... but still haven't bothered to read cleric, paladin, or warlord powers at all.  They'll be there when I want them.

Organization: Yeah, it could definitely use more examples ... not a criticism soley of the PHB, either.  The DMG needs more as well.  And a few pages need easy ways to locate them ... like the big advancement table.  The core books need to be thought of as textbooks, and need to be cross-indexed appropriately.

Whoever suggested including a character creator was spot on.  I learned more about how the various mechanics interact by building an Excel-based optimizer (and looking at other folks' auto-calculating character sheets) than by reading the book.

Just reinforces my opnion that a section or two (like magic items ...) should have been booted to the DMG to improve the PHB presentation, and add value to the DMG in the process.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2008)

Off-topic:

Kamikaze, I understand what you mean about "taking the complexity out of combat", but then, everyone might feel like a Fighter. The "I hit, I do damage", just with all the PCs. 

However, one of the things about Exalted I really liked was that, while there were definite combat powers (and everybody could get any power), at least half the powers were non-combat based. 

There were powers that let you charm people, find out what about an individual it would take to bribe them, and be the life of the party. There were bureaucracy powers, letting you speed up or slow down an organization's activity, or motivate them for a single cause. There were Investigation-based powers, allowing you to find clues or detect lies. There were craft-based powers, allowing you to double your efforts, find the weaknesses in other creations (in order to sunder them). There were Presence and Performance based powers, allowing you (among other things) to intimidate people with your mere existence, entrance people with your voice, or to train soldiers into elite fighting forces in x3 the time.

In other words, you could play an entire game as courtiers and socialites, using your social powers to become manipulators in the court. You could play generals who created and led armies, but didn't have to fight. You could be Mother Theresa/Ghandi, an utter pacifist, if you pleased, and you _feel_ as though you have the potency in the game to _get things done_ just like the asskicker beside you.

However, in systems like D&D, the non-combat stuff usually came down to one roll or two. Even tricking out your bluff or diplomacy to a fat +20, it was still just a single roll, or a series of rolls, and that's it. Now, imagine if there was a way to have non-combat abilities that played off your skills. The same way Bluff allows you to feint in combat for sneak attack, you could use Bluff to catch your opponent off guard long enough to cause him to hesitate and sputter after a good verbal reparte. Or a diplomacy ability that allowed you to undermine the other person's argument _along with_ rolling high. 

Along with skill challenges, there's the notion of 'skill combat'; Spirit of the Century, and (soon to be released) Dresden Files RPG have the notion of combat in three tiers: Physical, Mental, and Social combat. They work on the same rules, with skill x versus skill y rolls, but failure during the "rounds" can cause penalties, with lasting effects - loss of prestige, embarassment, fatigue/confusion, and so on.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 16, 2008)

I think history will show Chris is wrong on this one.

Don't get me wrong, I think Chris is a great guy and a solid game designer.  But I wouldn't call him a great prognosticator.  Indeed, given he thinks you can judge how well a game will do by how well it's rules read, rather than looking at what's going on outside those rules, shows he's a game designer, not a marketing expert (and this is a marketing topic, not a rules topic).

I think, based on the sales numbers I am seeing and the massive seeping into popular culture where it wasn't reaching before, that 4e already recruited a ton of people (either back to the game after having left it years ago, or new to the game entirely).

Two people who I didn't know were even people contemplating gaming contacted me independently and asked me if I heard about a new edition of D&D coming out, asked if I played D&D and, when they found out I did asked if they could join a game.

My friggen dad even heard on the news that there was a new edition of D&D.  If you knew him, you'd be as stunned as I am about that.

Maybe it was the death of Gary Gygax, and maybe it's just a change in the media and distribution of pop culture information, and maybe something else or a combination of things, but 4e seems to have really extended out into the public in a way I've never seen before for D&D.

Which means it will result in a lot of new players - regardless of how the rules "read".   Most new players learn by doing, not reading.  Reading usually comes after they get hooked, and usually they won't be reading until they've already bought the book.


----------



## Najo (Jun 16, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Now suppose you're the DM running from a published adventure and you've got a bunch of NPCs to manage and find their powers easily, some with multiclass characters.
> An index of powers would be very helpful to that scenario.




Except monsters and npcs in modules and adventures are written up using the new monster layout and don't need anything looked up, its all there in front of the DM. If its done right that is.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Anyone find the amusing irony in the fact that 4e gets some grief for being *too complicated*, and then gets some grief (often from the same folks) for being *too simple*?
> 
> Yep, yep - I knew you did.
> 
> Wis




What have been the complaints about 4e being too simple?

I have seen plenty of complaints about it being too limited (lack of previous core races/classes/monsters), about it being changed (or lacking) fluff, about it being videogamey, of it being too gamist (once a day martial powers), and that it is complex tactically (teamwork synergies, everybody tracking daily powers).

Some of the benefits were supposed to be the simplicity of tracking things (no massive vancian lists, durations by save, less buffs and conditional modifiers), creating monsters or NPCs, DM prep, on the Fly DMing, and creating characters.


----------



## Roland55 (Jun 16, 2008)

I find one thing particularly interesting about this Thread.

Nobody jumped on Mr. Pramas for daring to point out a potential flaw in 4E.  Instead, the commentary here has been sober, generally on point, and quite interesting.

Of course, this isn't the other forum ... but I'm quite proud of everyone, anyway.

Maybe we're finally getting past the pain...?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 16, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Thing is, I feel the game is less complicated then it's been in a while.
> 
> For the simple fact thatt hings are standardized.
> 
> ...



I'm not disputing this at all.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Kamikaze, I understand what you mean about "taking the complexity out of combat", but then, everyone might feel like a Fighter. The "I hit, I do damage", just with all the PCs



Dude, there is a middle ground between 100 Powers Per Class and Everyone Is A BD&D Fighter. 

Let's even try something this:
At 1st level, every character can Basic Attack and Basic Power at-will. These are spelled out for every class.
You get 1 Power Per Level. That's it. They are all Encounter powers. They are all useful from levels 1-30, there is no "upgrade" that makes a previous power useless. Feats modify how these powers work.

30 powers is less than 90, and having, say, two feats per power means that you have diverse options while flowing naturally from your previous choices.



> However, in systems like D&D, the non-combat stuff usually came down to one roll or two.



Depending on how far you wanted to go with it, something similar to the Skill Challenge for combat might not be a bad idea...hurm hurm hurm...



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> he thinks you can judge how well a game will do by how well it's rules read



He doesn't think that, though. He thinks that you can judge how attractive a rulebook is to newbies based on how well it's rules read (and that reading the D&D PH is going to be a lot of people's first step into any sort of table-top RPG experience). I think he has a point, there.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 16, 2008)

I wonder which option people would perfer?

A) D&D is a hardcore game for hardcore gamers!  For those who would like an intro into roleplaying games; try Mircolite D20 or some other intro game.

B) D&D is a intro game for new gamers.  For those who would like a hardcore game, play Hackmaster, or some other cool indie game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 16, 2008)

C) D&D is an easy game to get into, but it can be ramped up in complexity (perhaps with the right splatbooks) without too much additional effort.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 16, 2008)

Simplicity not wanted?

I want simplicity. Its why I quit 3E. ITs why I won't be going to 4E. Its why some people love the OD&D boxed sets or Rules Cyclopedia.

Simple and gets the job done will make D&D appeal to far more people than keeping it complex because "real gamers will take the time to learn it".

People want minimum time investment for maximum fun. 3E and 4E don't have optimum ratios. 3E and 4E are for people who like complex games and have the time to invest in them. There are far more people who would like to play a fun game, but not one they have to spend hours learning in order to run it.

Thats the real reason there are so many DM's and so few players. IF the rules were easy and manageable there would be a lot more DM's.

Biggest reason players give or not DMing? "I don't know the rules well enough."

Even though they have been playing for 5 years. Or 8 years. Or 1 year. When the rules are the reason a person doesn't feel they can DM after a few gaming sessions, the rules are too complex. Let alone after years.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 17, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> People want minimum time investment for maximum fun. 3E and 4E don't have optimum ratios. 3E and 4E are for people who like complex games and have the time to invest in them. There are far more people who would like to play a fun game, but not one they have to spend hours learning in order to run it.



I think you are making something a a false image (for any edition).
You make it sound like "learning" is this tedious academic chore that one must endure until they can pass the final exam and only then are they allowed to start "having fun".  I recall learning 1E as a kid and the learning was every bit as fun as the playing.  Yeah, there are probably plenty of people out there who wouldn't agree, but for the great bulk of them liking the game learning process and liking pretending to be an elf come in a package.  Proportions may vary, but the two go together.  And yes, there are certainly exceptions in both directions.  I just really don't believe that there are enough exceptions in either direction to make a real profit in net gamers.  

I think the success of 3E demonstrates that there are tons of gamers who like entire experience.  3E didn't need to retire because no one was willing to play it.  Quite simply, it had gotten old enough that some players were just moving on, and for those that stayed, the fields of books to be published had been very well plowed.  It was time to rotate the crops.  4E has a new martial book coming out soon.  All the low hanging fruit is back.  Another 3E Complete Warrior book would be trapped in a major diminishing returns situation regardless of how great the game itself was and how outstanding the supplement was.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 17, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> B) D&D is a intro game for new gamers.  For those who would like a hardcore game, play Hackmaster, or some other cool indie game.



What I find funny is the talk of the "Great Wall". Try HERO. The book is a textbook - 450+ so pages, and creating a character is literally an exercise in calculus; it's a point buy system that requires you to multiply and divide to figure out how much a power costs by itself, then how much it costs inside a power framework, then you determine how much Endurance it takes to use it, and so on.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 17, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think you are making something a a false image (for any edition).
> You make it sound like "learning" is this tedious academic chore that one must endure until they can pass the final exam and only then are they allowed to start "having fun".  I recall learning 1E as a kid and the learning was every bit as fun as the playing.  Yeah, there are probably plenty of people out there who wouldn't agree, but for the great bulk of them liking the game learning process and liking pretending to be an elf come in a package.  Proportions may vary, but the two go together.  And yes, there are certainly exceptions in both directions.  I just really don't believe that there are enough exceptions in either direction to make a real profit in net gamers.
> 
> I think the success of 3E demonstrates that there are tons of gamers who like entire experience.  3E didn't need to retire because no one was willing to play it.  Quite simply, it had gotten old enough that some players were just moving on, and for those that stayed, the fields of books to be published had been very well plowed.  It was time to rotate the crops.  4E has a new martial book coming out soon.  All the low hanging fruit is back.  Another 3E Complete Warrior book would be trapped in a major diminishing returns situation regardless of how great the game itself was and how outstanding the supplement was.





I am talking about getting new blood into the game, your talking about recycling old blood.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 17, 2008)

Why is it that this conversation about bringing in new players keeps ignoring the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the corner? The way I see it, the only way that tabletop RPGs is ever going to truly make a comeback and attract new players is to find some way for the experience to be more gratifying than video games.

Now I'm one of those guys who rarely sits down and plays them, but when I do play video game RPGs, there are certain things that I get out of them. One of those things is that I can adventure with a group and get into 20 or so combats per hour. By the end of the hour, I've probably found something useful, or explored someplace cool, and I've moved on to something else interesting and cool.

D&D is kind of like this, only without the good graphics or the rapid play. When you come from the perspective of the kid who has spent the last 10 years (more than half his life) playing MMOs as the default way of playing RPGs, tabletop looks like nothing better than a crappy slow way of doing the same thing without dynamic moving characters and neat looking terrain. Heck, had I not cut my teeth on tabletop, I might not even be interested in it.

The way I see it, the only thing tabletop has to offer that computer games don't is the ability to sit around a table with your friends and be limited only by your imagination. You aren't confined by premade maps, you aren't confined by a set number of character races, or a metaplot that you don't want to adopt. We see this as tabletop players, but the MMO people don't seem to care. Expansions make it possible to adventure in sub-settings, and anyone can go out and buy another game to change the genre.

So the way I see it, no matter what WotC does, attracting new blood to the hobby is a losing proposition unless they can find a way to make D&D actually competitive with video games. I have no ready answers on how they can do this. DDI seems like a step in the right direction, but if I were an MMO player, I would still be puzzled why I would want to play on a virtual tabletop where I had to buy minis rather than play an MMO with my friends in a dynamic environment where all the graphics you need to play are included.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> What I find funny is the talk of the "Great Wall". Try HERO. The book is a textbook - 450+ so pages, and creating a character is literally an exercise in calculus; it's a point buy system that requires you to multiply and divide to figure out how much a power costs by itself, then how much it costs inside a power framework, then you determine how much Endurance it takes to use it, and so on.




I think you mean "literally an exercise in 3rd grade arithmetic," but I'll give you the rest. 

As for being a textbook... HERO 5e is well organized, has a good glossary, uses very little jargon, and provides numerous examples, both walk-thrus and finished products. So yes, it is like a textbook... informative, accessible, helpful, and enlightening, if perhaps a little dry to digest in one sitting. 

Power Frameworks are not something I would inflict on a new player without reason, and it's easy enough to hand-hold someone through it.

I started playing HERO with 4th edition... I literally picked it up in the store after reading the description of Energy Blast and going, "Man, that's easy! I wonder why more superhero games aren't like this." Later on, I discovered there was more to it than I thought, but the basic framework was intuitive, even simple.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jun 17, 2008)

I think he is spot on about it being to much for new gamers. And yes for the first time ever I grew bored while trying to read the PHB..it was soooooooo boring When I started gaming I would never have picked this up.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> The way I see it, the only thing tabletop has to offer that computer games don't is the ability to sit around a table with your friends and be limited only by your imagination. You aren't confined by premade maps, you aren't confined by a set number of character races, or a metaplot that you don't want to adopt.




RPGs allow you to do anything. MMOs don't. The flipside is, of course, that MMOs do a lot of the work for you, RPGs don't. 

To be a competitive RPG and get new blood, RPGs need:
1) to simplify prep time
2) keep in-game calculations to a minimum
3) offer lots of interesting things to do
4) provide a good framework for resolving issues that aren't specifically covered by the rules

IMO, 4e is decent at 1), poor at 2), neither good nor bad at 3), and terrible at 4).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> RPGs allow you to do anything. MMOs don't. The flipside is, of course, that MMOs do a lot of the work for you, RPGs don't.
> 
> To be a competitive RPG and get new blood, RPGs need:
> 1) to simplify prep time
> ...




I agree that those criteria help, but you still have to ask yourself if you would be interested in a tabletop RPG if you were a sixteen year old kid, even if you accomplish all of the above. I think you might get a few, but more than likely they're only going to find any amount of love for it if they're introduced to it by someone who already plays.

As for your assessment of 4Es strengths and weaknesses, I agree on all but point 4. The DMG does offer a lot of suggestions for how to resolve issues not specifically covered by the rules. The thing is that with 4E, you're back to actually listening to what the DM has to say rather than trying to overrule him in your attempts to powergame.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 17, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I really don't think that being to complicated will stop the next generation of gamers from getting in to 4E.  Competition from other activities is another story, but people who take to this kind of activity are bright and tend to be a bit obsessive   .




But WotC came right out and said that a lot of the simplifications that have been made in 4E are because the game was too complicated, and it made it more difficult for people to play and/or join.

Banshee


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 17, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> But WotC came right out and said that a lot of the simplifications that have been made in 4E are because the game was too complicated, and it made it more difficult for people to play and/or join.




I feel that with one or two obvious exceptions, 3.x was not too complicated to play (yes, grappling sucked, and using attacks of opportunity as a balancing measure for every special attack also sucked), but the real problem area, in my experience, was the amount of prep time involved. It took a long time to build NPCs that would last for one encounter and then be forgotten, and there were other elements that were hard, though not impossible, to simply wing in-game. Now personally, I cheated quite a bit of the time. I would come up with an NPC concept, fake the BAB, AC, saves, and skills. I'd add a feat or two if I thought it would be useful, and I rarely bothered with skills, because they are rarely used in combat. This worked to an extent, but that's only because I didn't have players who were trying to reverse engineer my NPCs in-game most of the time (I have had some players who would do just that, however). 4E makes NPC generation and monster leveling a snap. It is one of the main reasons I've been itching to start a game, even though I'm currently playing something completely different.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 17, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Simple and gets the job done will make D&D appeal to far more people than keeping it complex



The key is, as Cadfan says, and as WoW's success shows, to start simple and grow more complex over time.

The simple hooks em in, the complex keeps em interested long term.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 3. No Newb Class: If Pramas believes that Newb Classes are a feature, then I question his judgment.  Newb classes are a moronic design choice.  This is a hill I am willing to die upon.  Newsflash, people- D&D is played over a long period of time.  If you start someone in a newb class, they'll be stuck there long, long, looooong after they've ceased being a newb.  And if you make the newb class fill a decent, worthwhile role, you've just forced anyone who wants to play that role into playing the newb class.  Lovely.  A GOOD game design would make newb LEVELS, not newb CLASSES.



Agree 100%.

4e has learned the lesson WoW is teaching. Pramas hasn't.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 17, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I agree that those criteria help, but you still have to ask yourself if you would be interested in a tabletop RPG if you were a sixteen year old kid, even if you accomplish all of the above. I think you might get a few, but more than likely they're only going to find any amount of love for it if they're introduced to it by someone who already plays.
> 
> As for your assessment of 4Es strengths and weaknesses, I agree on all but point 4. The DMG does offer a lot of suggestions for how to resolve issues not specifically covered by the rules. The thing is that with 4E, you're back to actually listening to what the DM has to say rather than trying to overrule him in your attempts to powergame.




The problem with the DMG is its page count. I am guessing its over 200 pages, right?

How many people even read the rule booklets that come with the video games? My kids don't. There is such a high degree of ease and modularity they pop the game it, create the character, and learn as they play.

So a 200+ page book isn't going to help anyone learn anything since most people aren't going to bother to learn a game where they have to read 200+ pages to get just an idea of how to play.

If WOTC, or any RPG, is going to draw in new blood they are going to have to do good "quickstart rules". One that is about 30 pages long, preferably even shorter. One that tells the DM what they do and tells them how to tell the players what they can do.

Crucible of Freya by Necromancer Games was a good attempt at this. This basic concept needs to go a lot further though. 

Use these "Quickstart Adventures" to give two hours of " A great game to play with your friends". Use them to get people to try out "role playing" at a table and face to face. Get them to experience the difference between it and a video game. Get them to like it enough they might decide to try and read the 200+ page rulebooks for the "full RPG game experience".

Plus WOTC should not just limit themselves to fantasy. They should make such adventures for a wide variety of genre, and then provide full fledged books for those who decide to become full fledged table top RPG gamers.

Attracting new players to the game can be done, it just needs to be done.


Now I would like to point out something I find humorous. Chris' critiques of the 4E books can be applied to Mutants and Masterminds and True20 in spades. Well, I haven't read True20 Revised yet, so maybe he applied his ideas to that version. Amazon hasn't shipped it to me yet. It takes a month or two for them to ship True20 Revised.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 17, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The key is, as Cadfan says, and as WoW's success shows, to start simple and grow more complex over time.
> 
> The simple hooks em in, the complex keeps em interested long term.




Yep, which I outline one way to do so in my post prior to this.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 17, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Get rid of the complexity of combat.
> 
> That's the sacred cow that could make the game instantly easier to grok right off the bat.
> 
> ...




For some reason I was reminded of the "World of Darkness: Combat" book that was the cause of much wailing and gnashing of teeth some time ago.

Much of the criticism was that the Storyteller games did not need so much combat complexity, thank you very much, and that games should not try so hard to become something they were not.

I think D&D should remain focused on tactical combat and have elves, dwarves and wizards kill monsters to take their stuff...

Of course, lots of us have campaigns where no one pulls out a sword and political intrigue runs rampant... but it would not be D&D for me if the majority of the book were not combat oriented.

D&D should not try too hard to become something that is not.


----------



## hailstop (Jun 17, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> The man speaks the troof.
> 
> 
> 
> This was my experience as well.




My eyes glazed over too, and I've made a point of just reading one class a day.  That said, my eyes glazed over at the Cleric and Wizard spell lists in 3e too.

Still, I don't think there's been a good entry intro to D&D since Basic.


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> Newsflash, people- D&D is played over a long period of time.



Yes, which makes me wonder why the whole Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters paradigm was jettisoned.

What if you had a PHB, DMG and MM for levels 1-10, and did it really really well?  Spent that page count without having to worry about the other twenty levels?

The Great Wall would disappear.  The game would seem much simpler.  There would be more monsters, more magic items, more PC options, less for the DM to get their head around.

WOTC would sell many 1-10 books, less 11-20 books, and even less 21-30 books, but probably more books overall.

Surely this must have been considered, and then ditched...probably for reasons of not confusing new players?  Maybe if you named the 11-20 and 21-30 books in a way that didn't mislead people into thinking they were buying the core of the game...hmm.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2008)

Honestly, I think the mistake that's being made here is that D&D is the gateway game.  Has it been the gateway game for a long time?  Personally, I don't think so.

I think the evolution of gamer goes something like this:  MMORPG, Card Games (probably at around the same time), DDM (or something similar) then into RPG's.  

By the time someone gets around to picking up a PHB, unless they're being inducted into the game by an experienced gamer, they're likely fairly familiar with most of the mechanics that you find in D&D.  If they come from Magic, they have a rough idea of how spells work.  If they come from DDM, they know most of the combat mechanics.

Heck, the fact that D&D combat mirrors DDM so closely is hardly a coincidence.  DDM and Magic, are both very successful.  Being able to draw on those communities for new players is a pretty decent idea.

D&D as an entry game into TT RPG's hasn't been true for years.  Other than the B/E/C/M/I series, which ceased to exist about twenty years ago.  And, let's face it, back then there wasn't any other options for getting into RPG's.  There was no DDM or Magic, or MMORPG's to teach the basics.  So, you needed a basic set.  But, anyone who's played MMORPG's will likely immediately grok 4e.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 17, 2008)

Slander said:
			
		

> _"WOTC has let us retailers know that the launch of 4E is aimed at veteran gamers.
> 
> New players will be targeted in a separate marketing campaign in the fall, likely coinciding with the new starter game in November."_
> 
> ...






			
				Filcher said:
			
		

> I don't see a problem w/ loving 4E _and_ conceding that it is complex.
> 
> Fortunately, the Basic game is coming out in November. This version is for us. The next one is for new folks. Nuff said.




This.

I really think that Hasbro could take a "basic" version of D&D, with less rules and less options. For example, the basic game could be limited to 6-10 pre-generated characters, each one pre-statted for levels 1-10, with some basic options like those described by Kamikaze Midget on post #99

Put this in a big box with some minis, tiles and a set of dice. The instruction booklets would eventually direct already-hooked players to the core rulebooks so they can "get levels 11-30".

Then they can put this box on the boardgame section of toy- and bookstores, right next to Cranium and Risk (other Hasbro products).
This, combined with some smart advertising and product placement (which is something that Hasbro can do for a fraction of its ad budget), and voilá, a new generation of gamers.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Surely this must have been considered, and then ditched...probably for reasons of not confusing new players?  Maybe if you named the 11-20 and 21-30 books in a way that didn't mislead people into thinking they were buying the core of the game...hmm.




Oh gosh no.

Playing a character from beginning to end is the core of the game.


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> Honestly, I think the mistake that's being made here is that D&D is the gateway game. Has it been the gateway game for a long time? Personally, I don't think so.



Pramas agrees.  His point is that it should be, he was hoping that this edition would be, for a change.


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> Oh gosh no.
> 
> Playing a character from beginning to end is the core of the game.



But WOTC have given you an incomplete game anyway.  There's no rules for making traps, for goodness sake.  You will be buying more books anyway to get a full campaign out of this thing, unless you turn homebrew game designer.

Why not get a complete 1-10 game, a complete 11-20 game, and a complete 21-30 game?

Because WOTC doesn't want to give you a complete game.  They want to sell you more books.  That's another "shooting self in foot" moment for this edition, except from the perspective of if you're balancing the books at Hasbro.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 17, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> What I find funny is the talk of the "Great Wall". Try HERO. The book is a textbook - 450+ so pages, and creating a character is literally an exercise in calculus; it's a point buy system that requires you to multiply and divide to figure out how much a power costs by itself, then how much it costs inside a power framework, then you determine how much Endurance it takes to use it, and so on.




But Hero is built on a single system. D&D is built on an exception system. Huge difference between the two. Once you've got Hero down, you've got it down for multiple genres, power levels, etc... Once you've got D&D down, you've got D&D down.

Not saying this is a bad or good thing but Her ois built around many different assumptions than D&D.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 17, 2008)

> I think D&D should remain focused on tactical combat and have elves, dwarves and wizards kill monsters to take their stuff...




One of those things is not like the other. I don't need opportunity attacks and minor actions and shifts and blasts to be an elf wizard who kills monsters to take their stuff.

Heavily tactical combat is a complicated monstrosity at the core of D&D, and simplifying it, whatever else it would do, would go a long way toward making the game easy and accessible for newbs who don't want to fiddle with math and little plastic toys.



> D&D should not try too hard to become something that is not.




That's when you get into trouble trying to define what D&D really is, when its boiled down to its raw essence. In some peoples' mind, 4e is D&D trying to become something its not, because D&D is lawful good gold dragons and the plane of Concordant Opposition and strongly simulationist.

I'm more willing to stretch D&D to just being: "A game of fantasy storytelling." For that, you do not need complex combat.

Now, others might say that D&D is actually "A tactical combat game with fantasy trappings." They'd be right, in their own way. But certainly there are milages that vary.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> By the time someone gets around to picking up a PHB, unless they're being inducted into the game by an experienced gamer, they're likely fairly familiar with most of the mechanics that you find in D&D. If they come from Magic, they have a rough idea of how spells work. If they come from DDM, they know most of the combat mechanics.




By Gygax's beard, why would I bother picking up D&D if I already had all those things eating up my happy fun time?

"Hey guys, wanna read 900 pages of hardcover books and play that game?!"

"Dude, we've got our Magic decks _right here_. No."


----------



## IanB (Jun 17, 2008)

You know, the diagram of the planes in the back of my 1e PH doesn't have any Concordant Opposition plane in the middle...


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> D&D as an entry game into TT RPG's hasn't been true for years.  Other than the B/E/C/M/I series, which ceased to exist about twenty years ago.  And, let's face it, back then there wasn't any other options for getting into RPG's.  There was no DDM or Magic, or MMORPG's to teach the basics.  So, you needed a basic set.  But, anyone who's played MMORPG's will likely immediately grok 4e.




A couple of times a year, somebody's mom will stop me in a book store and ask me some questions because Timmy is interested in D&D and mom doesn't know anything about it except she knew some people who played it back in college. Regardless of how they end up in RPGs, D&D is still likely to be the first. 

And, like an analogy which I won't elaborate on, you hope your first time will be fun, exciting, and handled with gentleness. 

Basic D&D was my introduction to D&D, and apart from the race=class thing, I generally preferred it to AD&D until well into the 2e lifecycle.


----------



## Jasperak (Jun 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> People are saying, the first time they sat down with the 4e PHB, that they get to page after page of very similar powers, the effects of which and the differences between which they do not yet comprehend, and their eyes glaze over.  It's informational overload.  It's also boring as hell to read little blurbs of attack after attack that all do just about the same thing.  I hit this when I first saw the PHB and ended up just skipping the walls of text.  A friend of mine made a similar comment after trying to read the book.
> 
> Once you have a feel for the system, the powers make sense, and they're easy to digest in little levelling-up chunks, as you're never looking at more than 4 at a time.  To read through 80 of them in a row is a different matter.




My first group of friends that played D&D picked up the Red and Blue boxed set and learned to play on our own. I remember playing  that first solo adventure and wishing there was some way to save Aleena. My friends and I took about a year but we finally killed Bargle. Aleena was avenged. We learned how to play the game together and Bargle's head was our reward.

Then I bought the 1e PH. We poured through it and salivated at all of the new options. Our party Magic-User left stains in the book. And we played for years, well into the birth of 2e. We eventually all graduated and some moved away; I joined the Army and continued to play. 

I introduced some people to the game, and some stayed; others went. I always used either the 1e PH or after the change 2e and found it quite easy to get people involved and playing. A fighter swings; a mage casts a spell; a thief backstabs. 

But for my wife, I started her with the Red boxed set; the original one that I had used, tattered mess that it was. She had as much hate for Bargle as we all did over a decade earlier, and she eventually killed him too. (Has any other NPC died as much as he did?)

We (My wife, the group, and I) eventually moved on to 3e. It really wasn't much different; actually better in almost every way. We got to pick feats but otherwise the feel of the game was the same. We could continue to play with our 1e/2e mentality, and I think the game better for it. We didn't bother with all of the splats, but did amass a large miniature collection.

I had kept up-to-date on 4e with all the previews, and while I was not overly impressed with some of the changes, I gave it a shot when KotS was released. I had a very good time. Unfortunately I cannot make the next session on Wed because the wife and I are going to see Blues Traveler. That makes me sad that I will miss the game.  

A few Saturdays ago my wife and I went to our FLGS so I could show her what the new edition was all about. We got in at a table; I played but she watched. It started off good and all of us were interested it what was going on. Until combat started. She was confused. After the first combat ended she left to go see the DDM demo. After awhile she came back and told me why she left. It was too confusing, too complicated, too much going on. She likes watching me play the original Final Fantasy and most of the Legend of Zelda games, but not Final Fantasy Tactics. This game wasn't for her, and if I had introduced the game to her with 4e, she would not have been playing for the past decade. She would have never had the satisfaction of killing Bargle.

I think Chris had it exactly right; a good game, but not for the beginner roleplayer.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Pramas agrees.  His point is that it should be, he was hoping that this edition would be, for a change.




See, now I disagree that it should be.  Could you imagine the screaming from fans if they stripped 3e down to the point of Basic D&D?  Or even Basic/Expert?

No, you keep the core rules nicely complicated and come out with boxed sets in addition and then try to draw on existing gamers (but not RPG gamers) for your new blood.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 17, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I feel that with one or two obvious exceptions, 3.x was not too complicated to play (yes, grappling sucked, and using attacks of opportunity as a balancing measure for every special attack also sucked), but the real problem area, in my experience, was the amount of prep time involved. It took a long time to build NPCs that would last for one encounter and then be forgotten, and there were other elements that were hard, though not impossible, to simply wing in-game. Now personally, I cheated quite a bit of the time. I would come up with an NPC concept, fake the BAB, AC, saves, and skills. I'd add a feat or two if I thought it would be useful, and I rarely bothered with skills, because they are rarely used in combat. This worked to an extent, but that's only because I didn't have players who were trying to reverse engineer my NPCs in-game most of the time (I have had some players who would do just that, however).




Yep.  The main problem with 3e is the time it takes to prepare for and play.  The prep time problem is greatly reduced with prepublished adventures (thanks Necro, Goodman, and Paizo!), so the only problem for me is the time it takes to play...which apparently wasn't solved in 4E.  (Rounds go quicker, but overall combat seems to take the same amount of time according to those that have played.)

I would think an enterprising writer/designer - say, you, for example - could design a quick fix for 3.x NPCs & Monsters to bring them up or down a few levels to adjust on the fly - just by adjusting attacks and hit points.  It certainly wouldn't be a perfect system, but it could be a functional one.


----------



## Kichwas (Jun 17, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> One thing I don't see how to overcome, though, is that D&D 4E is "hardcore balanced", in the sense that if you don't use teamwork, aren't equipped right, and didn't choose smart abilities and don't use them intelligently, you're likely see TPKs very frequently. Then again, BD&D saw constant TPKs, so maybe it's not a big deal.




This should get split into a separate thread...

But...

Keep in mind that in the old days it took less than 5 minutes to make a complete new PC. You could have your toon die on your turn, and by the time the table ran back around to you be ready with Ruin Explorer the 2nd, a new toon of a different class, race, stats, and gear.

Now you have to sit down and analyze all your choices, and pretty map out a 'build' to level 20 so you know your choices will make sense, and figure out all sorts of little numbers all over the sheet. Its been like this since 3E, but... without the kind of teamwork iconoclastic people are not capable of handling, the new 4E is going to have a lot more PC kills, but a lot longer time in coming back from them.


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> See, now I disagree that it should be. Could you imagine the screaming from fans if they stripped 3e down to the point of Basic D&D? Or even Basic/Expert?
> 
> No, you keep the core rules nicely complicated and come out with boxed sets in addition and then try to draw on existing gamers (but not RPG gamers) for your new blood.



It's not an "either/or".  It's just a problem with no easy solution.  Swinging to one extreme end of the pendulum as you've suggested there is not the answer, IMO, and nor is hanging about in the centre (where everyone loses).  If there is a good one, I don't think I, Pramas, you or WOTC have thought of it yet.

There's also the issue of 12 year olds not wanting to be talked down to, thank you very much.  If you produce a "Basic Boxed Set" in the true sense of the word like 3E did (the OD&D Red Box wasn't really that, it was just levels 1-3 for the full game), they'll see it for what it is - watered down - and ignore it for the Real Thing.

I think that's part of what you're pointing out above.  But on the other hand, going hardcore isn't going to work either.  Those 12 year olds will need someone to introduce it to them.

I think that D&D's biggest quandary is that it expects the players to be part novelist, part level designer, part computer running rules software.  Rare is the person who's good at all three, and rare is the ruleset which can compensate for the fact that it's players might be lousy novelists, lousy level designers and lousy computers...and still remain fun, and worthy of your time and effort.  And, as Pramas points out, readable...and as I'd point out, inspiring.

That's one heck of a lot of stuff for one game to live up to.  But that's P&P RPGs, and D&D is the industry 900 lb gorilla of these, and the default.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2008)

> I think that's part of what you're pointing out above. But on the other hand, going hardcore isn't going to work either. Those 12 year olds will need someone to introduce it to them.




And the 12 year olds do.  They have DDM and Magic.  Both of which can teach the mechanics, but, in the end, cannot serve terribly well as a vehicle for cooperative play.  

That's why you would switch from DDM or Magic to D&D.  Mechanics?  Not a chance, both DDM and Magic are mechanically easier than D&D and MUCH faster to play.  What you cannot do in either one though is get the cooperative play that you get in D&D.  The idea of everyone being on the same team.

Way back when it was true as well.  Monopoly provides a great play experience, and, you can to some degree role play.  Same with Diplomacy.  But, what you don't get is the cooperative aspect.

So, teach the mechanics first with DDM or Magic and then hook them on the idea of being able to work together and grow togother like in a MMORPG, but with much more freedom of action.

I've long thought that the gateway to RPG's is not and shouldn't be D&D.


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> And the 12 year olds do. They have DDM and Magic. Both of which can teach the mechanics, but, in the end, cannot serve terribly well as a vehicle for cooperative play.



But they're both gateway-only-through-other-people, network things too.  

How did I learn M:tG, by reading the rulebook?  I didn't.  I got ripped off on cards by some people who were playing, ditching more than a few of their shoddy ones on me (which I only realised in retrospect), and they taught me the game.  That was the path that eventually saw me get to the oz nationals twice, back in the day, but I never read those rules until I was already embedded in the game through someone who taught me it.

Given that both DDM and M:tG rely so much on a network of people already playing them, I don't think they're the gateway you're looking for either.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm sure that WotC will support new players and DMs with great on line content at launch, like lots of pre-made 1st level characters on actual WotC character sheets. They'll have easy encounter based dungeons on line. They'll have a few interesting monsters. Oh, and they'll have some 2D characters they bought from fiery dragon as an entry into using minis.

Yup, I'm sure that WotC's great marketing and online teams are all over this and that new players will get lots of support.......or not.

There are lots of ways to introduce new players and DMs. These manuals are not one of them. Neither is having no on line content to help new players and DMs. No real shock here...


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> But WOTC have given you an incomplete game anyway.  There's no rules for making traps, for goodness sake.  You will be buying more books anyway to get a full campaign out of this thing, unless you turn homebrew game designer.
> 
> Why not get a complete 1-10 game, a complete 11-20 game, and a complete 21-30 game?
> 
> Because WOTC doesn't want to give you a complete game.  They want to sell you more books.  That's another "shooting self in foot" moment for this edition, except from the perspective of if you're balancing the books at Hasbro.




Thats a pretty direct Shifting Goalposts there.  You can't argue that D&D broke things up to make money in one way and therefore should have broke things up in a different way.

Traps, Classes, and Monsters are not at all comparable to leveling a character 1 to 30.  

1- Trap-making and other sub-systems that scalar rather than modular (creating a level 12 trap is the same basic rules as a lvl 8 and a lvl 25).  

2- There is a hard-coded genre convention of power accumulates until you die/retire.  Trap design isn't even necessary to play the game well, much less at all.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 17, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> C) D&D is an easy game to get into, but it can be ramped up in complexity (perhaps with the right splatbooks) without too much additional effort.



 When given two extremes, the best option is inbetween them  Now, if only we can make that the case...

It seems that D&D is viewed as the RPG most newbies get into yet also not naturally welcoming of said newbies.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think the mistake that's being made here is that D&D is the gateway game.  Has it been the gateway game for a long time?  Personally, I don't think so.




So what is the gateway game?


----------



## rounser (Jun 17, 2008)

> Thats a pretty direct Shifting Goalposts there. You can't argue that D&D broke things up to make money in one way and therefore should have broke things up in a different way.



I don't agree, at least so far as my own personal preference is concerned.  If you give people a book that supports levels 1-10 in a complete and detailed fashion, I'd personally far prefer that to a game that tries to do 1-30, does none of them very well, and leaves you hanging for the "make your own trap" rules and a bunch of popular races and classes and monsters, so you have to buy more books to complete the game anyway.

If the page count forces a compromise, the splitting into level ranges is IMO a better one than the one we've got.  A campaign can't be level 25 and level 5 at the same time (or if it is, it's an extremely unusual one).  You're either playing a game around level 5 or level 25, and it would be preferable that both are complete and replete with options.

4E suggests that the allowable page count can't do that - or that the bean counters don't want it to do that, so you get on the "buy more books in hopes of one day getting the whole game" treadmill.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 17, 2008)

> When given two extremes, the best option is inbetween them  Now, if only we can make that the case...
> 
> It seems that D&D is viewed as the RPG most newbies get into yet also not naturally welcoming of said newbies.




Yuppers. Those manuals take a long time to digest.

But rather than in between them, I'd kind of like to see a game that is _both_ extremes. At it's most fundamental, it is easy peasy, even simplistic. At it's most complex, it is intricate and exacting.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> I don't care.  Its not for me.  I glanced through some of the pages (must have been the class section) and all the colors for the title of the powers made my eyes hurt.  Mind you I was with my 5 year old daughter so I didn't have long. That is some poor layout.  Color should make the words go pop, not make the eyes go pop.  If I had flipped through the pages, it probably would have given me a seizure.
> 
> The little I read made my brain go numb.  It confirmed my negative predisposition to the game.  So, no I have no intention of giving 4E a playtest run.  Poor marketting, poor layout.  That's enough for me.




Funny, I have grand mal seizures and had no problems.  YMMV I suppose.  I guess a dark red, medium green and black could make someone's eyes hurt.  All the titles are actually written in white w/those colors as backgrounds.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Supposedly, the reason there is a dearth of indexes is due to the time it takes to compile them, but jeez.
> 
> And on the topic of organization, I did find it troubling they stuck the advancement chart all the way in the back of Chapter 2, where you have to hunt for the damn thing.




I guess they would prefer to be criticized for a lack of an index than endless jokes about "see page XX" like White Wolf still gets after almost 20 years.  The spot they put the character advancement chart is about 2 pages before the races and classes.  Seems a reasonably sensible place for it.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 17, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So what is the gateway game?




For tabletop RPGs, it's still D&D. Nothing else has the same exposure or recognition. I know too many people who play online RPGs who don't believe the gamer label applies to them to consider WoW is a gateway game. 

I think one major difference between gateway games of past years and now is the number and variety of gateway board games like Ticket to Ride and Settlers of Catan.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think you mean "literally an exercise in 3rd grade arithmetic," but I'll give you the rest.
> 
> As for being a textbook... HERO 5e is well organized, has a good glossary, *uses very little jargon*.....




*boggle*

I guess your group didn't have very many AVLD RKAs from OIFs then, right?


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I don't agree, at least so far as my own personal preference is concerned.  If you give people a book that supports levels 1-10 in a complete and detailed fashion, I'd personally far prefer that to a game that tries to do 1-30, does none of them very well, and leaves you hanging for the "make your own trap" rules and a bunch of popular races and classes and monsters, so you have to buy more books to complete the game anyway.




Ah.  I believe I found the philosophical difference between our positions:

I don't believe that graduating from Kolbold to Teen Red Dragon fighter is at all a complete game.  A "complete game" entails going from Ratcatcher to Godslayer.

Paying the ferryman to go from Orc to Drow is, in my estimation, more silly than having to pay for new features (Value Added!) like Gnome or Barbarian.  Further, not everyone designs new traps in their campaigns- but everyone gains levels.

I have further issue with the whole efficient page-count bugbear (traps 1-10 is traps 21-30 with some new colors), but I mostly feel that our positions are entirely opposed.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I started playing HERO with 4th edition... I literally picked it up in the store after reading the description of Energy Blast and going, "Man, that's easy! I wonder why more superhero games aren't like this." Later on, I discovered there was more to it than I thought, but the basic framework was intuitive, even simple.




Simple basic framework is why I completed my Aberrant collection   Ditch the setting if you don't like it, w/a few minor tweaks I can make 95% of all the non demigod and up power level guys from Marvel.  Probly plenty of the ones from other companies too, but I'm most familiar w/Marvel.  

The complaints I always see mentioned about 4E being too simple are things like Trip not being a combat option.  But it is.  Str vs Reflex.  pg 42 DMG for the stunt system.  Swing from a chandelier to kick someone.  Dive under a table and kick it out from under 2 guys who are fighting on it.  This actually puts adjudication back in the hands of the DM, which is amusing considering I've seen people complain that 4E just made them a ref not a DM.

Traps have plenty of examples in the DMG and its not hard to approximate something similar.  Pg 86 even has a bit of advice on winging it w/a trap


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So what is the gateway game?




I believe I answered this, although Rounser disagrees.  I think the gateway games are things like Magic and DDM.  

Sold in FLGS', and often played there as well, you've got the sort of Brownian motion thing going on to draw people into D&D.

And, now, the added bonus that the DDM player doesn't have to relearn the combat rules.  They're pretty much the same.  

Nothing will replace active gamers drawing in new blood.  I think that's a given.  But, now it's much, much easier to do so.  You can sit down with a group of 15 year old DDM players, and start playing pretty much in a very short period of time.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think you mean "literally an exercise in 3rd grade arithmetic," but I'll give you the rest.
> 
> As for being a textbook... HERO 5e is well organized, has a good glossary, uses very little jargon, and provides numerous examples, both walk-thrus and finished products. So yes, it is like a textbook... informative, accessible, helpful, and enlightening, if perhaps a little dry to digest in one sitting.
> 
> ...



I find this sort of comparison tiring as well, but as a long time HERO fan, it's what I expect. One thing that earlier editions of HERO did, and that the Basic Edition of D&D did as well (from the BECMI series) was include a solo adventure that stepped you through the basic game resolution system and had you go through a combat. With a game like HERO that is heavily grid based, that was no mean feat!

The thing is, Chris is right about what he's saying here, in that the core rulebooks aren't newbie friendly, and they aren't targeted at a new audience. At this point in time, we will have to wait for the new intro set to come out to move us in that direction.

If you're wondering what a "newbie friendly" version of D&D would look like, head over to RPGNow and pick up a copy of the old Basic set. It is extremely user friendly, but also organized in a radically different way than other D&D products. I don't think the core books would have worked if they were done this way, but a product like this is important to bring new people into the hobby.

--Steve


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 17, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So what is the gateway game?



Chainmail


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So what is the gateway game?



 World of Warcraft.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Why not get a complete 1-10 game, a complete 11-20 game, and a complete 21-30 game?




Grind is, was, and always will be a core part of the D&D experience. Just look at World of Warcraft.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 17, 2008)

> So what is the gateway game?



Portal!



When it comes to RPGs, it's D&D. Everyone who's ever rolled a polyhedrian knows how to play D&D, or at least is familiar with it enough to know exactly what it entails. 

What is the gateway to D&D? Fantasy novels.


----------



## outsider (Jun 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 3. No Newb Class: If Pramas believes that Newb Classes are a feature, then I question his judgment.  Newb classes are a moronic design choice.  This is a hill I am willing to die upon.  Newsflash, people- D&D is played over a long period of time.  If you start someone in a newb class, they'll be stuck there long, long, looooong after they've ceased being a newb.  And if you make the newb class fill a decent, worthwhile role, you've just forced anyone who wants to play that role into playing the newb class.  Lovely.




Not to mention the flavor aspect.  I'd rather be Conan than Merlin, yet I've never played a pure classed fighter type for more than 3 sessions in any edition of D&D.  Why?  Because they were so mechanically boring(with the exception of Book of 9 Swords classes, which I never got to play).  In 4th ed though, it's likely that every character I play for the next several years will be martial.

Having a noob class is an absolutely TERRIBLE idea.  I can't believe that sacred cow survived as long as it did.


----------



## Mark (Jun 17, 2008)

edbonny said:
			
		

> I am a decades-long gamer and a DnD fanboy who will be porting over to 4e completely...





Don't be so modest.  You're a high quality freelancer who has a decade long relationship with TSR/WotC/D&D.  I'd imagine that relationship will continue with 4E, yes?


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

I think Chris forgot that these days, a "new gamer" will have had experiences with CRPGs such as Baldur's Gate/NWN, Oblivion, Final fantasy, or MMOGs.

And those people are used to many options, and to dungeon crawling.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 17, 2008)

Here's the thing about newbie classes.

In 1e/2e, the fighter was he newbie class but what a lot of people forget is that I don't think you were SUPPOSED to keep playing with the fighter after level 11.

Notice Gygax's own gaming group where pretty much everybody was playing a spellcaster.

I honestly believe that Gygax never intended for people to actually PLAY non-spellcasters past level 11.

I think 2E should've allowed for people to change their characters at level 11.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I think Chris forgot that these days, a "new gamer" will have had experiences with CRPGs such as Baldur's Gate/NWN, Oblivion, Final fantasy, or MMOGs.
> 
> And those people are used to many options, and to dungeon crawling.



That's a pretty fair call, of course. However, a "new gamer" won't _necessarily_ have had such experiences.

But quite a few, yeah probably.

Hm, I wonder what the crossover rate is, from MMORPG and CRPG to TTRPG. Either leaving one for the other, or taking up the latter in addition.

edit --- hadn't read a page and more back. . . well, never mind.


----------



## pogre (Jun 17, 2008)

I agree with Pramas that the books are not a good way to attract new gamers. I'm not sure that is a huge criticism, but it is true.

I think a great way to get new players into the game would be a simple character creator. Not a spread sheet or something similar that merely makes the calculations, but literally a step-by-step creator that hides all of the rules and mechanics.

It would open with a brief animated example of play.

Next, it would ask the player which race he would like to play. The could click on a globe to see a picture of the race and get a little insight, like Dragonborn make excellent fighters and paladins and maybe a hint of background as well.

The player would click on the race they want.

Next, it would ask what class they want to play. Again, click on a globe to get an illustration of the class and a bit of information about what they do. Wizards cast mighty spells of fire or lightning or ensorcel the enemy to fight on their side. That kind of thing.

Once class is chosen - it would give the player some information on certain styles of play for the class. Such as, do you envision yourself as a "weapons platform" or a clever manipulating mage.*
*Obviously with a better description than I have used in my example.

Now, the player has chosen a class and a style of play - they are given a choice of powers and what they do.

The program picks skills, feats, equipment, and any other choices and then announces - push here to print your character. A complete character sheet is printed out along with a quick play cheat sheet.

Hand-in-hand with such a program would be a complete dungeon adventure that literally hand holds a new DM through the entire adventure. A dungeon is the best because it limits choices somewhat. The dungeon should get a party of five comfortably to second level. The adventure should explicitly tell new DMs to not worry about rules mistakes - just play and roll when in doubt.

The players can go back in the program and level up with choices given for powers - and again, all other choices being made by the program.

A second slightly more complex adventure might follow with more advice, but a little less hand-holding.

When the player goes back to go to third level they are informed that the program has made a lot of choices for them up to this point. It encourages the player to change any skill, feat, or even power choices they wish. Naturally, it directs them to the PHB.

By this time the player has already bought in to the game or not.

It would be really nice if the new player had access to a full character gen program too. Especially if a saved character could be ported from the newbie program to the complete program.

I would make the "newbie" program and the first adventure entirely free.

Others have praised the 3e beta char gen program and I agree it was helpful in getting folks jump started.

Given that WOTC has had a tough time in the electronics arena, I realize this is a pipe dream, but it would be great for new players.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 17, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> How about:
> 
> "I'm a 25th level ranger multiclassed with warlord (named Aragorn  ), I'm not sure what level the power is or what type. Is it a feat? A class ability? A power? Race or magic item stuff? Something else?"



Whatever happened to writing down the page number when you pick the power? I mean, all the spell sheets I saw for 3e had page numbers on them for further reference.

Ignoring that, both categorized (as in 4e) and alphabetical (as in 3e) division have their advantages. Categorized is better when creating/advancing characters, because you have all the relevant powers listed together. You see Burning Hands, Chill Strike, Force Orb, Icy Terrain, and Ray of Enfeeblement next to one another, so you can easily compare them. Alphabetical has its advantages during the game, if a monster description says something like "1/day - burning hands (caster level 5, DC 13)".

However, 4e has avoided that by making monsters have their abilities all spelled out in the stat block. The monster doesn't say "1/day - burning hands." It says "  *Fan of Flames* (standard; encounter) ** Fire:* Close blast 5; +5 vs Reflex; 2d6+3 fire damage; _Miss_ half." There's no need to refer to the PHB or any other book after seeing that.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

By the time you have ground your way to 25th level, you are no longer a newbie gamer.

Of course, if you want to make 25th level characters from the outset, for your first campaign, that might be a problem. But this is very clearly not how D&D is usually played, nor is it something that the books recommend.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

I don't know how important it is for a game to be newb- friendly. I started playing RPGs with MERP when I was 8 years old. We didn't get many things right, but the feeling of adventure was enough to hook us. Then we moved on to other games, we got older and smarter but we lost much of the imagination.

I think children compensates for not understanding the rules by having fantasy and imagination. I also think few children have understood all the rules, yet they play. If you want to hook an adult, it is most likely by a friend introducing them. I have a hard time seeing a 30 year old with no previous experience and no gaming friends picking up a PHB on a whim.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> One of those things is not like the other. I don't need opportunity attacks and minor actions and shifts and blasts to be an elf wizard who kills monsters to take their stuff.
> 
> Heavily tactical combat is a complicated monstrosity at the core of D&D, and simplifying it, whatever else it would do, would go a long way toward making the game easy and accessible for newbs who don't want to fiddle with math and little plastic toys.
> 
> ...



The question is, is "fantasy storytelling" really that exciting for a beginner? "Huh? Storytelling? Like around a campfire? Why do I need a rulebook for that?".

I think the tactical combat, the minis, and all that is actually what might make someone interested at all. Because they see it is a game, and people know that games requires rules. Storytelling does not. 

Astoundingly, despite this only been 8-9 years ago, I don't know what really got me into role-playing in the first place. I think the mix of being able to play a fictional person was important. It was not just the telling of a story of this person that was important. It was also important it was a game in which I could use this person.

(For the record: My Gateway game was Shadowrun.)


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The question is, is "fantasy storytelling" really that exciting for a beginner? "Huh? Storytelling? Like around a campfire? Why do I need a rulebook for that?".
> 
> I think the tactical combat, the minis, and all that is actually what might make someone interested at all. Because they see it is a game, and people know that games requires rules. Storytelling does not.
> 
> ...




I disagree 100%. Fantasy is or at least started as a narrative genre. People get attracted to D&D due to fantasy, not being a game. Now if a fantasy product manages to be fun it will sell. Tabletop roleplaying games, computer games, card games, miniature games. If what you really like is what you are describing above why don't you just play chess?


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

It's the mix of combat and storytelling that he describes. And I think that's what attracts people - if they just wanted a story, they'd read (or write) a story. If they just wanted a game, there are tons of games.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I disagree 100%. Fantasy is or at least started as a narrative genre. People get attracted to D&D due to fantasy, not being a game. Now if a fantasy product manages to be fun it will sell. Tabletop roleplaying games, computer games, card games, miniature games. If what you really like is what you are describing above why don't you just play chess?




Because chess isn't viscerally violent enough.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> People are saying, the first time they sat down with the 4e PHB, that they get to page after page of very similar powers, the effects of which and the differences between which they do not yet comprehend, and their eyes glaze over.  It's informational overload.  It's also boring as hell to read little blurbs of attack after attack that all do just about the same thing.  I hit this when I first saw the PHB and ended up just skipping the walls of text.  A friend of mine made a similar comment after trying to read the book.
> 
> Once you have a feel for the system, the powers make sense, and they're easy to digest in little levelling-up chunks, as you're never looking at more than 4 at a time.  To read through 80 of them in a row is a different matter.




See, I think this is brilliant document design.  Or at least competent document design which is way beyond what you find in most of the hobby.

Skipping the walls of text is what you're supposed to do.  As a new player you don't need to read anything more than the first two pages of any class description, and the section is nicely arranged by tabs so that you can skip between sections.

Once you've picked your class, you bookmark that section and you live there.  No need to flip more than 15 pages to understand any aspect of your class in play.   When you level you move a few pages over in either direction to do feats or the general levelling table.

The only other section you need in play is the combat section which is nestled right up next to the back cover making it very easy to reference.

My problem with Pramas' review is that it relies on a fairly simple analysis of document design.  On a basic level a game manual should not be designed to be read, it needs to be designed to be used.

I think this is really more a problem for old hands at DnD who are too used to be brutalized by horrible document design to recognize how the book is actually asking to be used.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> It's the mix of combat and storytelling that he describes. And I think that's what attracts people - if they just wanted a story, they'd read (or write) a story. If they just wanted a game, there are tons of games.




Don't get it. What do you mean by combat? Isn't combat a theme of storytelling? And storytelling or narration does not limit it self in english. Whatever manages to communicate a plot (even visual 2d or even 3d stimulus) are valid tools of storytelling.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 17, 2008)

I do agree with Pramas's point on examples, but those might actually be better used if published in different products.  

The PHB functions best as a recruiting tool by working as a great reference tool.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I disagree 100%. Fantasy is or at least started as a narrative genre. People get attracted to D&D due to fantasy, not being a game. Now if a fantasy product manages to be fun it will sell. Tabletop roleplaying games, computer games, card games, miniature games. If what you really like is what you are describing above why don't you just play chess?



Because I didn't get into the game just for the rules, as I said. I also liked they idea of playing a person. I don't want to play a peasant on the chess board. That's not a person, it's a game piece.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Because I didn't get into the game just for the rules, as I said. I also liked they idea of playing a person. I don't want to play a peasant on the chess board. That's not a person, it's a game piece.




So imagination or storytelling are important points of attraction for you to buy the product. See?


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Don't get it. What do you mean by combat?




It's the bit where you kill the monsters. It's usually a precursor to taking their stuff.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So imagination or storytelling are important points of attraction for you to buy the product. See?



But I wouldn't have gotten into it if there weren't also rules to play the character I wanted to play. See?


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But I wouldn't have gotten into it if there weren't also rules to play the character I wanted to play. See?




I do see. I am not sure you do too:
-"the character I wanted to play" is your desire in your message here. 
-"also rules" is a secondary additional condition.

Your imagination comes first since it is a power more broad and generic. The rules of a game come second since they are more specifc and limited.

There can be other specific and limited conditions that can take the place of your current specifc condition. But nothing can substitute the generic base : your imagination.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I do see. I am not sure you do too:
> -"the character I wanted to play" is your desire in your message here.
> -"also rules" is a secondary additional condition.
> 
> ...



I can make up characters all the time. I did a lot, even as a teenager I was still creating characters and worlds. (Nerdy stuff like building my own space-ships from Lego!). 

Role-playing added a new option. And that wasn't the story-telling part, because I already did that all the time, alone, in my room.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 17, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> See, I think this is brilliant document design.  Or at least competent document design which is way beyond what you find in most of the hobby.
> 
> Skipping the walls of text is what you're supposed to do.  As a new player you don't need to read anything more than the first two pages of any class description, and the section is nicely arranged by tabs so that you can skip between sections.
> 
> ...




I agree with this - complaints that the Classes chapter is so long kind of miss the mark for me. Why on earth would you wade through page after page of powers before you need to?

The class descriptions give you all the information you need to describe the class - the powers descriptions are for later detail.

I agree with Chris that the book could be laid out better in other ways - but not with this criticism.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I can make up characters all the time. I did a lot, even as a teenager I was still creating characters and worlds. (Nerdy stuff like building my own space-ships from Lego!).
> 
> Role-playing added a new option. And that wasn't the story-telling part, because I already did that all the time, alone, in my room.




Agreed. Rpg rules are now a specific plus. But you have to communicate in a coherent way to people where and how this plus adds. Hence present and introduce the base again along with it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 17, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> I agree with this - complaints that the Classes chapter is so long kind of miss the mark for me. Why on earth would you wade through page after page of powers before you need to?
> 
> The class descriptions give you all the information you need to describe the class - the powers descriptions are for later detail.
> 
> I agree with Chris that the book could be laid out better in other ways - but not with this criticism.




My experience thus far is that this book has made 4E the easiest edition to teach* to new players, but I'm not a good counter-example to Pramas's over all argument for a couple of reasons.

1.) I'm an experienced player teaching new players, which isn't the model he wants to see from the PHB

2.) The new players I'm teaching have already experienced bridge and introductory products like boardgames or WoW.

Point 2 could be used as a counter-argument in that I think that's actually the best base for new recruitment considering that WoW has around 10 million players worldwide and the gaming experience as a whole is much broader than WoW.  4E might be exceedingly well positioned to capitalize on this new recruitment base.  Heck, I can even see Chess as a potential bridge to DnD now through the medium of DDM.

* - I've had a really hard time with a few players who are not so resistant to 4E that they don't want to play but are resistant enough that they don't want to read.  The problem here is that they transpose a lot of 3E assumptions so that while unlearning old habits isn't hard generally, it's becoming difficult for them.


----------



## delericho (Jun 17, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I guess they would prefer to be criticized for a lack of an index than endless jokes about "see page XX" like White Wolf still gets after almost 20 years.




There are several instances of "See page XX" in the DMG. So it seems they want both.


----------



## delericho (Jun 17, 2008)

I have long been convinced that for D&D to attract new players (and, more to the point, new groups where an existing DM is not readily available), the 3-book core rules paradigm has got to go.

The current core rules have an RRP of $105, clock in at 832 pages of text, and are very big, heavy and intimidating. Put them in front of a typical 14-year-old, and you have roughly 0% chance of getting a new gamer out of it.

D&D also has a long history of failure with the "Basic Set" (ever since the Red Box was retired, really), probably because the box has "Basic Set" on it, and then the next step up is those same expensive and intimidating core rules. (Plus, the current Basic Sets aren't good value for money - if you don't like the game, you've wasted your $40. If you do like the game, you get to spend a further $105, and retire the previous set, effectively wasting that $40.)

What I think they need to do:

1) Compress the core rules into a single book, no more than 250 pages in length. This will require taking a very ruthless view to which options are presented. I recommend four races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling), four classes (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard), and only covering levels 1-10.

2) Shortly after the "Core Rulebook" is released, publish a set of books pthat build on top of that book to give 'us' the 'rest of the game'. There might be as many as five of these - "Advanced Players Handbook", "Advanced Dungeon Mastery", "Monster Manual", "Tome of Treasures" and "Grimoire". However many books there are, between them they should cover the rest of the races, classes, powers, levels, and so forth.

3) Produce a boxed set version of the game, in the vein of those Warhammer starter sets. Include the Core Rulebook (the same book as in #1 above), several quick-start guides, an adventure book, pregenerated characters, adventure maps and/or tiles, miniatures (perhaps just for the PCs, with "Carboard Heroes"-esque tokens for the rest), spell templates, blank character sheets (and/or a CD containing some nice electronic resources), and all manner of other nice things. The price point they need to aim for is equivalent to that of one of the Warhammer boxes.

4) Each year, replase the boxed set with a new version containing the same Core Rulebook, but updating everything else.

5) With other supplements to the game (beyond those in #2), they need a modular rather than serial approach. Rather than having "PHB2", "PHB3" and so on, giving the impression that you need them all in order to play (or get up to speed with the experts), they should give each year a code-name (or somesuch), so that you get "PHB: Legends", "PHB: Antiquities" and "PHB: Ice Age". These can all expand the game, but they do so in a manner that doesn't intimidate new players into thinking they have to spend thousands of dollars on their game. (They should also 'retire' books from the line as time goes on - dropping them out of print, stopping referencing them in adventures and other support venues, and so forth.) Indeed, a little power creep here might not be a bad thing - "get the core set and the latest 'set' of upgrades, and you're good to go".

The other thing they badly need to do is get new players playing right away. I don't know how things are in the States, but in the UK Games Workshop draw in a massive number of new gamers through their stores - the stores are almost all dominated by big game tables where the staff are more than willing to show you how the game works, play a few rounds, and so on. Unless the store is busy, in which case there are loads of people there playing games, painting miniatures, and basically having fun. (Of course, the GW games also lose players at a very high rate, but by that time they've generally bought their 2,000 point army they'll never use, so GW don't care.)

I have no idea how Wizards might emulate any of that. Perhaps if they made WWDDGD a quarterly, rather than annual, event?


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> I have long been convinced that for D&D to attract new players (and, more to the point, new groups where an existing DM is not readily available), the 3-book core rules paradigm has got to go.
> 
> The current core rules have an RRP of $105, clock in at 832 pages of text, and are very big, heavy and intimidating. Put them in front of a typical 14-year-old, and you have roughly 0% chance of getting a new gamer out of it.




Put them in front of a typical 25 year old, and they see it as a couple of console games.


----------



## delericho (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Put them in front of a typical 25 year old, and they see it as a couple of console games.




In terms of price, yes. However, I doubt too many 25-year-olds will want to invest the time in reading those 832 pages when they could instead insert the disc and get playing.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Put them in front of a typical 25 year old, and they see it as a couple of console games.




You mean boxes of console games.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> In terms of price, yes. However, I doubt too many 25-year-olds will want to invest the time in reading those 832 pages when they could instead insert the disc and get playing.



 What a good thing you don't actually need to read 832 pages to start playing.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> You mean boxes of console games.



 Someone has to pay full price.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> What a good thing you don't actually need to read 832 pages to start playing.




Can you figure this out at first glance? Is this the impression you get at first glance? 
Yes or no?


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Someone has to pay full price.




Yes. All the already loyal fans of D&D. But new ones? How?


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Can you figure this out at first glance? Is this the impression you get at first glance?
> Yes or no?



 Yes. For some reason, ppl are conflating "I must have exhaustive knowledge of the rules" with "I know enough to play a 1st level character". Maybe they are operating in a bubble.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Yes. All the already loyal fans of D&D. But new ones? How?



 Someone has to pay full price FOR THE CONSOLE GAMES.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

I think you underestimate new players.

Among the gamers, most potential new players are already used to generate characters for computer games. That includes picking a class from many. With or withour reading about all the classes in detail.

Those who come from the Fantasy reading area, well, they are used to reading hundreds of pages.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes. For some reason, ppl are conflating "I must have exhaustive knowledge of the rules" with "I know enough to play a 1st level character". Maybe they are operating in a bubble.




People still have to figure out what these 832 pages are about and if it will be any fun for them.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I think you underestimate new players.
> 
> Among the gamers, most potential new players are already used to generate characters for computer games. That includes picking a class from many. With or withour reading about all the classes in detail.
> 
> Those who come from the Fantasy reading area, well, they are used to reading hundreds of pages.




It is really easy to make a 1st level character in D&D.

1. Decide what you want to do in a fight. Think of WoW.

2. Pick that class.

3. Pick 2 of 4 at-will powers, 1 of 3-4 encounter powers, and 1 of 3-4 daily powers. Again, think of WoW.

4. Pick your feat. 9 times out of 10, this should be the one the PHB recommends.

In a world where WoW informs the hoi polloi's mental picture of RPGs, the PHB is quite easy to read and understand.

The _DMG_ is the one that goes to great lengths to deconstruct the difference between p&p gaming and CRPGs.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> People still have to figure out what these 832 pages are about and if it will be any fun for them.



 That's why Chapter 1 of the PHB is there, and why the book is in big font with lots of pretty pictures.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 17, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> There are several instances of "See page XX" in the DMG. So it seems they want both.



Out of curiosity, if anyone knows, how in the world does this happen?  How does a manuscript head out the door without a final global search for the string "XX"?


----------



## delericho (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes. For some reason, ppl are conflating "I must have exhaustive knowledge of the rules" with "I know enough to play a 1st level character". Maybe they are operating in a bubble.




When someone new to the game sees the 832-pages of the core rulebooks in the store, they don't know that large sections can be skipped before starting play. The perception is that those are the rules that need to be understood before play can begin.

And the perception isn't that far from the truth - before a group can begin playing, _someone_ has to read more than a hundred pages of rules text, the various options have to be explained to the players (or read by the players themselves), characters have to be created, an adventure has to be generated....

And then they get to start having fun.

Alternately, they can insert the disc into their Playstation (X-Box, Wii), and get playing right away. The controls will either be intuitive enough for them to work out, or the game will have a built-in tutorial to take them into the game proper. Tough choice.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That's why Chapter 1 of the PHB is there, and why the book is in big font with lots of pretty pictures.




And with these you get at a glance if the 832 pages rules will be fun and worth it for you? 
So it could be easily as many as 10000 or as low as 10 and it would not make a difference, no? As long as we have big font, pictures and chapter 1 the volume and price of the manual are irrelevant.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

I think Pramas has not much of an idea what kind of optimisation, planning, and reading forms the average online gaming experience. There's all this "oh, poor new gamer kid getting critically hit by wall of text" lamentation, while that "poor gamer kid" is probably discussing the merits of various talent trees and combat tactics on his WoW guild forum in between reading up on the latest raid blue print.

Goven how wide-spread computer and video games are, I doubt that D&D needs a lot more "basic boxes". What might be much better to attract new players are advertising in game magazines, and running demo games - maybe online demo games.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> When someone new to the game sees the 832-pages of the core rulebooks in the store, they don't know that large sections can be skipped before starting play. The perception is that those are the rules that need to be understood before play can begin.




When someone new to the game walks into a game store, they will see dozens of games with 300+ page rulebooks around them. The assumption will therefore be that they know these games have 300+ page rulebooks, unless they have never been into a game store in their life. Furthermore, these days you can even see RPGs sold in mainstream bookstores, so the concept of a 300+ page rulebook can't be that odd.

And this is precisely why, when you actually open the books, they're laid out in a manner that's much more welcoming than 3E or previous versions. All the text is in a big, easy-to-read font, there are lots of pretty pictures, and the writing is clear and easy to understand. None of the wall-to-wall text cribbed from an accounting textbook that you found before.



> And the perception isn't that far from the truth - before a group can begin playing, _someone_ has to read more than a hundred pages of rules text, the various options have to be explained to the players (or read by the players themselves), characters have to be created, an adventure has to be generated....




Presumably these newbies will still have enough brains to know that if they are going to play a human-mediated version of WoW, someone is going to have to be the computer. And hence, they will allow for that fact. And there will be newbies who either played D&D before but left it, or are joining an existing group.



> And then they get to start having fun.




Which might be why 4E goes to such great lengths to cut down the chargen minigame, and why the DMG talks about what to do if you have limited prep time as the DM.



> Alternately, they can insert the disc into their Playstation (X-Box, Wii), and get playing right away. The controls will either be intuitive enough for them to work out, or the game will have a built-in tutorial to take them into the game proper. Tough choice.




It's quite amazing that, with the ADD-afflicted generation of kids these days, console games haven't destroyed all other forms of recreation.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> And with these you get at a glance if the 832 pages rules will be fun and worth it for you?




See, this is why the concept of "browsing" was invented.



> So it could be easily as many as 10000 or as low as 10 and it would not make a difference, no? As long as we have big font, pictures and chapter 1 the volume and price of the manual are irrelevant.




The cost of the books is a couple of console games. Just because existing D&D gamers are cheap, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't have disposable income.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It's quite amazing that, with the ADD-afflicted generation of kids these days, console games haven't destroyed all other forms of recreation.




Who says they haven't?


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Who says they haven't?




Let me tell you about our latest line of tinfoil headwear.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Who says they haven't?




Kids read, watch tv, play board and card games, play outside, play video games, play MMOGs, do sports etc.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

I wonder if the ppl on boardgamegeek ever bemoan about how MMOs are destroying their hobby...?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, if anyone knows, how in the world does this happen?  How does a manuscript head out the door without a final global search for the string "XX"?



I know to little about the manuscript-to-print process, but sometimes you have checked everything fine, make a last-moment edit, think it is okay, and send it off. Unfortunately, it then turns out to be not okay. It is plain human error. Someone is always the last to touch whatever is being done, and even the last person can screw something up.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> See, this is why the concept of "browsing" was invented.
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the books is a couple of console games. Just because existing D&D gamers are cheap, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't have disposable income.





If you are so good at browsing that you could figure out if the 832 page worth of rules will be enough fun to you to worth the counter-investment of your money and time from your already familiar whatever fun recreation you are much above the norm and invalid as the selling target we are talking about.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I know to little about the manuscript-to-print process, but sometimes you have checked everything fine, make a last-moment edit, think it is okay, and send it off. Unfortunately, it then turns out to be not okay. It is plain human error. Someone is always the last to touch whatever is being done, and even the last person can screw something up.



I just don't see how "See page XX" is a "last moment edit."  It's obviously a place-holder, and it seems like one of the very last things you'd do -- always -- is check your place-holders.

Sure, human error, obviously.  Someone screwed up.  But screwing that up seems like the editorial equivalent of heading to the grocery and forgetting your trousers.  People do it, apparently ... I'm just not sure how.

Anyway.  Tangent.  My bad.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Kids read, watch tv, play board and card games, play outside, play video games, play MMOGs, do sports etc.




Not my experience. Kids I know that have console games in their free time they just want to play console games.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> If you are so good at browsing that you could figure out if the 832 page worth of rules will be enough fun to you to worth the counter-investment of your money and time from your already familiar whatever fun recreation you are much above the norm and invalid as the selling target we are talking about.




I think your estimation of "the norm" and D&D's selling target is quite unfair and wrong. The kids, much less the adults, that are D&D's target audience are not as dumb as you make them out to be.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> If you are so good at browsing that you could figure out if the 832 page worth of rules will be enough fun to you to worth the counter-investment of your money and time from your already familiar whatever fun recreation you are much above the norm and invalid as the selling target we are talking about.




I think I managed to parse the above sentence.

In which case:

1. Why do you assume newbie gamers are dumb?

2. The average age of an MMO gamer is 25ish. Said people can be assumed to know how to make decisions based on incomplete data.

3. It isn't hard to figure out races, classes and powers. Just think of WoW.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Not my experience. Kids I know that have console games in their free time they just want to play console games.



 Even if they have WoW?


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Not my experience. Kids I know that have console games in their free time they just want to play console games.




My little brother didn't (and doesn't now that he's an adult). All those who read Harry Potter do not just play console games. There's sports as well. Comics, TV, just hanging out - there are lots of activities popular with kids who play console games as well. Not to mention the card and board gamers.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> People still have to figure out what these 832 pages are about and if it will be any fun for them.



That's what the Internet it for. 

BTW, my only real disagreement w/Pramas's comments is the notion that the back cover of the book needs to be some primary marketing tool in this day and age. Seems... quaint. Might have been nice, but that's not relevant.

As for the price. GTA IV = $59.99 USD. 4e gift set from Amazon, shipped (eventually) 57.99. RPG gaming seems cheap to me.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I think your estimation of "the norm" and D&D's selling target is quite unfair and wrong. The kids, much less the adults, that are D&D's target audience are not as dumb as you make them out to be.




We are talking about people that do not know what RPGs are about. Without underestimating I think it is really impossible for one such as this to be the selling target of the core set as it is.
I personally got introduced to the nerd space through much simpler board games such as GW Heroquest and Space Crusade and still friends had to teach me D&D some years later. How did they knew D&D? Taught from older people I guess.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jun 17, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> The current core rules have an RRP of $105, clock in at 832 pages of text, and are very big, heavy and intimidating. Put them in front of a typical 14-year-old, and you have roughly 0% chance of getting a new gamer out of it.




While Chris makes a lot of good points in his blog, and delericho's suggestions don't suck, I don't agree at all with the assumption above.

When I was 13 years old (lo those many moons ago), I was attracted to D&D precisely _because_ of those dense, mysterious, incomprehensible manuals. A glance through the books was full of suggestion and the promise of many secrets to be revealed. The effort required to ferret out those secrets was a feature, not a bug.

Yes, that was a different era, but I don't fully buy the "kids these days" view that D&D's psychographic has been wiped out by the electronic age. Sure, there are kids who will look at the 832 pages of text and say "that looks like work; I'll stick with Grand Theft Auto." But guess what? That kid was probably _never, ever_ going to play D&D--not now, and not back in 1979.

I agree that simplifying entry-level D&D has the potential to broaden the base of entry-level players (I was, after all, the architect of the 3E Black Dragon version of the Basic Game). And I agree that some of the players who try a broad-base entry-level version of the game will, through it, discover full-fledged D&D. But I reject the notion that D&D's complexity and scope is strictly a liability. It is, in fact, one of the game's key assets, even at the acquisition stage.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> We are talking about people that do not know what RPGs are about. Without underestimating I think it is really impossible for one such as this to be the selling target of the core set as it is.




In this day and age, everyone knows what RPGs are about: killing monsters and taking their stuff.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Even if they have WoW?




When I say kids I think of max 12 years olds. I do not know what happens in Australia but here in Europe it is playstation that has dominated these ages for 10 years.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> We are talking about people that do not know what RPGs are about.



Who are these people, in the age of WoW, console games based around avatar role-adoption, manga in Waldenbooks, and a generally high-level penetration of geekery into the mainstream? 



> Without underestimating I think it is really impossible for one such as this to be the selling target of the core set as it is.



Kids still play "let's pretend". Also, they play "Devil May Cry".



> I personally got introduced to the nerd space through much simpler board games such as GW Heroquest and Space Crusade and still friends had to teach me D&D some years later.



OK, but there are other avenues of approach. Personally, I didn't play board or wargames outside of RISK.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> When I say kids I think of max 12 years olds. I do not know what happens in Australia but here in Europe it is playstation that has dominated these ages for 10 years.




The average age of the MMO gamer is 25 years old. I have no idea where this meme that 4E is targeted at 12-year-olds came from.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> We are talking about people that do not know what RPGs are about. Without underestimating I think it is really impossible for one such as this to be the selling target of the core set as it is.
> I personally got introduced to the nerd space through much simpler board games such as GW Heroquest and Space Crusade and still friends had to teach me D&D some years later. How did they knew D&D? Taught from older people I guess.




Do kids these days NOT know what a RPG is?

Ironically, I think the average kid these days has MUCH more experience with RPGs than even 10 years ago.

Pretty much every console game these days has RPG elements (heh, anyone remember post Goldbox, preBioware when people were thinking RPGs were doomed a la the Adventure game genre?) and games like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts REGULARLY make the charts.

Throw in anime which liberally steals from RPGs and unfortunately I have to disagree.

You're selling kids short these days.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Which reminds me, I still have to make up a Nero-lookalike so I can KICK DMC4's ASS. Effin' jumping puzzles reminding me I'm not ninja enough.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I wonder if the ppl on boardgamegeek ever bemoan about how MMOs are destroying their hobby...?



They bemoan us, actually.  Junking up their hobby with dice-fest dungeon crawl games that are little more than an extended exercise in gambling.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Kids still play "let's pretend". Also, they play "Devil May Cry".




 So? Let's just be realistic of what we are talking about. Do you honestly believe that a kid not knowing tabletop RPGs will choose to buy the core set instead of a mainstream console game or even say a pack of game cards or a box of minis? I believe not.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The average age of the MMO gamer is 25 years old. I have no idea where this meme that 4E is targeted at 12-year-olds came from.




It was you who said kids in the first place. So when you say kids you refer to 25 years olds?


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> We are talking about people that do not know what RPGs are about. Without underestimating I think it is really impossible for one such as this to be the selling target of the core set as it is.
> I personally got introduced to the nerd space through much simpler board games such as GW Heroquest and Space Crusade and still friends had to teach me D&D some years later. How did they knew D&D? Taught from older people I guess.




Any kid that plays console games knows what a RPG is about. You simply cannot miss the RPGs for just about every system.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So? Let's just be realistic of what we are talking about. Do you honestly believe that a kid not knowing tabletop RPGs will choose to buy the core set instead of a mainstream console game or even say a pack of game cards or a box of minis? I believe not.




Also, you underestimate console and computer games. More and more, it's all about playing together, in the same room (wii) or online. And communication goes with it, voice chat, or chat/forums. It only takes one member of a circle of such players to know about tabletop RPGs to introduce the rest to it.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Any kid that plays console games knows what a RPG is about. You simply cannot miss the RPGs for just about every system.




Whatever. Again, repeating myself, I stress that the core set is still a failure for an introduction to newbies to the genre: tabletop rpgs and this is the point of this thread.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> It was you who said kids in the first place. So when you say kids you refer to 25 years olds?




I consider kids as under 18, but that's an effect of getting older. I would not consider 10 year olds as D&D's target audience though, 13+ is more like it.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Also, you underestimate console and computer games. More and more, it's all about playing together, in the same room (wii) or online. And communication goes with it, voice chat, or chat/forums. It only takes one member of a circle of such players to know about tabletop RPGs to introduce the rest to it.




It has always been like that. Kids always showed their toys to other kids.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Whatever. Again, repeating myself, I stress that the core set is still a failure for an introduction to newbies to the genre: tabletop rpgs and this is the point of this thread.




And I disagree. Although speaking from personal experience, I do not think that kids (13+, as in what D&D probably goes after) are really after "Kiddie versions" of a game. Those kids generally want the full, real deal The core books offer them that. And as was pointed out, relative to the average background in games those kids have, D&D delivers.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> It has always been like that. Kids always showed their toys to other kids.




Which means the dreaded "no clue about RPG newbie player without help" is actually unlikely to occur - and its even more unlikely that said kid won't simply browse the internet for more information.

I think my generation has to accept that it's not the 80's anymore. Kids these days have a lot more options to learn about games.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> It was you who said kids in the first place. So when you say kids you refer to 25 years olds?



 Psst. You might want to check upthread.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Whatever. Again, repeating myself, I stress that the core set is still a failure for an introduction to newbies to the genre: tabletop rpgs and this is the point of this thread.



 Tabletop RPGs are CRPGs. They just have a human server instead of a computer.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So? Let's just be realistic of what we are talking about. Do you honestly believe that a kid not knowing tabletop RPGs will choose to buy the core set instead of a mainstream console game or even say a pack of game cards or a box of minis? I believe not.




Sure, if it means a more flexible, immediate way of killing monsters and taking their stuff.

Now if you mean all that rigmarole about character agendae, author stance, kickers, bangers and narrative control? Maybe not.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Sure, if it means a more flexible, immediate way of killing monsters and taking their stuff.
> 
> Now if you mean all that rigmarole about character agendae, author stance, kickers, bangers and narrative control? Maybe not.




Indeed. I think Xechnao forgot that most of us (at least those that started in their teens) did not start to play D&D for deep immersion story telling, we started it to do heroic stuff involving lots of fighting, like we saw in the movies and read about in books.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Some discover later, as they age, that they like less combat and more story/plot/intrigue, others like more of that in addition to combat/action, and some discover that they like a combat/dungeon crawling focused game.

Also, if a kid is too dumb to "get" the rules, then I highly doubt the kid is interested in deep immersion story telling either.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> And I disagree. Although speaking from personal experience, I do not think that kids (13+, as in what D&D probably goes after) are really after "Kiddie versions" of a game. Those kids generally want the full, real deal The core books offer them that. And as was pointed out, relative to the average background in games those kids have, D&D delivers.




 In my area there are three FLGS that have tabletop rpgs and board games. They are full of kids and teenagers that play card and mini games. Only people in their 18s and plus approach the rpg books section and these are counted in fingers in contrast to the rest of the crowd. In some other fantasy or comic book stores they sell only action figures, cards and minis. 
 In my teens the hard rock and heavy metal music trend among teenagers was very linked to the rpg market. Now this is not the case any more. Or I do not know. Still if it were not for the older generations I doupt that this generation would have any tabletop story driven rpgs to deal with. Competitive 2d and 3d games yes (cards, miniatures, video games) but story driven no. 
 We have to make it easier for them, not harder. 832 pages do not help. This is the point. Hell, I swear that the shop manager of one of the FLGS told me Saturday himself. The D&D PHB cannot compete as a game to the mini rulebooks of mini games and card games for the new generation. 
 So the problems are two here. 1st: all they seem to want is just a game. 2nd: even as an introductory game to rpg world D&D cannot compete with the other games for the new generation.
 Perhaps in the USA things are different. But here, my personal experiences agree 100% with the points risen in this thread regarding the problems of the D&D core set as an introductory product to tabletop rpgs.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Also, if a kid is too dumb to "get" the rules, then I highly doubt the kid is interested in deep immersion story telling either.




It is the second time you speak of dumbness here. I do not think that dumbness has anything to do with it. Why you mention it to make a point it is beyond me.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> It is the second time you speak of dumbness here. I do not think that dumbness has anything to do with it. Why you mention it to make a point it is beyond me.




Because in my honest opinion, you are stating, in effect, that you think "kids" are too dumb to understand D&D's rule books. I disagree, and consider the rulebooks appropriate for kids of 13+ age given their background.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Because in my honest opinion, you are stating, in effect, that you think "kids" are too dumb to understand D&D's rule books. I disagree, and consider the rulebooks appropriate for kids of 13+ age given their background.




You missed my point then and perhaps the point of this thread. It does not deal with the ability to understand D&D if one appropriately decides to study it. It deals with this decision or put it in other words the attraction the D&D PHB can cast to those that they do not know what it is about. An attraction in a world that needs to be stronger than others so to be a choice.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> You missed my point then and perhaps the point of this thread. It does not deal with the ability to understand D&D if one appropriately decides to study it. It deals with this decision or put it in other words the attraction the D&D PHB can cast to those that they do not know what it is about. An attraction in a world that needs to be stronger than others so to be a choice.




I also disagree with the assumption that 

a) the average potential buyer doens't know what a RPG is

b) D&D fails to be an attractive option

and

c) that D&D has to be a stronger option than others to be a choice.

Point a) was demosntrated already to be false, b) was laid out to be false as well, and c) assumes wrongly that people will only buy one thing, and not two. As many of us play D&D and C/VGames, D&D just has to be attractive, which it is.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> You missed my point then and perhaps the point of this thread. It does not deal with the ability to understand D&D if one appropriately decides to study it. It deals with this decision or put it in other words the attraction the D&D PHB can cast to those that they do not know what it is about. An attraction in a world that needs to be stronger than others so to be a choice.



 1. There were quite a lot of people apparently willing to buy the 4E books sight unseen, if presales figures are to be believed.

2. For those who want to look before they leap, this is what the PHB says: "the Player's Handbook contains everything you need to create a heroic character of your own". And in fact, the text on that page should do a pretty good job of selling the D&D experience to someone who's never seen it before.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> An attraction in a world that needs to be stronger than others so to be a choice.




The problem for WotC is, if we reduce the argument to the following ...

"Would a "kid" (for any given value of "kid") buy these dense tomes of 832 total pages ... or this Halo 3 disc?"

... and ...

"Getting started with these 832 pages takes longer than getting started with this Halo 3 disc" ...

... then D&D will never, ever equal the utility of a console game. Never. Until it becomes a console game itself. So it's a fools errand to lambast 4e for not being as easy to access as a console game, for this is a holy grail that can never be found. Unless we reduce the game to just the minis and a note saying "large monsters are badass. Now pretend". But then Halo 3 will win again.  

So I don't think even a basic version of D&D will appeal to those who choose a console game because of ease of use. And thus, what WotC needs to do is find other means of attracting new players. Maybe they should double the page count? That would intrigue and mystify people, if nothing else.   And the new players would flock to the game!

/M


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Well, you can indeed reduce a game down to a few booklets. That's what OD&D was. But that would not deliver a very satisfying experience of killing monsters and taking their stuff, if you are coming to it from a WoW background.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

Also remeber that among the CRPGs, some of the best and most well known titles are D&D games - NWN1 and 2, Baldur's Gate I and 2. So, CVGs also serve as advertising for the tabletop game.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Apropos of nothing, having played Lego Star Wars 2 and Lego Indiana Jones to death, I would KILL for Lego D&D.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Apropos of nothing, having played Lego Star Wars 2 and Lego Indiana Jones to death, I would KILL for Lego D&D.




Can we lament how those computer games kill Lego?


----------



## mhensley (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I wonder if the ppl on boardgamegeek ever bemoan about how MMOs are destroying their hobby...?




Computers destroyed the wargaming hobby twenty years ago.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I also disagree with the assumption that
> 
> a) the average potential buyer doens't know what a RPG is
> 
> ...




Whatever. You want to say the above abc points are false? So be it. But nothing is really demonstrated. 

If it were not for you and me, already heavily invested and hardcore in rpgs that 4e PHB as it is would not even get printed. Who do you believe the 4e first print selled out to? Those that do not know or have cared what D&D about is?
OTOH video games, minis or card games need no one such as ourselves to help them establish a market. Just a TV add, put them on the shelf and you are good to go.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Whatever. You want to say the above abc points are false? So be it. But nothing is really demonstrated.
> 
> If it were not for you and me, already heavily invested and hardcore in rpgs that 4e PHB as it is would not even get printed. Who do you believe the 4e first print selled out to? Those that do not know or have cared what D&D about is?
> OTOH video games, minis or card games need no one such as ourselves to help them establish a market. Just a TV add, put them on the shelf and you are good to go.



 You really think it's that easy to market videogames...?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

Thought I'd chime in here...

I think I agree with almost everything Pramas wrote as far as bringing new gamers in.  It's funny how people will talk about information load and their players not being willing to read a 2 page document on a campaign world and then turn around and claim 800+ pages is an asset to bringing in new people.  And just for those claiming a 300+ book is the "norm" here's a few examples...

nWoD corebook about 200 pages
Blue Rose corebook about 200 pages
Star Wars Saga ed. tops at about 300 pages
Elric of Melnibone corebook (runequest version) about 180 pages

and these are for complete rules not just rules for a player.

As far as videogame vs. tabletop one thing everyone seems to be overlooking is at least one person has to read the entire rules and create or buy an adventure to run the game.  With videogames that's not necessary at all.  

Which brings me to another drawback, players vs. DM's.  The DM has to read all three books (or at least have an understanding of them) and if sales are anything to go by, I think most people coming into D&D would rather play than DM.  With WoW that's possible, all your friends can team up and there is no odd man out... with tabletop that's not really possible.  The page count also discourages new people from DM'ing instead of just playing and this definitely adversely affects the hobby.  Player's can introduce as many people as they want to the D&D rules, but unless they have a DM they aren't playing... A DM can actually introduce players to the full experience of the game.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Computers destroyed the wargaming hobby twenty years ago.



 No, it just moved online.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> The problem for WotC is, if we reduce the argument to the following ...
> 
> "Would a "kid" (for any given value of "kid") buy these dense tomes of 832 total pages ... or this Halo 3 disc?"
> 
> ...




How about they start selling rpg ideas with comics or even novels and then expand the gaming experience from there?


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Which brings me to another drawback, players vs. DM's.  The DM has to read all three books (or at least have an understanding of them) and if sales are anything to go by, I think most people coming into D&D would rather play than DM.  With WoW that's possible, all your friends can team up and there is no odd man out... with tabletop that's not really possible.  The page count also discourages new people from DM'ing instead of just playing and this definitely adversely affects the hobby.  Player's can introduce as many people as they want to the D&D rules, but unless they have a DM they aren't playing... A DM can actually introduce players to the full experience of the game.




DMs are a special breed, and I dare say that anyone who doesn't want to read hundreds of pages also won't DM for long. So, while there's a need to lighten the load for the DM - and from what I hear, 4E did that well - there's also a minimal amount of required reading left. But since that won't put off anyone who will keep DMing, that's not a real problem.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You really think it's that easy to market videogames...?




Yep. If they are good games what they needs is some trailer or a demo. Why that? Because it can show very easy what it sells.

Their marketing problem is video game competition. Not another market.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> How about they start selling rpg ideas with comics or even novels and then expand the gaming experience from there?




Novels and comics already are RPG ideas. I doubt there's anyone who hasn't read a novel, and thought "what should the character do here? What would I do?". And, given the proliferation of computer games, they already know about RPGs.

Game novels such as the FR novels help with that, of course.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Yep. If they are good games what they needs is some trailer or a demo. Why that? Because it can show very easy what it sells.
> 
> Their marketing problem is video game competition. Not another market.



 Don't call Microsoft, baby.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Which brings me to another drawback, players vs. DM's.  The DM has to read all three books (or at least have an understanding of them) and if sales are anything to go by, I think most people coming into D&D would rather play than DM.  With WoW that's possible, all your friends can team up and there is no odd man out... with tabletop that's not really possible.  The page count also discourages new people from DM'ing instead of just playing and this definitely adversely affects the hobby.  Player's can introduce as many people as they want to the D&D rules, but unless they have a DM they aren't playing... A DM can actually introduce players to the full experience of the game.




So it would be a good thing, then, that the 4E DMG has been lauded as being possibly the best how-to-DM book ever published.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Yep. If they are good games what they needs is some trailer or a demo. Why that? Because it can show very easy what it sells.
> 
> Their marketing problem is video game competition. Not another market.




Which can be even harder than another market, since people tend to judge products relative to similar products. If you're buying chocolate, you'll buy the product that tastes best to you. But you won't skip buying soda for the second best chocolate.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Which can be even harder than another market, since people tend to judge products relative to similar products. If you're buying chocolate, you'll buy the product that tastes best to you. But you won't skip buying soda for the second best chocolate.




Yes. We are not comparing D&D versus other tabletop rpgs here. We are comparing tabletop rpgs and especially D&D with other markets. In this respect -across market marketing- video games are far easier to market than tabletop rpgs. If it were not the case the tabletop market would be bigger than the video game market.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Don't call Microsoft, baby.




Your point is?


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Your point is?



 I think you misunderestimate the pitfalls of marketing videogames.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I think you misunderestimate the pitfalls of marketing videogames.




Then I think you misunderstand what we are talking about.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Then I think you misunderstand what we are talking about.



 No, no. I really think you misunderestimate the pitfalls of marketing videogames.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Yes. We are not comparing D&D versus other tabletop rpgs here. We are comparing tabletop rpgs and especially D&D with other markets. In this respect -across market marketing- video games are far easier to market than tabletop rpgs. If it were not the case the tabletop market would be higher than the video game market.




One could argue that the D&D core books are equvivalent not to the video games themselves, but to the console they play on. The console is a higher priced investment, and more complex as a product, than the games that run on it.

The console is the enabler of the Halos of this world, and D&D4e is the enabler of ... ?

If WotC can market the hell out of some kind of easy to get going fun that is enabled by the acquisition of the core rules, and can explain that fun easily enough, then the core rules become as bad a hurdle as the console.

Consider the gigatons of money spent by Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony just to get their consoles on the market. I think that' where WotC are at in this slice of time. They'll get to the content that actually runs on the core rules in a while.

/M


----------



## BryonD (Jun 17, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> When I was 13 years old (lo those many moons ago), I was attracted to D&D precisely _because_ of those dense, mysterious, incomprehensible manuals. A glance through the books was full of suggestion and the promise of many secrets to be revealed. The effort required to ferret out those secrets was a feature, not a bug.
> 
> Yes, that was a different era, but I don't fully buy the "kids these days" view that D&D's psychographic has been wiped out by the electronic age. Sure, there are kids who will look at the 832 pages of text and say "that looks like work; I'll stick with Grand Theft Auto." But guess what? That kid was probably _never, ever_ going to play D&D--not now, and not back in 1979.
> 
> I agree that simplifying entry-level D&D has the potential to broaden the base of entry-level players (I was, after all, the architect of the 3E Black Dragon version of the Basic Game). And I agree that some of the players who try a broad-base entry-level version of the game will, through it, discover full-fledged D&D. But I reject the notion that D&D's complexity and scope is strictly a liability. It is, in fact, one of the game's key assets, even at the acquisition stage.



Exactly!!!!


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> So it would be a good thing, then, that the 4E DMG has been lauded as being possibly the best how-to-DM book ever published.





What does this have to do with the argument?  You want to know what the best DM introduction for D&D was... check out the red box D&D basic set.  Full of examples, a sample adventure, less actually reading required to jump into the game, etc.  We're talking bringing new people in, not people who regularly read 800+ pages to run a game.  Even a game like Runebound or Descent has about 20 pages of actual rules to read.

I think the biggest problem with the line of thinking is that most people do not get heavily invested in games, for most people they're a casual past time.  The D&D basic game was streamlined and quick enough where even a night of beer n pretzels play at high levels was easily accomplished in a casual manner. The time invested to create characters, set up an adventure, learn the rules, or run the game was not so great that it actually precluded casual play.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> How about they start selling rpg ideas with comics or even novels and then expand the gaming experience from there?




Been there, done that. 

It could work, but it didn't a decade ago. I think it was Casus Belli who did it, and when I worked with Target Games (Kult/Mutant Chronicles) some of that went on as well.

But I'd love to see another shot at it.

/M


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> What does this have to do with the argument?




That it makes it even easier to DM than anything produced in the last, oh, 20 years.



> I think the biggest problem with the line of thinking is that most people do not get heavily invested in games, for most people they're a casual past time.




If people can get invested enough in WoW to learn half a dozen feat chains macros, they can get invested enough in D&D to learn half a dozen powers.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> You want to know what the best DM introduction for D&D was... check out the red box D&D basic set.




But after that red box, which got me into D&D, similar versions of the game have not had the same success at bringing in the new players. 3.e had two Basic Sets, which on the surface were as strong as the red box, in some areas even stronger (minis).

But that didn't ignite the D&D revolution like D&D red box did. And I think we will never see another version of D&D that does. Not because they are bad versions, but because that perfect storm that the red box was released in will not come again.

/M


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> One could argue that the D&D core books are equvivalent not to the video games themselves, but to the console they play on. The console is a higher priced investment, and more complex as a product, than the games that run on it.
> 
> The console is the enabler of the Halos of this world, and D&D4e is the enabler of ... ?
> 
> ...




Not in this world. They invest tons to promote the hardware console to the market but the revenue comes from video games. The supplements Wizards sells are not even comparable to this as an idea.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 17, 2008)

Lots of good points, but here is the real main quote (IMO):


> The real test will come a year from now, when the newness will have worn off. Then we'll see if 4E really sticks.




There is a lot of mixed reaction already (See Chris' prior Blog post), and the newness wears through quickly and things go down from there.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Lots of good points, but here is the real main quote (IMO):
> 
> 
> There is a lot of mixed reaction already (See Chris' prior Blog post), and the newness wears through quickly and things go down from there.




If you check any MMOG forum, then the forum reactions to anything (patch, new game, sunshine) are usually mixed all the time, to put it diplomatically. Even and especially in WoW, arguably the biggest success on the market.

I'd really not put too much faith on forum reactions.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That it makes it even easier to DM than anything produced in the last, oh, 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> If people can get invested enough in WoW to learn half a dozen feat chains macros, they can get invested enough in D&D to learn half a dozen powers.




See this is your problem.  You keep taking individual pieces and comparing them as an experienced gamer, when they should be looked at as a whole through the eyes of a new person. 

 I actually believe with 4e's more tactics based gameplay a new player really needs to understand combat (as the rules define it) in more depth than ever before to have an enjoyable experience.  It can't really be played as a casual bash the monsters game or you'll end up dead.  IMO, facilitating both styles of play would have increased the audience for new players.  Once again a "basic" set and maybe an advanced combat options book.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Not in this world. They invest tons to promote the hardware console to the market but the revenue comes from video games. The supplements Wizards sells are not even comparable to this as an idea.




Yeah, you're right there. WotC money comes from their "console". Forgot about that. Maybe one could argue that minis is what the "core rules console" is supposed to push, but that might be stretching it a bit. I actually think that the upcoming D&D Minis 2.0 will be a better starting experience for D&D than the core rules themselves.

A bit about video games. It should also be noted that while a lot of revenue for those who make the consoles comes from the video games, many, many video games are commercial failures, or pipe products. They need to exist so that we can see the Halos of our time. And there are many video games that are so arcanely designed that they are even more difficult to get into than D&D4e.

Developing a successful video game is very difficult, and not something you just knock out and put on a shelf. At least not according to my own experience.

/M


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> A bit about video games. It should also be noted that while a lot of revenue for those who make the consoles comes from the video games, many, many video games are commercial failures, or pipe products. They need to exist so that we can see the Halos of our time. And there are many video games that are so arcanely designed that they are even more difficult to get into than D&D4e.
> 
> Developing a successful video game is very difficult, and not something you just knock out and put on a shelf. At least not according to my own experience.
> 
> /M




Who said differently?

We were talking about cross market marketing. Say mountain vacations versus sea vacations. Not sea coasts. It is common ground that some coasts have tourists and others not.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> See this is your problem.  You keep taking individual pieces and comparing them as an experienced gamer, when they should be looked at as a whole through the eyes of a new person.
> 
> I actually believe with 4e's more tactics based gameplay a new player really needs to understand combat (as the rules define it) in more depth than ever before to have an enjoyable experience.  It can't really be played as a casual bash the monsters game or you'll end up dead.  IMO, facilitating both styles of play would have increased the audience for new players.  Once again a "basic" set and maybe an advanced combat options book.




And I keep saying that a "new player" will 9 times out of 10 already be familiar with tactical combat from other games, especially computer games such as WoW - or DDO and NWN, which model 3E closely.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> See this is your problem.  You keep taking individual pieces and comparing them as an experienced gamer, when they should be looked at as a whole through the eyes of a new person.




In this day and age, there is nobody who is a "new person". They all know WoW. Or if not WoW, then Ninja Gaiden, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, or Devil May Cry.



> I actually believe with 4e's more tactics based gameplay a new player really needs to understand combat (as the rules define it) in more depth than ever before to have an enjoyable experience.  It can't really be played as a casual bash the monsters game or you'll end up dead.




Nonsense. If the DM is dumb, that cancels out the players being dumb. Having more levers to pull and buttons to push also makes for a more involving game, and if our first KotS session is a guide, 4E combat runs smooth as silk. It really is that simple in play.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Yes. We are not comparing D&D versus other tabletop rpgs here. We are comparing tabletop rpgs and especially D&D with other markets. In this respect -across market marketing- video games are far easier to market than tabletop rpgs. If it were not the case the tabletop market would be bigger than the video game market.



Tabletop RPGs will never be bigger than videogames. You can always play a videogame, you don't need to arrange a meeting with other people to play a videogame and if you play videogames with your friends, one of the players doesn't have to do a lot of preparation. That much is right. You are right in that statistically, a kid is more likely to get a videogame than a PHB.

On the other hand, there are people that want to play tabletop RPGs. When they are introduced to them, they are hooked. A subsector of the ones who want to play TT RPGs want to run games, create worlds and have an ongoing story, no matter how simple. Those people don't want to buy a videogame instead since a videogame doesn't provide that experience.

Also, videogames and TT RPGs aren't an either/or- situation. First of all, RPGs are cheap. As hong said, the three core books cost what one console game costs and compared to for example skiing or a night out, it's dirt cheap. My new players are all from a MMORPG-background and they haven't stopped playing WoW because they started with TT RPGs.


----------



## TheLe (Jun 17, 2008)

I've been telling people for weeks now that the organization of the book is *HIDEOUS.* 

Page 14 of the PHB is a perfect example of this. To create a character, here are the steps:
1. Choose Race. Chapter 3.
2. Choose Class.  Chapter 4.
3. Determine Ability Scores.  Chapter 2.
4. Choose Skills.  Chapter 5.
5. Select Feats.  Chapter 6.
6. Choose Powers.  Chapter 4.
7. Choose Equipment.  Chapter 7.
8. Fill in the Numbers. Chapter 2.
9. Roleplaying Character Details.  Chapter 2.

What? So I am starting with chapter 3, then ending with chapter 2? So, the chapter steps are: 3, 4, 2, 5, 6, 4, 7, 2, 2?

Geeeezzzz..

~Le


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

Not to mention that parents are generally more likely to pay for a book, and a game that involves their kid meeting other kids (and in a safe enviroment, meaning at one's home) than for a video game.


----------



## Drammattex (Jun 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I think the gateway games are things like Magic and DDM.




The new DDM is an excellent gateway. Its simplified rules work very, very close to the way combat works in the 4e RPG. Once you have a grasp on those, you have a very good feel of the mechanics; if the interest is there, it's a pretty smooth transition to the PHB classes.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I actually believe with 4e's more tactics based gameplay a new player really needs to understand combat (as the rules define it) in more depth than ever before to have an enjoyable experience.  It can't really be played as a casual bash the monsters game or you'll end up dead.  IMO, facilitating both styles of play would have increased the audience for new players.  Once again a "basic" set and maybe an advanced combat options book.



No. The only thing a casual player needs to know is what his/her PC can do. If the DM knows how things work, that's enough.

If neither the DM or the player knows how it works they will play with the wrong rules until someone discovers how it really works. It was exactly like that when I started playing MERP (we were eight years old, we didn't get a thing right. MERP is not beginner-friendly  ).


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> When they are introduced to them, they are hooked.




The question of this thread is how they are introduced to them. If it is not for OD&D's legacy how will this happen? 
OD&D managed to do it. Can't we manage to do more?


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> The question of this thread is how they are introduced to them. If it is not for OD&D's legacy how will this happen?
> OD&D managed to do it. Can't we manage to do more?



 We do more, by making the game facilitate what people want to do. Ie, kill monsters and take their stuff.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> We do more,




Any data to back this up? Say general market expansion of the 80s till now versus tabletop rpg expansion of the 80s till now. If it does not beat it we are doing less, not more.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> In this day and age, there is nobody who is a "new person". They all know WoW. Or if not WoW, then Ninja Gaiden, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, or Devil May Cry.




This is just plain nonsense.  I have introduced people to rpg's that had no idea what they were.  Not everyone plays WoW and not everybody whose heard of it knows how it works and what you do.




			
				hong said:
			
		

> Nonsense. If the DM is dumb, that cancels out the players being dumb. Having more levers to pull and buttons to push also makes for a more involving game, and if our first KotS session is a guide, 4E combat runs smooth as silk. It really is that simple in play.




Uhm...you realize there is a tactics section for DM's right?  Is there one for new players to refer to when fighting monsters.  Again with the *YOUR* experiences.  Well I've run D&D 4e with two experienced and two new players and I wouldn't say it runs as smooth as silk.  As a DM I found myself having to keep track of numerous things (marks, out of turn movement, recharges, combat advantage, etc.) and by necessity having to treat even groups of the same monster as individuals in gameplay.  

My players were a little overwhelmed by the numerous abilities they needed to keep track of, let alone coordinating how to use them together, and yes this was at first level.  I had 2 TPK's, I reset the last one then had everyone go over everything they could do and how it could be used in combat for an hour (marking, movement, powers, effects, feats, etc.).  After this the one fight we got to finish before it was time to go went allright.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 17, 2008)

After 25+ years of playing -- mostly GMing -- various RPGs, I'm under no illusion that I have any true perspective about what is easy for the unassisted tyro.  I can say that I haven't found anything in 4e to be too difficult to understand, thus far.

Personally, I think 4e looks to be a much better system than 3.x for teaching new gamers.  The powers and pretty much just give you what you need and there isn't a heinous amount of interplay between them, at least at the character level.  The new lay out that encourages big, bold, colorful headings for each power is nice, too, because it highlights your options.

I can see where someone who wants to understand the depths of the system might get swamped, but that's true of any game.  Teaching new players is different, though.  "Pick two of these, one of these, and one of these.  If you mess up, you can change them later.  If you don't want to choose them all yourself, start with the recommended build."


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> This is just plain nonsense.  I have introduced people to rpg's that had no idea what they were.  Not everyone plays WoW and not everybody whose heard of it knows how it works and what you do.




Then you have met some very atypical people. If you choose to ignore the 500 lb gorilla in the corner that is the videogaming industry, that's up to you.



> Uhm...you realize there is a tactics section for DM's right?




One of the great advantages of p&p gaming over videogaming is the presence of a human DM, who is able to tailor challenges for their individual group. If the DM is finding that the players can't handle good tactics, they are perfectly able to ratchet down the difficulty of encounters. If they choose not to do so, that's up to them.



> Is there one for new players to refer to when fighting monsters.  Again with the *YOUR* experiences.  Well I've run D&D 4e with two experienced and two new players and I wouldn't say it runs as smooth as silk.  As a DM I found myself having to keep track of numerous things (marks, out of turn movement, recharges, combat advantage, etc.) and by necessity having to treat even groups of the same monster as individuals in gameplay.




Accessorisation is where it's at. Cards, markers, and yes, minis all help in visualising the battlefield.



> My players were a little overwhelmed by the numerous abilities they needed to keep track of, let alone coordinating how to use them together, and yes this was at first level.




If they really cannot keep track of 4 abilities, and this is a systemic thing rather than something due to unfamiliarity with the system, there probably is no hope.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Any data to back this up?




So... we do less by producing something that people want to do?


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> The question of this thread is how they are introduced to them. If it is not for OD&D's legacy how will this happen?
> OD&D managed to do it. Can't we manage to do more?




OD&D managed to do it in an atmosphere with far fewer distractions, and it was a unique thing for it's time. Also, it was much smaller. Even with the poor organization and sometimes vague language, you could easily get through the whole thing in a couple hours or so and then start teaching your friends. 

Also, since it was sold only to hobby shops, you were selling to a bunch of customers who were already accustomed to sitting down with a thick book of Ancients minis rules or complex boardgame rules and powering through that. It's first blush of success was with college students, people who again were accustomed to delving through really complex material. It wasn't until they starting taking it home that we have 12 year olds playing the game.

You didn't have people picking it up off a shelf at Borders and saying 'Hey, I wonder what this is?', which is probably what needs to happen for the hobby to grow some more. Most people simply are not going to take home 300+ pages of rules at $30-someodd on the hope they'll like it. There should be ONE book at < 200 pages that contains what a person would need to play D&D, and it should say "Dungeons and Dragons" in big bold letters on the cover. A pull out grid map and some cardboard counters by Klaus you'd be ready to go (Of course, I'd also change D&D to work with d6 only, because d6's are cheap and easy to find even in grocery stores but that's neither here nor there).

Something else I've also thought of: One reason the Basic/Expert, etc books were a good idea was that the time it took to go up in levels was so slow. You could play a good three months or more on the Basic tier; certainly enough time to know if you liked it or not.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> So... we do less by producing something that people want to do?




Market or economy expands. It means more people are available to buy your product. People being available does not mean that they automatically buy your product. It could be that a trend loses power along the times even if it sells more than before. Which I doubt is even the case -that is selling more than before (even if market has expanded).


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> OD&D managed to do it in an atmosphere with far fewer distractions, and it was a unique thing for it's time. Also, it was much smaller. Even with the poor organization and sometimes vague language, you could easily get through the whole thing in a couple hours or so and then start teaching your friends.
> 
> Also, since it was sold only to hobby shops, you were selling to a bunch of customers who were already accustomed to sitting down with a thick book of Ancients minis rules or complex boardgame rules and powering through that. It's first blush of success was with college students, people who again were accustomed to delving through really complex material. It wasn't until they starting taking it home that we have 12 year olds playing the game.
> 
> ...



 And that's basically what they're releasing in November anyway, isn't it?


----------



## EATherrian (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm going to post this before I read the thread.  I think he is dead on.  In fact I don't think anything since the BECMI era really was a good blind sell for D&D.  I've been playing for many moons and many versions and I'm still having a hard time getting my head around some parts of the new books.  For someone completely new who doesn't have the brand loyalty I'm not sure they would even put in the effort.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> The question of this thread is how they are introduced to them. If it is not for OD&D's legacy how will this happen?
> OD&D managed to do it. Can't we manage to do more?



Legacy doesn't matter. D&D is a strong trademark, it's probably the only RPG trademark that is known in the general public, but it's still just a RPG.

A tabletop RPG is a genre of it's own, and as with all genres, it attracts certain people. When the right person is exposed to a RPG, that person will be fascinated. That person will most likely introduce a bunch of friends to it. Then you have a new group of gamers.

That kind of people have a latent need for a TT RPG. You need to expose them to the games. I would say that this is the best time for that exposure since fantasy gaming is now huge. There are tons of fantasy themed computer games, the LotR and Harry Potter- movies have reached a number of people that is unparallelled. Of those who enjoy fantasy, there is most likely a number of people who want to play RPGs.

I think the way to introduce them now is aggressive marketing, which is something the Rouse has spoken about (TV-commercials and stuff). When they have buyed the books, it's their personalities that will decide if they stick to it. Do they like what they see? Then they will learn. D&D 4e isn't complicated per se. It doesn't take intelligence to understand 4e, it takes time, and not a lot of it either. If they don't like what they see, then it doesn't matter. If you have the interest you will take the time and then you will learn.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Market or economy expands. It means more people are available to buy your product. People being available does not mean that they automatically buy your product. It could be that a trend loses power along the times even if it sells more than before. Which I doubt is even the case -that is selling more than before (even if market has expanded).



 It is a very simple proposition. All things being equal, if you produce something that meets what people's wants are, they are more likely to buy it than if you produce something that doesn't.

People want to kill things and take their stuff.

4E supports the killing of things and taking their stuff, and if various whinges are to be taken at face value, it puts this activity front and center.

Therefore, 4E helps to bring people in.

Is that clear enough?


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 17, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> I've been playing for many moons and many versions and I'm still having a hard time getting my head around some parts of the new books.




Some players in my group are getting over the same problem.  We've noticed that it tends to stem from expectations of how things should work based on a previous edition.  For example, my wife had a real hard time with the new Cleave, because it's so conceptually different from the way it worked in 3E.

The player in my group who has less experience with D&D is actually picking up 4E rules and tactics rather quickly, since he's starting from a blank slate, and doesn't have to unlearn anything.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Legacy doesn't matter.




I hope it were true but it still seems 4e just sells to its legacy -not to new people.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And that's basically what they're releasing in November anyway, isn't it?




That depends on what it's like. The last two attempts at releasing a 'starter D&D' have been abyssmal.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 17, 2008)

I'd not have bought a starter set, not even as a kid, I'd have wanted the full, grown up game.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 17, 2008)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Some players in my group are getting over the same problem.  We've noticed that it tends to stem from expectations of how things should work based on a previous edition.  For example, my wife had a real hard time with the new Cleave, because it's so conceptually different from the way it worked in 3E.
> 
> The player in my group who has less experience with D&D is actually picking up 4E rules and tactics rather quickly, since he's starting from a blank slate, and doesn't have to unlearn anything.




I also think it's missing adequate examples of gameplay, which is something Pramas also mentioned.   The DMG is 100 pages shorter than the 3e DMG, and the font is noticeably larger.  Plenty of room to put information to clarify stuff for us.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I hope it were true but it still seems 4e just sells to its legacy -not to new people.



Oh, you meant it that way. I misunderstood. The already existing players will be the largest part of roleplayers since roleplayers often continue playing for a long time.

What I meant was that RPGs in general provide something that is unique within the world of gaming. It's like a mix between a boardgame and theatre. You pretend to be yourself or someone else interacting with a world that exists in the collective imagination of the players while resolving conflicts with the aid of dice and rules. No other media can provide that. I also think that there are people for whom this media clicks. For these people, the name of the game doesn't matter. In Sweden there is a RPG called Drakar och Demoner. From 1980-1994 it sold 400000 copies in a nation of then 8000000 people. It goes to show that there is a need for RPGs, no matter what RPG it is.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Some players in my group are getting over the same problem.  We've noticed that it tends to stem from expectations of how things should work based on a previous edition.  For example, my wife had a real hard time with the new Cleave, because it's so conceptually different from the way it worked in 3E.
> 
> The player in my group who has less experience with D&D is actually picking up 4E rules and tactics rather quickly, since he's starting from a blank slate, and doesn't have to unlearn anything.



I think this is typical. It's harder to unlearn 3e then it is to learn 4e, to put it that way.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> In Sweden there is a RPG called Drakar och Demoner. From 1980-1994 it sold 400000 copies in a nation of then 8000000 people. It goes to show that there is a need for RPGs, no matter what RPG it is.




Very interesting. But why does it stop there: '94?


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Very interesting. But why does it stop there: '94?



It was in an intro from the 94-version of the game. I don't have fresher information about the game (I stopped playing it after that).


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> It was in an intro from the 94-version of the game. I don't have fresher information about the game (I stopped playing it after that).




Do you think it has expanded in the population or regressed (as of now)?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Then you have met some very atypical people. If you choose to ignore the 500 lb gorilla in the corner that is the videogaming industry, that's up to you.




Yes, because everyone plays videogames (especially rpg's) though I would argue shooters, sports and fighting games are more popular than rpg's... You're assuming that all videogamers play rpg's, or even most do, and we all know what assuming  does.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> One of the great advantages of p&p gaming over videogaming is the presence of a human DM, who is able to tailor challenges for their individual group. If the DM is finding that the players can't handle good tactics, they are perfectly able to ratchet down the difficulty of encounters. If they choose not to do so, that's up to them.




Yes, but a *NEW* DM may not be adept enough to do this and feels like he is doing exactly what the book said he should.  Maybe with some experience under his belt yes, but will the players stick around long enough in a game where they keep getting killed?





			
				hong said:
			
		

> Accessorisation is where it's at. Cards, markers, and yes, minis all help in visualising the battlefield.




Yeah, more money.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> If they really cannot keep track of 4 abilities, and this is a systemic thing rather than something due to unfamiliarity with the system, there probably is no hope.




Way to be condescending and insulting, but then again that's the tactic of last resort.  Anyway let's test this 4 powers statement of yours.  Let's start with a relatively simple character, a Dragonborn Fighter...

Racial Features:
Dragonbreath: blast 3 power (so you need to understand what a blast is vs. a burst.  It also uses any ability of 3 you want to attack with...oh yeah and has a type (so understand that as well)

Dragonborn Fury: Whenever your bloodied add a +1 to attack roills. (so keep adding and subtracting this bonus as you are damaged and/or healed)

Combat Challenge: Every round you need to remember whether you hit or miss to declare whether you mark a particular target then remember that if said target attacks someone else they get a -2 and if said target moves or shifts you get an OA.

Combat Superiority: Remember to add your Wis mod to OA.

At-Wills(2)
Tide of Iron: attack and do damage then remember to push the target 1 square but only if it is smaller, equal or one category larger than your size, then remember you can shift into it's square. (Also the DM needs to remember to make the save if the creature is being pushed into hazardous terrain)

Cleave: attack and do damage, and if successful do your Str mod in damage to a different adjacent enemy.

Encounter(1)
Steel Serpent Strike: attack and do damage, if you hit the target is slowed and cannot shift until end of your next turn. (better know how the slowed condition works to use this power effectively)

Daily(1)
Villian's Menace: Attack and do different amount of dmg than normal, on a hit you have to keep track of a +2 bonus to attacks and +4 to damage against this particular opponent until end of encounter.  On a miss you get a +1/+2

This seems like alot more things to keep track of than the 4 you claimed a first level character only had and there are many where you need to know the combat rules in order to use effectively or even to make an informed choice.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> OD&D managed to do it in an atmosphere with far fewer distractions, and it was a unique thing for it's time. Also, it was much smaller. Even with the poor organization and sometimes vague language, you could easily get through the whole thing in a couple hours or so and then start teaching your friends.
> 
> Also, since it was sold only to hobby shops, you were selling to a bunch of customers who were already accustomed to sitting down with a thick book of Ancients minis rules or complex boardgame rules and powering through that. It's first blush of success was with college students, people who again were accustomed to delving through really complex material. It wasn't until they starting taking it home that we have 12 year olds playing the game.
> 
> ...




Uhm, I just wanted to say, I got my D&D books back then from Toys R' Us.  I didn't discover hobby shops until later in life.


----------



## Buzzardo (Jun 17, 2008)

Just read Pramas' review.  

On target completely.  I offer a different take on the whole thing:

An analogy to the "New Coke" fisaco of the mid eighties.

Having read most of the 4e PHB, I am of the opinion that 4e is an unmitigated disaster.  Here are a few brief reasons:

1- The game is now a set of rules to support a hack & slash style of play.  All prior editions were flexibile enough to support different styles and approaches to the game.  4e is the least flexible with respect to supporting different styles of play.  It's not that 4e cant support a heavy role playing or deep story approach to the game... It's just that 3.5 is much better for those styles of play.  The entire theme of the 4e PHB is combat, combat, combat.  Bottom line... they stripped all the soul out of the game, and just left it as a souped up version of D&D minis. 

2- Far from streamlining combat, they made it more unwieldy and less fun.  One huge drawback of 3e is that when you go into the "big" fight at the end of an adventure, you are usually so armored up and buffed that you now have a dozen different variables to keep track of (Oh wait!  I forgot there was a Bless.  I did hit the dragon 2 rounds ago!).  But that only happened in the big fight.   Now in 4e, there is no such thing as a straight forward routine combat.  Every combat now is a big fight and has half a dozen or more variables to keep track of, and to make matters much worse, they aren't the same variables for the entire encounter... They change ROUND by ROUND!  Add to that in 3e you mostly had to keep track of modifiers on your own PC.  Now you have negative modiers that stack up on your enemies, to track as well.   Every single attack, by every single PC creates combat variables, EVERY SINGLE TIME.  How is that fun?

3- Chris is right.  They are going back to the well again to sell more books to the already converted.  Problem is... 40% of the audience HATES it, many of whom will decide not to adopt.  I hate it, and for the first time in 28 years of consitant gaming, will be returning an official D&D product to the store.  Lets face it.  It's not like there isn't enough 3.5 stuff out there to last me and my friends (who all hate it to varying degrees) the rest of our natural lives.  This means WOTC will actually sell less books, and they will end up further fracturing an already fractured market.   

4- Chris's point (I think) was that for D&D to be truly a success, it has to do two things.  It has to hold the base, AND it has to reach out and bring in new blood.  His assessment is that it fails to bring in new players.  Which of course it does.  It has failed in that regard as badly as prior editions. 

I would add:  It has also failed to hold the base.  When 3e came out, there were a FEW low volume grumbles from 2e loyalists.  1e & 2e were both badly flawed as everyone now recognizes.  The rare grumbles soon subsided.   4e is getting a strong backlash from a frightening percentage of the base.  I myself am not saying I won't PLAY it.  If I sit at a table at a Con that happens to be 4e... fine.  But I won't invest in the books, and I certainly won't subscribe.  I dont' think I am alone there.

As for measuring the overall success, there are only a few combinations:

Holds Base, Brings New Blood - Huge Success

Loses Base, Brings in lots of new blood - Moderate Success (see also McCain, John and Obama, Barak - very risky political stragegy)

Holds Base, Brings in no new blood - Moderate Failure

Loses Base, Brings in no new blood - Huge Failure

That's it in a nutshell.  Now... Where do you think 4e will land on that scale?  

My money says 90% chance Huge Failure. 

8% Chance, Moderate Failure (This would mean that I have missed someting in my reading, and that given time at the table, will wake up and come around...but I doubt that) 

2% Chance, Moderate Success.  This means that a large segment of the base abandons and sticks with 3e, but something about 4e and the whole online approach really appeals like crazy to a younger audience.  I doubt that too.  Virtual tabletop will never be as cool as WOW to the young whippersnappers of today.  

So there you have it... If you LOVE 4e... Great.  I am glad you do.  But it doesn't change the fact that WOTC has made a HUGE business blunder here, and the likleyhood is that 4e is headed for huge failure.

The net effect of all this won't be seen for a year or more.  But here is my prediction.
The backlash will mount.  Sales at WOTC will fall short of expectations, because new gamers aren't entering the market, and a LARGE segment of the base will not adopt.  The mistake will become more and more clear.  Just like new coke.

What does WOTC want?  Really? It isn't to sell lots of books. They want high margin, recurring, online subscription revenue.  Millions of users, all ponying up every month.  Just like Blizzard.  They could have had that by dealing properly with 3e, or a better implementation of 4e. 

In the luckiest accident in the history of business, "New Coke" turned out to be CocaCola's best marketing evar.  When they finally brought back Classic Coke after being off the market for a year... Sales skyrocketed, higher than ever, and stuck.

Let's see where WOTC is in a year.  I could be wrong here, but my money says that they will finally admit the mistake they have made and look for ways to correct it.  Hopefully it will be good for the game in the long run.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Very interesting. But why does it stop there: '94?




A combination of events transpired to diminish the impact of Drakar och Demoner. The majority of the copies sold were version 2, from 1986 to 1989 or so. In one generation of swedish males, you can count on up to 90% having tried the game.

As other games such as video games and games like Magic entered the scene, the sales of the game fell sharply. From 1990 and onwards the game was but a shadow of its former self. An attempt to revive it based on a strategy borrowed partly from GW and TSR was somewhat sucessful, but then a tax debt in the states killed the company producing the game.

It has since been reworked and rereleased (in 2000) and is now Sweden's best selling RPG again. Not near the numbers of the 80s, but still enough to keep it going.

Interestingly enough, Sweden has enough roleplaying gamers to sustain a full colour print mag covering roleplaying in general, with a circulation of about 4000 or 5000. Something which is very hard to do, even in the states.

Drakar och Demoner is a BRP clone, btw. And also the basis for my thoughts on first mover advantages determining the dominant rpg player in different markets.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

Buzzardo said:
			
		

> Let's see where WOTC is in a year.




If for nothing else, it would be uplifting to see an Internet prophesy of doom be correct for once.   But I guess the odds are 95% against that.  

/M


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah, more money.



It's nice when your preferred hobby has a sustainable business model.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yes, because everyone plays videogames (especially rpg's) though I would argue shooters, sports and fighting games are more popular than rpg's... You're assuming that all videogamers play rpg's, or even most do, and we all know what assuming  does.




Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, Splinter Cell... they're all RPGs. They just get put into different buckets for marketing and critical analysis purposes. Oh, you may say, but in these games you happen to be on rails. This is true, and irrelevant for the purposes of knowing what having an in-game persona is, which is all that you need to know coming to D&D.



> Yes, but a *NEW* DM may not be adept enough to do this and feels like he is doing exactly what the book said he should.




And said NEW DM is also likely to be playing the monsters dumb, yes?



> Maybe with some experience under his belt yes, but will the players stick around long enough in a game where they keep getting killed?




I know of no game more complex than a cardboard box where you always start off at 100% system mastery. Even in WoW, newbies can run into things too hard for them.



> Yeah, more money.




Money is the cornerstone of a modern capitalist service economy.



> This seems like alot more things to keep track of than the 4 you claimed a first level character only had and there are many where you need to know the combat rules in order to use effectively or even to make an informed choice.




It is very simple.

HIT the bad guy in front of me.

If the bad guy in front of me is a boss monster, HIT it with Villain's Menace then cross off the ability.

If Villain's Menace is not available, HIT it with Steel Serpent Strike, then cross off the ability.

If a bunch of bad guys are clumped in front of me, BREATHE at them, then cross off the ability.

Sure, you won't be at 100% tactical efficiency, but for the first-ever session of a game in a genre that you apparently have never heard of before, you shouldn't expect to be.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Drakar och Demoner is a BRP clone, btw. And also the basis for my thoughts on first mover advantages determining the dominant rpg player in different markets.
> 
> /M




Explain this better please.

Btw, interesting stuff to know. Thanks for the info

PS -is this the rpg illustrated by Paul Bonner?


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 17, 2008)

Buzzardo said:
			
		

> Loses Base, Brings in lots of new blood - Moderate Success
> ...
> 
> My money says 90% chance Huge Failure.




Two things:

1) If the loss of some of the base is equaled by the number of new gamers brought to the hobby, that is better than a moderate success. New gamers have a purchasing lifetime longer than us old farts, so even a 1:1 ratio is a benefit for economic longevity.

2) I'll take that bet. You're given me 10:1 odds, right?

Frankly, I know we hate to think this way, but those of us who have been playing for two decades are important to the hobby - but not nearly as important as some 14-year kid who picks up his first PHB. So we'll whine and pull our beards and complain about the loss of the Great Wheel, for example, but that doesn't mean Jack Diddly if the new edition jives with the 14-year old more than the old.

Now, Pramas says 4e will fail in that latter aim. But he's not 14 years old, as far as I can surmise. The anecdotal evidence on these boards suggests younger players (and non-gaming spouses) _are_ interested in 4e and _are_ playing it, whereas they did not play previous editions. Significant? Probably not, but one can hope for a growing trend based upon these positive instances and the record-breaking sales.

I think all of us need to be very careful that we do not equate _What Is Good for Us_ with _What Is Good for The Hobby_.

Personally, I don't like the exclusion of barbarians in the PHB and frost giants in the MM. I _liked_ D&D's standing cosmology. I miss half-orcs and I'm not a fan of eladrin. I wish we had more rituals and more variance in powers. And so on.

Does my opinion matter? No. Unless it is shared by a majority of others. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Am I egotistical enough to want WotC to subscribe to my opinion instead of doing what they believe could be done to inject new blood? Heck no. 

If building a new cosmology and a more fluid ruleset is what it takes to revitalize this community, then sign me up. I'll swallow my complaints and have fun at the gaming table.  And I plunk the Great Wheel back where it belongs in my house rules.

Wis


----------



## BryonD (Jun 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If you check any MMOG forum, then the forum reactions to anything (patch, new game, sunshine) are usually mixed all the time, to put it diplomatically. Even and especially in WoW, arguably the biggest success on the market.
> 
> I'd really not put too much faith on forum reactions.



Who said I was limiting myself to forum reactions?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, Splinter Cell... they're all RPGs. They just get put into different buckets for marketing and critical analysis purposes. Oh, you may say, but in these games you happen to be on rails. This is true, and irrelevant for the purposes of knowing what having an in-game persona is, which is all that you need to know coming to D&D.




Yeah, I guess Tetris is a rpg too.  Whatever man you can call anything an rpg, monopoly, Clue, etc. Doesn't make it so.




			
				hong said:
			
		

> And said NEW DM is also likely to be playing the monsters dumb, yes?




No, he's likely to be following the tactics presented with said monster by the game designers.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> I know of no game more complex than a cardboard box where you always start off at 100% system mastery. Even in WoW, newbies can run into things too hard for them.




Never said you should start with 100% mastery.  New players however shouldn't have to have 60% mastery of rules and 60% mastery of tactically applying said rules to be effective.




			
				hong said:
			
		

> Money is the cornerstone of a modern capitalist service economy.




Uhm...ok.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> It is very simple.
> 
> HIT the bad guy in front of me.
> 
> ...




What about at-will's, how do you know which is better to use?  How about marking...I've found if the fighter (or Warlock, Ranger, Paladin, etc.) doesn't mark a fight can go real bad quickly.  How do you determine the "boss" monster?  Yeah breathe that fire, just make sure none of the other players are in it's range.  Don't forget your bonus when your bloodied or that Wis bonus to your OA's.  Or the persistent bonuses when you use your daily...oh yeah, do those stack with Dragonborn fury?

My player's played exactly how you described above at first and lost to Kobolds.  Yeah, that would be a great way for a new person's first game to go.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 17, 2008)

Buzzardo said:
			
		

> 40% of the audience HATES it



Source: www.completelymadeupstatistics.com


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Tabletop RPGs are CRPGs. They just have a human server instead of a computer.




Bzzt! Try again.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> ... then D&D will never, ever equal the utility of a console game. Never. Until it becomes a console game itself. So it's a fools errand to lambast 4e for not being as easy to access as a console game, for this is a holy grail that can never be found. Unless we reduce the game to just the minis and a note saying "large monsters are badass. Now pretend". But then Halo 3 will win again.




Someone can be playing Basic D&D in about the time it takes to learn the controls for a new video game.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 17, 2008)

TheLe said:
			
		

> I've been telling people for weeks now that the organization of the book is *HIDEOUS.*
> 
> Page 14 of the PHB is a perfect example of this. To create a character, here are the steps:
> 1. Choose Race. Chapter 3.
> ...




I really don't think this is accurate.  The problem is that you're confusing two different ways of organizing a manual, by conceptual hierarchy or purposeful chunks.  The 4E handbook does both in a very modern way.  

The overall chapter organization is by conceptual hierarchy: your character's structure is stats, race, class/powers, skills, feats, and equipment.  When you need to reference something outside of the process of using the manual this is a clear hierarchy.

When you are using the manual as a supplement to another task, however, the book is organized differently.  For tasks of this sort, combat or character creation, information is centrally located.  Everything you need to make your character is located on the first two pages of your class description in chapter 14.

The way it's worked for everyone I've seen make a character who wasn't mired in hideous old Edition Habits was as follows:

1.) Skim through attributes and race. 2-3
2.) Skim through class. 4
3.) Choose Class. 4
4.) Choose Build. 4 (Class X Subsection)
5.) Choose attributes and race appropriate to Build. 4 (Class X Subsection)
6.) Choose skills. 4 (Class X Subsection)
7.) Choose powers. 4 (Class X Subsection)
8.) Choose feat. 4 (Class X Subsection), maybe 6 
9.) Choose equipment. 7
10.) Fill in the Numbers. Character Sheet.
11.) Play

The Hideous Edition Habits crowd tended to hit feats first thinking that was where the power was.  From there it just got worse.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> New players however shouldn't have to have 60% mastery of rules and 60% mastery of tactically applying said rules to be effective.




You've just described chess.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah, I guess Tetris is a rpg too.  Whatever man you can call anything an rpg, monopoly, Clue, etc. Doesn't make it so.




If D&D were to feature characters that were little blocks, or plastic pieces, then you might have a point. In the meantime, I will repeat that anyone who knows action-adventures will know what an RPG is.



> No, he's likely to be following the tactics presented with said monster by the game designers.




He is likely to be trying to be. Whether he succeeds is as much a matter of system mastery as for the players.



> Never said you should start with 100% mastery.  New players however shouldn't have to have 60% mastery of rules and 60% mastery of tactically applying said rules to be effective.




If they cannot figure this stuff out by session 2, then there is no hope. Give up and play... hmm, not WoW, because it's even more complex. Maybe Devil May Cry, but no, that's also just as complex. Maybe Lego D&D, if such a thing existed, would be up their alley.



> What about at-will's, how do you know which is better to use?




Who cares? This is your first session.



> How about marking...I've found if the fighter (or Warlock, Ranger, Paladin, etc.) doesn't mark a fight can go real bad quickly.




Mark early, mark always. If you need to be told not to use a power, there is no hope.



> How do you determine the "boss" monster?




The one that you, the DM, took care to narrate in a way consistent with its power and position. You did do that, didn't you?



> Yeah breathe that fire, just make sure none of the other players are in it's range.  Don't forget your bonus when your bloodied or that Wis bonus to your OA's.  Or the persistent bonuses when you use your daily...oh yeah, do those stack with Dragonborn fury?




If they need to be reminded of this past the 3rd fight or so....



> My player's played exactly how you described above at first and lost to Kobolds.  Yeah, that would be a great way for a new person's first game to go.




Which means you didn't take into account their newbieness.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Bzzt! Try again.



 The truth hurts.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 17, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Frankly, I know we hate to think this way, but those of us who have been playing for two decades are important to the hobby - but not nearly as important as some 14-year kid who picks up his first PHB. So we'll whine and pull our beards and complain about the loss of the Great Wheel, for example, but that doesn't mean Jack Diddly if the new edition jives with the 14-year old more than the old.



That is most certainly true.  However, it is completely beside the point of whether or not the changes in complexity are helpful.  It could certainly be true that a modern 14 year old is vastly more intrigued by a dragonborn than by a half-orc, while 25 years ago the half-orc was the thing.  So that change _might_ be perfect.

But getting an initial interest is far from the complete story.  It doesn't matter if you are a 14 year old Dragonborn type or a 39 year old half-orc type.  Either way, the level of game that you are likely to really dig in to and stick with for a long time is going to need a level of complexity to maintain  your interest.  Yes, there are exceptions.  But I really doubt there are enough exceptions to make the change a net plus.

Reducing the complexity will lose players who want that richness of detail faster than it will gain players for whom the complexity was a barrier.  By and large players of any age for whom complexity is a barrier are not going to be enduring P&P RPGers.

People keep saying that we should simply try 4E for an evening and see how fun it is to play and that will change our minds.  That position fully misses the point.  I'm certain I could sit around the table and kill orcs with friends one evening using the 4E engine and have a blast.  I could also have a blast playing Descent, Arkham Horror, Chess, Baseball, or Ultimate Frisbee.  That doesn't mean any of these options will provide what I want for an on-going roleplaying game experience.  



> I think all of us need to be very careful that we do not equate _What Is Good for Us_ with _What Is Good for The Hobby_.



  We should also be careful when we assume what other people are equating.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah, I guess Tetris is a rpg too.



No. Tetris doesn't involve assuming control a human-like avatar in a virtual environment full of challenges (often accompanied by a unifying --hah!-- narrative). Be reasonable.  



> No, he's likely to be following the tactics presented with said monster by the game designers.



Following them _badly_. 



> What about at-will's, how do you know which is better to use?... snip...



Ever listen to a small child talk Pokemon? Kids can and do master complex systems. Some adults can, too.


----------



## Lacyon (Jun 17, 2008)

There will always be fresh geeks rising up to meet the challenge of the new edition.

They'll always drag their slightly-less-geeky friends along for the ride.

What Pramas et al are missing is that a lot of new players don't bother learning all the rules before playing. They tend to do just fine in the long run, because most fundamental principle of D&D is that _the rules are what you make of them anyway_.

In a lot of ways, new players have a giant leg up on the rest of us, because they haven't had as much time to forget that.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 17, 2008)

Hong said:
			
		

> Tabletop RPGs are CRPGs. They just have a human server instead of a computer.





			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Bzzt! Try again.



Come on pawsplay....  Everyone knows that Panda Bears are Bears.  It says so right there in the name.

Honestly, finding 4E good enough and seeing no difference between RPGs and CRPGs seems quite a nice fit to me.  If your P&P RPGs don't offer anything more than a CRPG, then 4E won't offer YOU anything less than those other P&P games either.  

It seems a clear distinction is defined here.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The truth hurts.




So does your... whoa, wrong forum.

Yes, the truth does hurt. CRPGs are not traditional RPGs in a different medium.


----------



## Pramas (Jun 17, 2008)

Well, this is a quite a response. Thanks, everyone, for keeping the discussion civil for the most part. I have read all the comments and may post some follow-up thoughts on my blog.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Which means you didn't take into account their newbieness.




Just wanted to focus on this right here...ding, ding, ding we have a winner.  You are in fact claiming that play must be modified and changed in order to accommodate a new person.  Thus how does D&D 4e make D&D more accessible to new players.  I didn't have to do this with the red box basic set...not even with 3e if they played a fighter or Barbarian.  Yet, you're now saying it is on the DM, who may also be a beginner to make D&D newbie friendly.  Again assuming the viewpoint someone familiar with the game will introduce people.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Just wanted to focus on this right here...ding, ding, ding we have a winner.  You are in fact claiming that play must be modified and changed in order to accommodate a new person.  Thus how does D&D 4e make D&D more accessible to new players.




Yes, 4E assumes you have a human DM who can adjust the parameters of the campaign to suit. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Perhaps you really do want to play WoW.



> I didn't have to do this with the red box basic set...not even with 3e if they played a fighter or Barbarian.  Yet, you're now saying it is on the DM, who may also be a beginner to make D&D newbie friendly.




If the DM is a newbie, then they will be playing the monsters dumb.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> So does your... whoa, wrong forum.
> 
> Yes, the truth does hurt. CRPGs are not traditional RPGs in a different medium.



 They most certainly are. In both mediae, you kill monsters and take their stuff.

Some people like to go on about narrative control, immersiveness, high concept, and whatnot, but they are funny.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Thus how does D&D 4e make D&D more accessible to new players.



If it does absolutely nothing else at all, it makes level 1 not blow.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yes, the truth does hurt. CRPGs are not traditional RPGs in a different medium.




I don't think this is true, nor do I think you have a good argument to back up this claim.

Hong, at least, keeps his bon mots simple, not simply simple statements.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Reducing the complexity will lose players who want that richness of detail faster than it will gain players for whom the complexity was a barrier.  By and large players of any age for whom complexity is a barrier are not going to be enduring P&P RPGers.




There is a certain engineering level where you can make a simple (not simplistic) system that can provide as much depth as a more complicated one. It all boils down to create the most appropriate system, not the most complicated one. I believe D&D or any other rpg that wants to provide a long term nerd experience is not there yet.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 17, 2008)

> Drakar och Demoner is a BRP clone, btw. And also the basis for my thoughts on first mover advantages determining the dominant rpg player in different markets.






			
				xechnao said:
			
		

> Explain this better please.




BRP is the Basic Roleplaying System, the core system for the old RuneQuest game, Call of Cthulhu, etc. BRP has either been re-released or is about to be re-released in a big hardback format.

I've often thought that one of the chief reasons D&D has such a dominant force is that is was first RPG, and it was the first to gain a significant mainstream bookstore/toy store presence.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes, 4E assumes you have a human DM who can adjust the parameters of the campaign to suit. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Perhaps you really do want to play WoW.




Uhm, where in the DMG is this addressed or even mentioned?




			
				hong said:
			
		

> If the DM is a newbie, then they will be playing the monsters dumb.




Yeah because now were assuming DM's don't have basic reading comprehension skills when the tactics, especially in modules, are spelled out for them.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhm, where in the DMG is this addressed or even mentioned?




You... really need the DMG to tell you, an experienced DM, to tailor the game for your group?



> Yeah because now were assuming DM's don't have basic reading comprehension skills when the tactics, especially in modules, are spelled out for them.




Applying said tactics is a function of system mastery. A newbie DM, not having yet achieved system mastery, is likely to be playing the monsters dumb.


----------



## Lacyon (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah because now were assuming DM's don't have basic reading comprehension skills when the tactics, especially in modules, are spelled out for them.




IME, Those tactics sections never survive contact with PCs.

_Especially_ when they're new players.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> BRP is the Basic Roleplaying System, the core system for the old RuneQuest game, Call of Cthulhu, etc. BRP has either been re-released or is about to be re-released in a big hardback format.
> 
> I've often thought that one of the chief reasons D&D has such a dominant force is that is was first RPG, and it was the first to gain a significant mainstream bookstore/toy store presence.




Yes I have thought this too myself. What I did not understand was why he mentioned BRP in respect.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If it does absolutely nothing else at all, it makes level 1 not blow.




Yeah, and if you aren't tactically adept *and[B/] attained a certain level of rules mastery it can still blow.  Dead is dead whether it took 10 points of damage or 30 to get you there.  In fact a long drawn out fight where you know you are loosing can be more frustrating.*


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah, and if you aren't tactically adept *and[B/] attained a certain level of rules mastery it can still blow. *



*

It is not a mark against the system that it requires some time to get the hang of it. Every game worth the label requires some getting used to. If your players absolutely must trounce the opposition from the get-go, they... hm, can't play WoW. Newbies die there too. Maybe Devil May Cry, with newbie mode turned on where it does all the combos for you.




			Dead is dead whether it took 10 points of damage or 30 to get you there.  In fact a long drawn out fight where you know you are loosing can be more frustrating.
		
Click to expand...



So run away. You're even allowed to do this in WoW.*


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You... really need the DMG to tell you, an experienced DM, to tailor the game for your group?
> 
> 
> 
> Applying said tactics is a function of system mastery. A newbie DM, not having yet achieved system mastery, is likely to be playing the monsters dumb.




So, again we are talking experienced player teaching, not new players on their own.  Which one is it, really?

No, it's not a function of system mastery.  It's like having blueprints and it sets you up in a higher position than the new players as far as tactics, not to mention you are the only one running the monsters so you don't have to coordinate with anyone else.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It is not a mark against the system that it requires some time to get the hang of it.




I agree with hong. This kind of game is not merely aimless amusement, it is intended to be challenging.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> So, again we are talking experienced player teaching, not new players on their own.  Which one is it, really?




YOU are an experienced player. YOU do not need the DMG to tell you to play the monsters dumb, when you have new players.

Some OTHER putative newbie DM might not necessarily know to play the monsters dumb. That's all right. It's a process of learning for them as much as it is for the players; and being a newbie DM, they will likely play the monsters dumb anyway.

Is that clear enough?



> No, it's not a function of system mastery.




Of course it is. System mastery means more than just knowing how to build munchkin PCs, it's also how to use your abilities to best effect.



> It's like having blueprints and it sets you up in a higher position than the new players as far as tactics,




And if you have no system mastery, you may not know how to follow those blueprints.



> not to mention you are the only one running the monsters so you don't have to coordinate with anyone else.




It also means you have 5 brains working against you.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 17, 2008)

Heh...How about a post from a new player?

New player picking up 4e

So, now where does this admittedly small sample fit into the discussion?


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Heh...How about a post from a new player?
> 
> New player picking up 4e
> 
> So, now where does this admittedly small sample fit into the discussion?




I have read it. That guy is not even half believable. At least to me. And not because I disagree with his tastes. That's not an issue and perhaps not even true.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I agree with hong. This kind of game is not merely aimless amusement, it is intended to be challenging.




Never said it wasn't.  My contention is the steepness of the learning curve in the beginning.  Personally I think the tactical and rules mastery learning curve for D&D should be similar to a bell curve, minimal at level 1, peaking at level 15 and introducing very little as it progresses to 30.  If more experienced players want more complexity they can start at a higher level while there is little to no barrier for those new people who want to jump on board without having to find an experienced player to teach them.  It would be similar, though not exactly the same as the colored D&D boxed sets from years ago.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I have read it. That guy is not even half believable. At least to me. And not because I disagree with his tastes. That's not an issue and perhaps not even true.




*Blinks*

Woah..that's one aspect that I've never seen...

What makes him "not believable"?


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Never said it wasn't.  My contention is the steepness of the learning curve in the beginning.




The steepness is fine. If anything, people are complaining that it's too shallow.



> It would be similar, though not exactly the same as the colored D&D boxed sets from years ago.




Wherefrom came this belief that casual gamers want a rules-lite game, I wonder. Because all the most popular videogames out there have more crunchiness than you could fit into 800 pages.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Because all the most popular videogames out there have more crunchiness than you could fit into 800 pages.




Which is where the differences lie. Computers can do way more work than the players or DM has to do, especially crunching numbers and whatnot. Don't need 800 pages to explain that. Just jump right into the CRPG and go.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

The tactical complexity of the MM- monsters isn't exactly Sun Tzu... They are very basic ways of how to utilize your assets in an efficient way. Against tactically inclined players with a good grasp on the rules, those tactics will get ripped to shreds.

It's nice that they are there, I suppose, since many RPGers don't come from a background of tactical games. But it's not like you will steamroll any opposition using the MM tactics unless the players are being _very_ untactical.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Never said it wasn't.  My contention is the steepness of the learning curve in the beginning.  Personally I think the tactical and rules mastery learning curve for D&D should be similar to a bell curve, minimal at level 1, peaking at level 15 and introducing very little as it progresses to 30.  If more experienced players want more complexity they can start at a higher level while there is little to no barrier for those new people who want to jump on board without having to find an experienced player to teach them.  It would be similar, though not exactly the same as the colored D&D boxed sets from years ago.




Hm, the interest level is higher at the beginning, so I would posit the most learning should occur at the front end and rapidly taper off, so that a masterful player spends their time on creative work rather than continuing to wrestle with the system.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Which is where the differences lie. Computers can do way more work than the players or DM has to do, especially crunching numbers and whatnot. Don't need 800 pages to explain that. Just jump right into the CRPG and go.




They also have lists of special powers, class abilities, combat moves and whatnot that put to shame the abbreviated lists in the 4E PHB.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I have read it. That guy is not even half believable. At least to me. And not because I disagree with his tastes. That's not an issue and perhaps not even true.




I also have a hard time believing this review (though I'd love it if it it were true.) He claims he's never played D&D before, but spends a lot of times hanging out on the WotC forums, reading other people's posts about 4E. 

Huh? 

That'd be like me trolling forums on C&C, but otherwise having no interest in the game.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 17, 2008)

Buzzardo said:
			
		

> 3- Chris is right.  They are going back to the well again to sell more books to the already converted.  Problem is... 40% of the audience HATES it, many of whom will decide not to adopt.  I hate it, and for the first time in 28 years of consitant gaming, will be returning an official D&D product to the store.  Lets face it.  It's not like there isn't enough 3.5 stuff out there to last me and my friends (who all hate it to varying degrees) the rest of our natural lives.  This means WOTC will actually sell less books, and they will end up further fracturing an already fractured market....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I commend you for your remarkably specific percentile projections (8% moderate failure vs 2% moderate success...why not 7%/3%?).   And I actually agree with you that the 90% tactical combat / 10% everything else split in 4e is a serious drawback in an otherwise fine ruleset.  

But outside of that you fall into a couple of falacies common on message boards.

1) There is no evidence that 40% of DND players HATE DND, nothing even hints at such a thing.

2) While you're entitled to your own tastes the fact that you are returning your book does not guarantee that WOTC will sell less or that the market will become fractured.

As for the wider argument.  DND will always be marketed PSYCHOGRAPHICALLY to 'geek' personalities who are fascinated by complex systems mastery.  In this regard, the 4e combination of rules complexity + clear layout I consider to be a masterstroke.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> *Blinks*
> 
> Woah..that's one aspect that I've never seen...
> 
> What makes him "not believable"?




Consider this a botch of my part. I read it more carefully and he makes it clear that he is not new to rpgs. My first speed read, while influenced from your post here got me the impression he had never played rpgs before. Instead it is just a D&D's older edition vs 4e that he is talking about.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

@ Hong

Most of the CRPG's I've played always start with a type of tutorial fight where you learn the basics of the game, and are even given tactical advice (especially in the later Final Fantasy games) again a bell curve of complexity, Not a situation where you need to understand everything (or almost everything) about the combat system to use or pick your powers. YMMV of course


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Which is where the differences lie. Computers can do way more work than the players or DM has to do, especially crunching numbers and whatnot. Don't need 800 pages to explain that. Just jump right into the CRPG and go.



...if you want to suck. There are huge amounts of strategy guides for essentially any CRPG there is. From the dual classed wizards of Baldur's gate to the low Endurance, high Agility snipers of Fallout 2 that are planned out from level 1 to level 30.

If you go into Diablo II without a solid plan for leveling and equipment you most likely won't manage Hell- difficulty.

In Elderscrolls: Oblivion, you should put skills you seldom use as primary skills, as leveling up puts you at a disadvantage due to it's moronic system of leveling opposition with your character.

The games above are just the ones I came to think of as I wrote. Note that these are single player games. If you go into competitive games, things start to get really crazy.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> I also have a hard time believing this review (though I'd love it if it it were true.) He claims he's never played D&D before, but spends a lot of times hanging out on the WotC forums, reading other people's posts about 4E.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> That'd be like me trolling forums on C&C, but otherwise having no interest in the game.




Ahh. That makes my first impression even more valid then.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> The tactical complexity of the MM- monsters isn't exactly Sun Tzu... They are very basic ways of how to utilize your assets in an efficient way. Against tactically inclined players with a good grasp on the rules, those tactics will get ripped to shreds.
> 
> It's nice that they are there, I suppose, since many RPGers don't come from a background of tactical games. But it's not like you will steamroll any opposition using the MM tactics unless the players are being _very_ untactical.




But again, we are talking about new players...they may not be Sun Tzu but they are a definite advantage in the DM's favor.


----------



## hong (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> @ Hong
> 
> Most of the CRPG's I've played always start with a type of tutorial fight where you learn the basics of the game, and are even given tactical advice (especially in the later Final Fantasy games) again a bell curve of complexity, Not a situation where you need to understand everything (or almost everything) about the combat system to use or pick your powers. YMMV of course




The very first fight in Keep on the Shadowfell is against 5 kobold minions and a couple of tougher kobolds. It's barely a 1st level encounter. IOW, this is something that a 1st level party should easily defeat, although it won't be completely trivial.

That's your "tutorial".


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Hm, the interest level is higher at the beginning, so I would posit the most learning should occur at the front end and rapidly taper off, so that a masterful player spends their time on creative work rather than continuing to wrestle with the system.




See I disagree here, there is something called information overload, where it's just too much to really grasp and understand the finer points of something being read or explained.  I believe giving the basics as a very well understood foundation, then building upon them is a better approach.  This may be harder to do with 4e's exception based design, but I will readily admit I am not sure.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> @ Hong
> 
> Most of the CRPG's I've played always start with a type of tutorial fight where you learn the basics of the game, and are even given tactical advice (especially in the later Final Fantasy games) again a bell curve of complexity, Not a situation where you need to understand everything (or almost everything) about the combat system to use or pick your powers. YMMV of course



To pick your powers, just pick them. Really. Some of them aren't that great but none of them are crap. To use them... I can't see the problem. Tide of Iron -> attack, move enemy, move after. Scorching burst -> attack, deal 1d6+Int-modifier in nine squares.

This is where an attack is a roll of 1d20+modifiers vs the enemy's defense.

You move your character like you would in a boardgame.

---

Really, on the complexity of combat: There is a thread on rpg.net where some guy runs his seven-year old son through KotS using the full rules. The seven-year old is using all five pregens at once. He goes through the encounters. That's how complex it is at it's basic. Then, of course, if you have someone like SlayersBoxer on the other side of the screen, using his units to their fullest, exploiting every opportunity to deal maximum damage, things get more heated. But then it's like every game of tactics there is...


----------



## Imaro (Jun 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The very first fight in Keep on the Shadowfell is against 5 kobold minions and a couple of tougher kobolds. It's barely a 1st level encounter. IOW, this is something that a 1st level party should easily defeat, although it won't be completely trivial.
> 
> That's your "tutorial".




Don't have KotS, ran the "adventure" in the back of DMG and those were equal level fights with tactics described.  If anything the first couple of fights should be below the PC's XP total.  I love how you keep totally avoiding the point of all this.  I understand you love 4e, I like it to (as a tactical rpg) but I'm not blind to some of it's shortcomings...again how is 4e (not a $30 add-on module) a good entry for new players.  On a side note I saw a thread that had quite a few parties being TPK'd by the second encounter in that module, even more on the Irontooth one.  No one really described it as easy.


----------



## med stud (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> But again, we are talking about new players...they may not be Sun Tzu but they are a definite advantage in the DM's favor.



If the players have some talent in tactical thinking, they should beat the MM- tips. If they have no talent, well, then the DM will have to adjudicate the difficulty.

If neither the DM or the players are better than the MM- tips... Then they probably end up on some rules forum, making stupid complains and propose headless houserules to solve nonexistant problems.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro, I feel you are heavily overstating the difficulty of playing first level 4e D&D.  We are likely to never see eye to eye on whether 4e is decent at bringing new players in gently, because your image of first level play seems much more... brutal than mine.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 17, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Heh...How about a post from a new player?
> 
> New player picking up 4e
> 
> So, now where does this admittedly small sample fit into the discussion?




He's talking about trying out the KotS complete in itself 96 page adventure for characters levels 1-3 right? This was posted on June 3, before the core books even came out. He says that it was easy to run and get players into but does not address the core books at all.

Pramas' blog and this thread is about the core books on their own and how accessible/inaccessible they make the game for new players who come to them or are given them straight off the shelf.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 17, 2008)

Anecdotal opinion from a 4E supporter: 

I played 4E several times at the D&D Experience. First time though, I was confused as all get out when I played the cleric, even uttering aloud, "I can't even heal!" (Chris Perkins was running the game and got a little irate.)

...but I was confused because I was coming to the game with a ton of 3.5 baggage. I thought I knew how PCs were supposed to behave. 

I think that someone *without* 3.X experience would have had a much easier time, and been a much better asset to the party that night.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 17, 2008)

Lets put a few facts into this argument;

It is obvious that WoTC think that Chris Pramas is right; or else why else produce this version of the game.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217120000


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Lets put a few facts into this argument;
> 
> It is obvious that WoTC think that Chris Pramas is right; or else why else produce this version of the game.



I'll give you part of that.  The PHB is written partially like a reference book, rather than a tutorial.  Some of Pramas' points are a bit exagerated on that score, but not insane.  

But Pramas is still dead wrong on the desirability of newb classes.  This thread could grow from 25 to 225 pages, and newb classes would still be terrible game design, and on that issue Pramas would still be wrong.

*plants his flag on his hill and digs trenches*


----------



## TheWyrd (Jun 17, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Lets put a few facts into this argument;
> 
> It is obvious that WoTC think that Chris Pramas is right; or else why else produce this version of the game.
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217120000





More specifically, they even told Retailers that the PHB/DMG/MM release was to pull in the veterans and they would start focusing on bringing in the new gamers when the starter set comes out. 

I definitely wouldn't take non-Pregen beginner PCs through an adventure.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 17, 2008)

It makes alot of sense.

I do agree with Cadfan, that newbie classes are a VERY bad idea indeed. Who wants to invest in a lame concept. Far enough a stripped down one that can later become fully fledged, but not a lame one.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 17, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I really don't think this is accurate.  The problem is that you're confusing two different ways of organizing a manual, by conceptual hierarchy or purposeful chunks.



TheLe was referencing the actual order of character creation as laid out in the PHB (hence the page reference in the post).  So it's accurate from the point of view of the books themselves, which apparently are not aware of how brilliant they are.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> See I disagree here, there is something called information overload, where it's just too much to really grasp and understand the finer points of something being read or explained.




How is that disagreement? I also believe there is such a thing as information overload. However much information there is, though, I would expect most of the learning to occur in the beginning.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 17, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> It makes alot of sense.
> 
> I do agree with Cadfan, that newbie classes are a VERY bad idea indeed. Who wants to invest in a lame concept. Far enough a stripped down one that can later become fully fledged, but not a lame one.




Obviously no one wants to play a lame concept. But mechanically simple does not equal lame.

I prefer less resource management intensive characters.

I'm having great fun with my soulknife character in a RHoD game. Jumps into combat and uses the on/off mechanics of psychic strike and psionic focus with no daily power issues to track. 

I think the 3e warlock is a great mechanically simple magic class with always available magic that does not need to be tracked. I would prefer the 3e type warlock to be a core option.

My rogue characters are easy to keep track of, I maneuver for flanking position and try to hit enemies hard in the guts.

My high level druid with lots of wildshape options and summonable critters and companion options and full access to Spell Compendium has not been as fun for me. I can do tons of things but it is better to plan things out and consider my tons of options for each in game day and round of combat. It slows things down.

I've been playing and DMing for over 20 years in multiple editions of the game. Mechanically simple options is good for both new players and a certain set of playstyles.

I played a lot of shadowrun but never mechanically mastered it or got my head around the specifics of their action resolution systems. I read and enjoyed a lot of the world stuff and adapted the flavor of a bunch of the magic theory into my D&D games but never played a spellcaster in SR. I played a cybered up gun and melee combatant who was good despite my not mastering the mechanics of the SR system. I got very into the world and RPing my combat heavy character but the nuts and bolts mechanics dice pool targeting never interested me beyond getting my skills high and getting good guns and combat cyberware so I'd roll a lot of dice. I had a good time playing lots of Shadowrun but would have enjoyed it less if I had to master the spell drain system as well to play my archetype bodyguard, and I had no desire to GM it (despite really liking the xp and advancement system).


----------



## Scribble (Jun 17, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> ...'m not blind to some of it's shortcomings...again how is 4e (not a $30 add-on module) a good entry for new players.




I'm seeign a few things they've done to the game that makes it a good entry for new players.

First off, I think a lot of peple are confusing a complex amount of things you can do in the game, with the game being complex.

These are two different concepts. I'd argue that the first one is actually what makes the game fun.

The basic rules of 4e are standardized, and thus easier to learn. 

You only need to learn how to make a character once.

You only need to learn how powers work once.

You only need to learn how skills work once.

You only need to learn how to attack things once.

Once you have that down, you know how to make a character, and how to interact in the game world for ANY character.

It's also made selecting powers easier in that they've tried to make any power a viable option. There's no hidden gems, and fools gold skunks.

Now you get to have fun figuring out how best to use that knowledge in the game. (Like someone who learned the rules of chess, discovering how certain strategies work)

Now in a non-rpg game, when you lose, no biggie. Start over, play again try harder.

In an RPG "losing" has a bit more of a consequence. You need to make a new character. 

The game has made this easier to do. (also a factor of standardizing.) 

Granted, it's been easier in some prior editions, but without as many in game options. People like options.

The game has also made surviving the first few "critical" levels less reliant on luck. This allows the player to get out of trouble when they see it, as opposed to a scenario where a lucky hit/crit/damage combo kills them in one shot.  "I did all that work for what now? This game sucks!"


----------



## Turanil (Jun 17, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed with Rechan's disappointment in Pramas' disappointment.



LOL!

I agree with Pramas. In any case, Pramas can't be wrong.


----------



## delericho (Jun 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> But Pramas is still dead wrong on the desirability of newb classes.  This thread could grow from 25 to 225 pages, and newb classes would still be terrible game design, and on that issue Pramas would still be wrong.
> 
> *plants his flag on his hill and digs trenches*




I disagree. Over the years, I have had many players who, despite not being newbies, preferred to play simpler classes because they didn't want the hassle of learning lots of fiddly spells.

For these players, classes like the 3e Fighter, Barbarian or Sorcerer (if the DM would help select the spells) were very useful. For these players, 4e is a step backwards.


----------



## delericho (Jun 17, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> When I was 13 years old (lo those many moons ago), I was attracted to D&D precisely _because_ of those dense, mysterious, incomprehensible manuals. A glance through the books was full of suggestion and the promise of many secrets to be revealed. The effort required to ferret out those secrets was a feature, not a bug.




The thing is, it is always possible to add complexity, by adding supplements with additional rules, options and subsystems. Removing complexity almost invariably requires a new edition.

That being the case, the core rules should aim to be fairly complexity-light, with a view to adding these things in later.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 17, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> For these players, classes like the 3e Fighter, Barbarian or Sorcerer (if the DM would help select the spells) were very useful. For these players, 4e is a step backwards.



It seems to me that playing any 4e character is going to be less complex at an equivalent level than playing a 3e Barbarian or Sorcerer.  This might even be the case for some builds of the 3e Fighter (TWF, AoO specialist, grappler, etc.).  If the 3e Sorcerer is going to be used as an iconic example of the "newb" class, then every class in 4e is newb friendly as far as I can see, because they're all pretty much like a 3e Sorcerer (a limited number of abilities that can be used quite a few times per day with expanding choice as you advance in levels).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 17, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> I disagree. Over the years, I have had many players who, despite not being newbies, preferred to play simpler classes because they didn't want the hassle of learning lots of fiddly spells.
> 
> For these players, classes like the 3e Fighter, Barbarian or Sorcerer (if the DM would help select the spells) were very useful. For these players, 4e is a step backwards.



If the DM chooses the powers for a 4e character and the player decides which ones he uses in combat, isn't that much the same as running a 3e sorcerer?

In 4e, a 1st level PC has 4 powers, a 1st level 3e sorcerer knows 2 spells, plus 4 cantrips. An 8th level PC has 9 powers, a 5th level (analogous to 4e's 8th) sorcerer knows 6 spells. At 15th level, the 4e char has 13 powers, a 10th level sorcerer knows 15 spells.

The learning curve is a bit steeper with 3e, but the two progressions aren't very different.


----------



## delericho (Jun 17, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> In 4e, a 1st level PC has 4 powers, a 1st level 3e sorcerer knows 2 spells, plus 4 cantrips.




In 3e, that's two pools of powers, both of which work the same way (0 and 1st level). In 4e, it's three pools of powers, each working differently (at-will, encounter, daily).

Additionally, in the 3e spells were mostly auto-hit or saving throws (which the DM dealt with), and where attacks did have to be rolled, it was one of two attack numbers printed dead-centre on the character sheet (melee, ranged).

In 4e, powers are a roll of one of eight attack numbers scattered around the sheet (melee, ranged, Str, Dex, Con...) against a variety of defences.



> An 8th level PC has 9 powers, a 5th level (analogous to 4e's 8th) sorcerer knows 6 spells. At 15th level, the 4e char has 13 powers, a 10th level sorcerer knows 15 spells.




Again, that 5th level 3e Sorcerer is casting spells from 3 pools, all of which work the same way. The 8th level Sorcerer has 5 pools, 10th level has 6 pools, and the 15th level Sorcerer has 8 pools, but _these all work the same way_.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 17, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Explain this better please.
> 
> Btw, interesting stuff to know. Thanks for the info
> 
> PS -is this the rpg illustrated by Paul Bonner?




In reverse order:

1. Yes, it is the game that is currently graced with fabulous covers by Paul Bonner!   

2. I've seen people claim that D&D rules the rpg world (well, America) because of the game design paradigm; levels, hit points, dungeons, Vancian magic, the lot. DoD (as Drakar och Demoner is abbreviated in Sweden) has a different paradigm (skills, spell points, etc.) and ruled the Swedish market, and blocked D&D from enter the mainstream until 3rd edition, which shows that the game design paradigm was less important than first mover advantage in the local market.

But that's OT.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 17, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> 2. I've seen people claim that D&D rules the rpg world (well, America) because of the game design paradigm; levels, hit points, dungeons, Vancian magic, the lot. DoD (as Drakar och Demoner is abbreviated in Sweden) has a different paradigm (skills, spell points, etc.) and ruled the Swedish market, and blocked D&D from enter the mainstream until 3rd edition, which shows that the game design paradigm was less important than first mover advantage in the local market.
> 
> But that's OT.




I share your opinion 100&.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 17, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> It seems to me that playing any 4e character is going to be less complex at an equivalent level than playing a 3e Barbarian or Sorcerer.  This might even be the case for some builds of the 3e Fighter (TWF, AoO specialist, grappler, etc.).  If the 3e Sorcerer is going to be used as an iconic example of the "newb" class, then every class in 4e is newb friendly as far as I can see, because they're all pretty much like a 3e Sorcerer (a limited number of abilities that can be used quite a few times per day with expanding choice as you advance in levels).




Sorcerer is easier than wizard, its a comparison, not an icon of the ideal. I think 3e warlocks are simpler and more newby friendly than sorcerers.

Fighters and rogues with their always on powers and no resource tracking are the stand alone core example classes.

Barbarians have one 1/day power that modifies their stats. They are more complicated mechanically than fighters or rogues.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 18, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> For these players, classes like the 3e Fighter, Barbarian or Sorcerer (if the DM would help select the spells) were very useful. For these players, 4e is a step backwards.




I don't really know that this is true.  A lot of the 4E classes are pretty simple: wizard and ranger in particular; and most of the rest are only slightly more complex than the simplest 3E classes and far less complex than the more complex 3E classes.


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 18, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> In 4e, powers are a roll of one of eight attack numbers scattered around the sheet (melee, ranged, Str, Dex, Con...) against a variety of defences.




FWIW it is only 6 Attack numbers against 4 Def. However, what is more important is that each Attack works the same way in 4e. You don't have auto success attacks, Attack roll attacks and resisted by Saving Throws attacks. This is one reason why 4e is very streamlined in comparison to its predecessors.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 18, 2008)

Pramas' points resonate with me strongly. I stopped playing RPGs nearly immediately after 4e was announced. I felt like I was a newb when I grabbed the 4e core books.

The organization of the books made me want to toss them across the room and give up coming back to D&D. Trying to make a character without someone else to guide me has been an awful experience.

The game does not need to be dumbed down to make it more appealing for newbs, it really needed someone in control of how it was presented in the book! It is a total mess of organizational layout.


And now for my rant on Intro rules . . .

And the matter of an intro set coming in November, if it is like the 3e Basic sets, it will be a fail as badly as the 3x were. The 3e sets were like disposable gateway drugs. If you liked the basic game, surprise!, what you saw must be chucked in the bin because nothing in the 3e Basic sets was reusable in the Core game except the minis, dice, and tiles. Use of money FAIL.

The 3e Basic sets were functionally NOT the same game as the Core rules and thus an entirely extra cost burden and system burden upon new gamers who desired to move up to the Core books.

A 4e basic set should present fewer options than the Core books, but what the 4e Intro presents MUST be the exact same rules as the Core books. It also needs to be organized much better.


----------



## Harr (Jun 18, 2008)

Such a weird and strange thing that there are so many differing viewpoints on the ease of layout.

I mean, I do believe people who complain about it are being perfectly geniune and honest about their opinion, but, well, my little sister made a character in 20 minutes with nothing but the book. I read the book cover to cover front to back and was delighted at it (of course the secret to the supposed 'great wall' is that _I skipped reading almost all the powers that I wasn't interested in like a normal person would for godsakes_). I had one player who began playing one day turn around that same day and explain to another new player how to make a character to perfection.

Strange that neither my sister nor any of my new players felt any compulsion to read chapter 4 entirely page by page. It was weird really, almost as if some sort of 'logic' or 'common sense' were invisibly telling them that it wasn't necessary 

In all seriousness it strikes me as lunacy that someone would state that the normal way for a person to read the list of spells/powers of any rpg ever printed _ever_ is to just read them all one by one as if they were a novel. Seriously. Wth. Your eyes glazed over?? No! really?? What an unexpected thing to happen! And you had so much fun reading the dictionary cover to cover last week! 

I agree that more examples of the rules in action would have been nice, though.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jun 18, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> In all seriousness it strikes me as lunacy that someone would state that the normal way for a person to read the list of spells/powers of any rpg ever printed _ever_ is to just read them all one by one as if they were a novel.




Gotta go with Harr here. If the 4E PHB has a "great wall" at the powers sections, the 3E PHB had the same wall at the spells chapter. I've never heard anyone suggest the need to read the 3E spell chapter cover-to-cover as part of learning to play 3E.

I've seen a couple of new or newish (long-time lapsed or played-once-or-twice) players reenter D&D through 4E, and not one of them exhibited an urge to read the powers section all the way through. Most of them didn't even seem to read the powers for their own class more than one level in advance--at least not until they started to really get into their characters and began to think ahead about the future of the game. . . .


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Sorcerer is easier than wizard, its a comparison, not an icon of the ideal. I think 3e warlocks are simpler and more newby friendly than sorcerers.
> 
> Fighters and rogues with their always on powers and no resource tracking are the stand alone core example classes.
> 
> Barbarians have one 1/day power that modifies their stats. They are more complicated mechanically than fighters or rogues.



Warlocks and Sorcerers both suffer from the problem that they are not forgiving on bad choices. This can be a problem if you're unwilling to rebuild a character. 

What actually helps in 3E is if you just use the sample build provided at the end of each class description. Pick your skills and you're done. 
That's very similar to the 4E builds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 18, 2008)

My experience upon reading the 4Ed books the first time through is remarkably similar to Pramas'.  So have my subsequent reads.

I mean, I figured out [w] without cross-referencing, but it took me some time (and I've been playing 30+ years, so that probably helped)- at the very least, an asterisk or parenthetical "see pg X" would have alleviated this confusion in seconds.  I mean, a book on algebra or calculus wouldn't have left an undefined term just hanging there for a _couple of hundred pages._

The index is woefully inadequate for books of this size- compare it to the ones found in previous editions of the game.  Some of the things I wanted to look up there were simply absent, leaving me to slog through the books until I stumbled upon them.  This isn't just a problem because I'm new to the particular book, its a harbinger of ease of use down the road.

As a whole, I have issues with the arrangement of this book (issues of my like or dislike of the game aside)- I don't even feel like I'd want to help a bunch of noobs slog through it to run a game.  A fellow long-time gamer said the editing made him seasick.



> Gotta go with Harr here. If the 4E PHB has a "great wall" at the powers sections, the 3E PHB had the same wall at the spells chapter. I've never heard anyone suggest the need to read the 3E spell chapter cover-to-cover as part of learning to play 3E.




Its not so much that you read the sections through...its that your eyes bounce off of it until you find yourself looking at the next class...or chapter.  It kind of jolts you out of your immersion into the ruleset.  Setting them aside into a "Powers" chapter- with lists subdivided by class (as per 1Ed/2Ed) or possibly simply alphabetically arranged (as per 3.X)- would probably have flowed much better.  If nothing else, it would be more along the lines of what you'd see in most RPGs.



> DoD (as Drakar och Demoner is abbreviated in Sweden) has a different paradigm (skills, spell points, etc.) and ruled the Swedish market, and blocked D&D from enter the mainstream until 3rd edition, which shows that the game design paradigm was less important than first mover advantage in the local market.




Its a maxim of marketing that the status of being first mover is the best indicator of success in a given market.  Of course, when one of the later movers is the dominant force in the industry as a whole, the equation becomes more a matter of time than anything else.

(Still, though, McDonalds of South Africa held off the McDonalds of the "Golden Arches" for many many years...)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 18, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Gotta go with Harr here. If the 4E PHB has a "great wall" at the powers sections, the 3E PHB had the same wall at the spells chapter. I've never heard anyone suggest the need to read the 3E spell chapter cover-to-cover as part of learning to play 3E.



Except you can't play any 4e class without looking in the power section. You can play 3e classes without needing to looking in the spells (fighter, rogue, barbarian, low level paladin, low-level ranger).


----------



## hong (Jun 18, 2008)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Except you can't play any 4e class without looking in the power section.




Which you do by looking at ONE power section, not all of them in one go. And said power section is tiny compared to the spell list in the 3E PHB.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 18, 2008)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Except you can't play any 4e class without looking in the power section. You can play 3e classes without needing to looking in the spells (fighter, rogue, barbarian, low level paladin, low-level ranger).




But then again, even in 3E, when you built a spellcaster, you usually didn't read all the spells for that class...  You'd skim the spell lists with their very brief descriptions (and even then, you'd only really be looking at the spell levels that your character can cast), and then read up on the ones that looked interesting.

Most players, even the rookies, would do much the same in 4E (or at least, my players did)...  After deciding "I want to play a Fighter", would do a quick skim through the Fighter's power section as a whole to get a good idea of what's in store for higher levels, and then look very closely at the Level 1 powers, since those are the ones they'll be choosing from.


----------



## hong (Jun 18, 2008)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> But then again, even in 3E, when you built a spellcaster, you usually didn't read all the spells for that class...  You'd skim the spell lists with their very brief descriptions (and even then, you'd only really be looking at the spell levels that your character can cast), and then read up on the ones that looked interesting.
> 
> Most players, even the rookies, would do much the same in 4E (or at least, my players did)...  After deciding "I want to play a Fighter", would do a quick skim through the Fighter's power section as a whole to get a good idea of what's in store for higher levels, and then look very closely at the Level 1 powers, since those are the ones they'll be choosing from.



 Ditto. This idea of "read all powers for all classes" before starting to play is rather strange. New guy comes to the session, he wants to play Legolas. All the ranger powers are laid out neatly for him in one contiguous section. Doesn't get easier.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 18, 2008)

In addition, if you don't want to ponder which powers to take, every class has two builds already listed out. They even choose appropriate feats and skills for those builds if you don't want to make those decisions yourself.

Obviously that doesn't help as much if you're starting above 1st level, but I think it's reasonable to expect new players to start there.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Which you do by looking at ONE power section, not all of them in one go. And said power section is tiny compared to the spell list in the 3E PHB.



If said new guy was jumping in to the game as part of a group, especially a group with veteran gamers, of course.

But if the new guy was getting in as part of a group of other new guys, then there is a good chance there will be a whole group of new gamers trying to read as much of everything as possible while they try to grasp it all because they wouldn't have the benevolent guidance of a veteran telling them what to ignore so they could get he game running. You can surely bet that in a group of all new gamers the one chosen to DM is going to want to/need to read a ton . . . not a narrow single class.

If someone who knew the facts said that it is the case that all new-to-D&D gamers only come to D&D through an established group I'd believe them, then this issue of a "barrier of entry by complexity of presentation" would be a near non-issue. but we don't know exactly how many new gamers come to D&D through an established group of veterans.

In any case, I'm just saying that the presentation could have been far better than was executed.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 19, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I think Pramas has not much of an idea what kind of optimisation, planning, and reading forms the average online gaming experience. There's all this "oh, poor new gamer kid getting critically hit by wall of text" lamentation, while that "poor gamer kid" is probably discussing the merits of various talent trees and combat tactics on his WoW guild forum in between reading up on the latest raid blue print.




Completely agreed.  This is what I'm picturing a completely new gamer (mid-teens) who has already been playing some MMOs (WoW, CoH, Toontown, Pirates of the Carribean, whatever) would be having for an internal monologue looking at the books.

"Hmm...Dungeon Master's Guide...Player's Handbook...Monster Manual.  Bill is gonna be the DM so that's $35 I get to keep.  His mom is giving him the money for the Monster Manual for his birthday, so I get to just buy myself a Player's Handbook. SCORE!"

New gamer gets to pg 14 in the PHB.

"Ok so now I know the history behind the game and the basics of what is going to be happening...to make a character I read this list and look at chapters.  hmm read the basics about each race and class.  ooh, class recommendations for each race.  Quick notice of what each of my possible skills do and pick them.  Pick the recommended feat...heck, just go w/all these powers too for my first guy.  This is pretty easy!  Ooh, I like that sword and that armor looks nice.  Can I kill stuff yet?"


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 19, 2008)

If anything, someone new to D&D who's played any MMO may very well show up with an idea of the group role they want to fill, since that's a familiar concept. The tradition of "one defender, one leader, then DPS/crowd control" would guide them pretty quickly to picking a class. Since you see you can "respec" at later levels, it seems reasonable to pick the default powers. So coming in from that perspective, you can definately hit the ground running.


----------



## hong (Jun 19, 2008)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> But if the new guy was getting in as part of a group of other new guys, then there is a good chance there will be a whole group of new gamers trying to read as much of everything as possible while they try to grasp it all because they wouldn't have the benevolent guidance of a veteran telling them what to ignore so they could get he game running.




Eh. People want crunchy bits. This is established. All the big videogames have plenty of crunchy bits to choose from.



> You can surely bet that in a group of all new gamers the one chosen to DM is going to want to/need to read a ton . . . not a narrow single class.




He can read the DMG. He can let the players choose what they want. By no means is he going to read every power in the book.

He is likely to get blindsided every once in a while when people pull a stunt he wasn't aware of, but that's why the DMG has all that advice about "saying yes".


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 19, 2008)

BTW I searched the pdfs of the core books and there are _2_ "see page XX" instances in the DMG and none in the PHB or DMG.  Errors happen.  Far less XX than older White Wolf


----------



## Allensh (Jun 19, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> BTW I searched the pdfs of the core books and there are _2_ "see page XX" instances in the DMG and none in the PHB or DMG.  Errors happen.  Far less XX than older White Wolf




Those PDFS are, as we are finding out, not the ones that actually went to press, as some errors that have been found in them do not exist in the printed books.

Allen


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jun 19, 2008)

Now admittedly, I skipped a good chunk of this 400 post thread, but I have a question.

Why do we expect a game to be easy to grasp if we need three separate books to contain the core of the game?  I mean, I _do_ feel like 4E is more conducive to jumping right in than 3E was in a lot of respects, but I still wouldn't say either is particularly newbie friendly.  I think we could stand to trim the core rules down to fewer than 800 pages before we start calling that a realistic expectation.


----------



## Pramas (Jun 19, 2008)

For the record I did not say that you had to read all of Chapter 4 to play. I said it was "enormous and daunting." I did not go from page to page reading every power. I read some for each class to try to get a sense of what the powers were like and, as I said, my eyes soon glazed over. 

If you've never played before, you'll probably want to get some idea of what each class can do before you pick one. To do that you have to deal with Chapter 4. We've already seen a bunch of experienced gamers in this very thread report that they had trouble with it. It would be even worse for total newbs. All of them? No, of course not, but why put up a barrier to new players when you don't have to?

As for online games, you could say I have some experience. I was a writer and world designer for the Pirates of the Burning Sea MMO, which launched this year.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 19, 2008)

Pramas said:
			
		

> We've already seen a bunch of experienced gamers in this very thread report that they had trouble with it.




Have we seen reports of a bunch of inexperienced gamers having trouble with it? Because I'd take that information more seriously than a bunch of experienced gamers anyday when it comes to finding out how big a problem this is.

/M


----------



## Fenes (Jun 19, 2008)

Pramas said:
			
		

> If you've never played before, you'll probably want to get some idea of what each class can do before you pick one. To do that you have to deal with Chapter 4. We've already seen a bunch of experienced gamers in this very thread report that they had trouble with it. It would be even worse for total newbs. All of them? No, of course not, but why put up a barrier to new players when you don't have to?
> 
> As for online games, you could say I have some experience. I was a writer and world designer for the Pirates of the Burning Sea MMO, which launched this year.




PotBS is a complex game, and illustrates my point well. Anyone who can play PotBS won't have trouble with D&D 4E.

Yes, there is a tutorial, but the real meat of the game is not explained there at all. There's no "easy" explanation of the purpose of the different stats, no easy lay out of the realm vs. realm system, no examples for tactics. Crowd control in AvCo is not explained, nor are the other aspects of AvCo (like "target the NPC captain and sick your crew on him"). It also had no layout of the different ship types.


----------



## delericho (Jun 19, 2008)

Allensh said:
			
		

> Those PDFS are, as we are finding out, not the ones that actually went to press, as some errors that have been found in them do not exist in the printed books.




No, but those errors do exist in the printed DMG.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jun 20, 2008)

Pramas said:
			
		

> If you've never played before, you'll probably want to get some idea of what each class can do before you pick one. To do that you have to deal with Chapter 4.



I'm confused by this, because there are two instances prior to the Great Wall that include brief rundowns of what the classes do; one near the initial description of the 4 roles, and one slightly more specific one at the beginning of the class chapter.  They are broad, but isn't that what we're going for here anyway?  Give people some idea of what the classes do, then let them look at the class features that allow them to do it if they care about the class?

I really don't see what the issue is here.  What would the alternative be?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 20, 2008)

Pramas said:
			
		

> For the record I did not say that you had to read all of Chapter 4 to play. I said it was "enormous and daunting." I did not go from page to page reading every power. I read some for each class to try to get a sense of what the powers were like and, as I said, my eyes soon glazed over.
> 
> If you've never played before, you'll probably want to get some idea of what each class can do before you pick one. To do that you have to deal with Chapter 4. We've already seen a bunch of experienced gamers in this very thread report that they had trouble with it. It would be even worse for total newbs. All of them? No, of course not, but why put up a barrier to new players when you don't have to?
> 
> As for online games, you could say I have some experience. I was a writer and world designer for the Pirates of the Burning Sea MMO, which launched this year.




I actually think that experienced gamers are going to have more problems then inexperienced gamers.

Decades of manuals for this game written according to a conventional but not necessarilly well concieved organizational paradigm have created some very bad habits in people.

It would be interesting to see some actual usability testing of the manual.  I imagine it does pretty well.  It certainly doesn't fly in the face of more contemporary manual writing paradigms in the manner of past editions.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 20, 2008)

Pramas said:
			
		

> For the record I did not say that you had to read all of Chapter 4 to play. I said it was "enormous and daunting." I did not go from page to page reading every power. I read some for each class to try to get a sense of what the powers were like and, as I said, my eyes soon glazed over.




Chris, I just wanted to go on record that I completely agree with you on this point. I found myself losing track of where the classes were amongst the sea of powers. I'm enjoying 4e at present, but the presentation of classes and their powers could definitely be worked on.

As for the larger point of the 4E rulebooks not having a good entry class and thus not being a good entry point to the hobby... I have mixed feelings on this.

On one hand, beginning characters have a very small selection of powers, and will mostly be using "At Will" powers. I think this set-up helps new players get used to the basis of the game pretty well before they get extra powers and really have to start juggling _when_ they use powers and which ones to choose.

On the other hand, they still have a lot of choices, and it's not like AD&D where your fighter basically has one choice: do I attack with longsword or longbow? (And the DM does most of the work in any case... as for beginning DMs, they've had it tough with pretty much every RPG ever made due to the additional demands of the job).

On the gripping hand, Wizards _are_ bringing out a Basic Set later this year. If that does its job properly, perhaps new players will be able to have an easier task of learning the game and then move up to the "big leagues"...

I guess we'll see.

Good luck with all your upcoming and current projects, Chris!

Cheers!


----------



## Settembrini (Jun 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> On the other hand, they still have a lot of choices, and it's not like AD&D where your fighter basically has one choice: do I attack with longsword or longbow?




This is still wrong, on several levels, no matter how often people say this. 
I bet €100 that a first level AD&D Fighter has MORE choices for his course of action than any 4e first level character.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> This is still wrong, on several levels, no matter how often people say this.
> I bet €100 that a first level AD&D Fighter has MORE choices for his course of action than any 4e first level character.



I would certainly take that bet.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> This is still wrong, on several levels, no matter how often people say this.
> I bet €100 that a first level AD&D Fighter has MORE choices for his course of action than any 4e first level character.




In truth, I'd say they have the same number of choices - as many as the DM and player can come up with. (See PAGE 42 of the 4e DMG). 

Taken as defined mechanical choices, your 1st level AD&D fighter can (please add any I miss), and assuming you do want to attack your opponent in some way...

* Charge
* Attack with Sword
* Attack with Bow
* Overbear
* Grapple
* Pummel
* (Disarm... is that only in UA, or is it in the 1E DMG as well?... of course, some of the unarmed combat rules are a bit byzantine...)

Your 4E Fighter can:

* Charge
* Attack with Sword
* Attack with Bow
* Bull Rush
* Grab
* Use At Will Power #1
* Use At Will Power #2
* Use Encounter Power
* Use Daily Power

Imagination increases both lists accordingly. 

Cheers!


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> This is still wrong, on several levels, no matter how often people say this.
> I bet €100 that a first level AD&D Fighter has MORE choices for his course of action than any 4e first level character.



The way I played AD&D the options were mostly open ended, bounded only by the situation at hand.  You could try anything though your chance of success could be very low.

If you have the same kind of DM running 4e, then your options are just as open ended.  If you're not playing that way, then you're not really playing D&D anyway.

You're both right and wrong on this one.

Sam


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Chris, I just wanted to go on record that I completely agree with you on this point. I found myself losing track of where the classes were amongst the sea of powers. I'm enjoying 4e at present, but the presentation of classes and their powers could definitely be worked on.



I agree that reading through the powers felt... difficult, if you wanted to get an over-view of what they do. But putting them in a separate chapter wouldn't have improved anything - I even had to turn to get the gist of them!

But the moment I am going to actually create a character (especially a high level one), the organization feels a lot more useful. I can just stick to the class I'm interested in and note down the powers I want. No page-flipping between class description, to feat list (non-spellcaster and spellcaster), spell list (spellcaster only) to spell description (spellcaster only). 

The only annoying thing is: For creating higher level characters, I need the DMG table to see how many powers of which level I have. (The PHB table describes the advances, but the DMG table describes the end result, which is more helpful for "instant high level characters".)


----------



## delericho (Jun 20, 2008)

The problem with the organisation of the powers will probably be magnified once we have a few sourcebooks adding to the number of powers. It will be interesting to see how WotC will solve this issue.

Of course, the best solution will be an electronic database of all the powers, sorted by class, type, level and whatever other criteria the user wishes. Hopefully, the DDI will have that feature online before too long...


----------



## Settembrini (Jun 20, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> The way I played AD&D the options were mostly open ended, bounded only by the situation at hand.  You could try anything though your chance of success could be very low.
> 
> If you have the same kind of DM running 4e, then your options are just as open ended.  If you're not playing that way, then you're not really playing D&D anyway.
> 
> ...




So David Noonan is DMing D&D wrong = not playing D&D at all?

What I´ve seen is "Power announcement + die roll" (which is even lamer than when us 10 year olds were playing "I go to him and take a swing"-AD&D), and there are structural reasons for it. Most powers are way better than any ad-hoc stuff you could pull off.YMMV, but Noonan and WotC support my point!

@Merric: I was actually thinking of the Complete Fighter´s Handbook.

- Called Shots
- Smashing something being held
- bypassing Armor
- Carving Inititals etc.
- Disarm
- Grab
- Hold Attack
- Parry
- Pin
- Pull/Trip
- Sap
- Shield-Rush
- Surprise Maneuvre

Those were the MECHANICAL options, which were implicitly (some explicitly) in 1e too.

If you´d compare 3e to 4e you´ll see it more directly. Best example:

In all former editions of D&D, you could disarm someone. In 4e it´s not a standard option, but a result of a power. Thusly, most DMs won´t allow it.

Noonan certainly doesn´t.


----------



## hong (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> So David Noonan is DMing D&D wrong = not playing D&D at all?
> 
> What I´ve seen is "Power announcement + die roll" (which is even lamer than when us 10 year olds were playing "I go to him and take a swing"-AD&D), and there are structural reasons for it. Most powers are way better than any ad-hoc stuff you could pull off.YMMV, but Noonan and WotC support my point!
> 
> ...



 If you cannot fit it into the Str/Dex/Int atk vs AC/Fort/Ref/Will def framework, you're not trying hard enough.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jun 20, 2008)

I only agree with the expanded glossary/index thing.

I find the 4th Ed PHB to be the only RPG rules I've read that did not leave me with a dozen questions or so.

In fact, I find you have to really_ try _ and misinterpret things in 4th Ed, the problems and questions I've seen posted on these boards and others about 4th Ed rule/mechanics etc, simply do not exist for me.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> I was actually thinking of the Complete Fighter´s Handbook.
> 
> - Called Shots
> - Smashing something being held
> ...





And don't forget Wounded and Useless hp and Damage Points (for armour), boy, were those fun…


----------



## The Cardinal (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> In all former editions of D&D, you could disarm someone. In 4e it´s not a standard option, but a result of a power. Thusly, most DMs won´t allow it.
> 
> Noonan certainly doesn´t.





Bingo! If you turn everything, including seemingly "mundane" actions, into "Powers", then you suddenly _need to have the right power to even *attempt* those actions_! You cannot attempt (in any serious way) to throw a fireball - unless you have some kind of access to such a power. But you should be able to attempt to disarm (or strangle or tackle or trip) someone even without any kind of training - though you will most likely fail.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 20, 2008)

The Cardinal said:
			
		

> Bingo! If you turn everything, including seemingly "mundane" actions, into "Powers", then you suddenly _need to have the right power to even *attempt* those actions_! You cannot attempt (in any serious way) to throw a fireball - unless you have some kind of access to such a power. But you should be able to attempt to disarm (or strangle or tackle or trip) someone even without any kind of training - though you will most likely fail.




The answer here is all in the abstraction level used. All the actions listed happen in the abstract combat of DND during the round to round fighting that is atk roll-hp damage. 

3e was very spiky* when it came to abstraction, some things could be very detailed and others not, it lead to issues when some actions were combined. 

4e, to my mind, has a more even level of abstraction that is slightly higher than the 3e avg level. It also makes more use of standard terms and keywords. However Prone in most cases will mean your flat on your back for a second or two, slightly winded or depending on the creature something different (up to the DM to explain it for non-humanoids). Prone is an abstraction to indicate a few different conditons; your able to crawl if you want as default,you give combat advantage, ...

4e also hands some narrative control to the player. It says you have a power called Trip, your trained in Tripping, it is difficult to Trip in combat and the opportunity to pull it off so your target is Prone, on average, only happens once in a encounter. It is more abstract than 3e. Anyone can and does attempt to trip in the ebb and flow of atk rolls in 4e, but that isnt Trip and they don't knock anyone Prone with it. 

So, there are abstraction and narrative control changes from 3e to 4e that some people will hate, truly hate. I love it personally. But if your going to compare the two you need to change your mindset when thinking about what is happening with 4e, atk rolls and power usage.

*all dnd (including 4e) is spiky with the abstraction level, but thats dnd for ya.

PS: the above is my take on 4e combat and my take on 3e, not trying to start a thread derailment here.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jun 20, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> **snip**





Awesome, awesome post- very eloquent, that is exactly how I feel, but obviously haven't worded it as well as you!


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 20, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Awesome, awesome post- very eloquent, that is exactly how I feel, but obviously haven't worded it as well as you!




Thanks, although I have to credit multiple posts from ENworld, during DNDxp, where this stuff was discussed to death.


----------



## Settembrini (Jun 20, 2008)

Vagabundo:

Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.

You are retconning, for whatever reasons. Please watch the Podcast, where Davod Noonan DMs a set-piece combat (or rather half of it).

It´s blatantly clear that the abstraction you are interpreting into 4e isn´t applied to the game by it´s designers, for ex :damage is actual damage! 

Really, I can see how you MAY run 4e as and abstracted engine like you described. But even if so, the abstraction is FIRMLY guided by the powers and HP.

It´s about choosing a power and making a d20 roll. That´s the input you as a player are expected to have.

The point remains: I can only do what the powers let me. How you DESCRIBE stuff is pretty useless/meaningless.

Actually, when thinking about it, Vagabond is actually helping and reinforcing my position.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> -Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.
> 
> -Actually, when thinking about it, Vagabond is actually helping and reinforcing my position.





-…Not by yours maybe.

-Not at all, and what _exactly_ is your postion?


----------



## Maggan (Jun 20, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> -Not at all, and what _exactly_ is your postion?




WotC is evil and can do nothing right. I think that sums it up.

At least that's my guess.

/M


----------



## hong (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> Vagabundo:
> 
> Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.
> 
> You are retconning, for whatever reasons. Please watch the Podcast, where Davod Noonan DMs a set-piece combat (or rather half of it).




You were in the podcast? Which one was you?


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> Vagabundo:
> 
> Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.
> 
> ...




HP are recognised as much more than physical damage, I believe the PHB says skill, luck, and resolve. They are an abstract concept. Otherwise many of the Warlords powers could not work.

Even if, in game, Dave mentioned that this was damage, that does not negate the fact that HPs are an abstract concept, combining many details into one. *

4e keywords, conditions and powers are similarly abstract, but as I mentioned, all editions of DND have been spiky in this regard. 

Not all concepts are equally abstract. So some conditions may be more detailed, grounded in physical reality, than others and less open to interpretations.

There is a differences in this  with regard to 3e and 4e, if you try and apply your 3e viewpoint to 4e you will find many, many contradictions. If I applied my (new) 4e viewpoint to 3e I get a head ache (  ). They are different games in how they handle the narrative, but oddly I find them very similar mechanically.**

And I have to strongly disagree with the comment about how combat is described is meaningless, only the mechanics matter, because for me DND is a Story. As long as the mechanics aid the flow of the Story, and are interesting, they do not matter to me.

* DMing is a difficult job and every DM has different styles, if Dave wants to describe HPs as damage then that is cool. In combat descriptions that are fun/consistant is hard, I'm sure all you DMs will agree.
** 4e is a 3e game with a 1e Story?


----------



## Steely Dan (Jun 20, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> And I have to strongly disagree with the comment about how combat is described is meaningless, only the mechanics matter, because for me DND is a Story. As long as the mechanics aid the flow of the Story, and are interesting, they do not matter to me.




Exactly, my players would be greatly disappointed if I stopped with my vivid, colourful descriptions of their combat actions (and they join in too, sometimes).

…That was the only thing that kept combat interesting in 3rd Ed for us.  But even though 4th combat is light years ahead in the interesting department, there's no way I'm going to stop with my descriptions!


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 20, 2008)

I think an additional post to clarify my views on the mechanical variations in 4e, now I'm sure there will be rule creep as supplements appear (I'm looking at you Martial Sourcebook & DMG2). And I dont believe it is fair to compare the number of actions across edition just by citing numbers, but try and think of 4e combat differently. Separate the mechanical words used in the rules from the effects that you imagine are happening. 

In my minds eye when I _see_ dnd combat I see the knockdown, drag out brawls of a bar fight, no holds barred, pushing, pulling, swearing, kicking, grabbing, wrestling. None of these actions have a great impact mechanically, but they are all there.

If it is important for the story that someone be disarmed then there is the rules foundation in 4e to support that (although no explicit disarm rule yet, thank god) and many designers here on ENWorld to help with the mechanics. I'd wing it if it was important in-game (basic attack against reflex). 

From, my limited, experience with 4e combat it definitely holds it's own mechanically and, although, more abstract I don't have to strain my imagination to see how it all works, I just had to let go of my 3e-isms.

Now at epic levels I maybe stumped if the halfling rogue manages to Trip a Tarrasque Prone.....


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> [Boardgamers] bemoan us, actually.  Junking up their hobby with dice-fest dungeon crawl games that are little more than an extended exercise in gambling.




This irony is incredibly delicious to me.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 20, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> This irony is incredibly delicious to me.



They have the better case, too.  The general category of games influenced by RPGs is termed "Ameritrash."  That's not a precise definition, because Ameritrash really refers to a certain style of board game that isn't bounded by reference to RPGs but rather to a larger set of categories which happen to include RPG influences, but chances are that if a game is D&D-like, its considered Ameritrash.


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 20, 2008)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> The point remains: I can only do what the powers let me. How you DESCRIBE stuff is pretty useless/meaningless.




You and I have been playing a different game for the last 20ish years.



			
				vagabundo said:
			
		

> In my minds eye when I see dnd combat I see the knockdown, drag out brawls of a bar fight, no holds barred, pushing, pulling, swearing, kicking, grabbing, wrestling. None of these actions have a great impact mechanically, but they are all there.




Ahh there's the game I have been playing...


----------



## SavageRobby (Jun 20, 2008)

Part of me wonders if a lack of a decent index isn't a purposeful decision to push people towards shelling out for the DDI. 

It will be interesting to see how the Chapter 4 organization will holds up with additional powers and options and such added. More fodder for the DDI, I suppose.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 20, 2008)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> Part of me wonders if a lack of a decent index isn't a purposeful decision to push people towards shelling out for the DDI.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the Chapter 4 organization will holds up with additional powers and options and such added. More fodder for the DDI, I suppose.




If true, that's a devlishly clever maneuver.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 20, 2008)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> Part of me wonders if a lack of a decent index isn't a purposeful decision to push people towards shelling out for the DDI.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the Chapter 4 organization will holds up with additional powers and options and such added. More fodder for the DDI, I suppose.




Lack of a decent index kind of amuses me... As in game I think I've looked at the index... ummm once.  The book is just so well organized to begin with, it doesn't really need one.


----------



## SavageRobby (Jun 20, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Lack of a decent index kind of amuses me... As in game I think I've looked at the index... ummm once.  The book is just so well organized to begin with, it doesn't really need one.




Obviously, not all of us have your powers of recollection and information absorption. 

I find the older I get, the more valuable a good index becomes, but thats just me. I don't fully memorize books like I once did - heck, I can still flip straight to a variety of sections in the 1e PHB and DMG - and I don't have the time or inclination that I once did to meander through books. (This is one reason I like having PDFs in addition to print copies.)


----------



## Scribble (Jun 20, 2008)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> Obviously, not all of us have your powers of recollection and information absorption.
> 
> I find the older I get, the more valuable a good index becomes, but thats just me. I don't fully memorize books like I once did - heck, I can still flip straight to a variety of sections in the 1e PHB and DMG - and I don't have the time or inclination that I once did to meander through books. (This is one reason I like having PDFs in addition to print copies.)




I'm not trying to indicate others should have better book using skills at all... Trust me man.. I have a TERRIBLE short term memory, and my powers of organization = none...

In most cases I would be 100% behind the statement the index needs to be better, as I CONSTANTLY use them...

Which is why it amazed me that I can so easily use these books.

Everything is logically in the place where it should be and the ToC is so well laid out, I just don't need to use the index... Again, which amazed me. (I was ready for it to be a problem.)


----------



## Harr (Jun 20, 2008)

I on the other hand, have used the index quite a bit in my games, and have found it to serve more than adecuately.

I would like some actual-play examples of attempts to use the index that haven't worked. I suspect they are mostly theory, as most of these types of things are.

For example, it's so easy to say "But there's no index of all the powers!!" in theory, yes there's no index of all the powers. In play? In play you will literally *never* need to search for just the *name* of a power, but for the class and level it belongs to. It's a snap to find. In play. The 4e books are as far as I can see made to facilitate play and to ignore the theory-contemplators and the armchair-editors.


----------



## delericho (Jun 20, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> HP are recognised as much more than physical damage, I believe the PHB says skill, luck, and resolve. They are an abstract concept. Otherwise many of the Warlords powers could not work.




Of course, the wonderful consequence is that it works both ways: one could develop a power (or set of powers) whereby the character weakens his opponent's resolve by the simple medium of words. In short, one can taunt one's enemies to death.

"Ni!"

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.


----------



## delericho (Jun 20, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> I would like some actual-play examples of attempts to use the index that haven't worked.




Where are the rules on falling into lava found?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 20, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> Where are the rules on falling into lava found?




They're covered by the actions not spelled out in the books rule.



			
				 DMG Page 42 said:
			
		

> Setting Improvised Damage: Sometimes youneed to set damage for something not covered in the rules—a character  tumbles into the campfire or falls into a vat of acid, for example.  choose a column on the Difficulty Class and Damage table based on the severity of the effect. Use a normal damage expression for something that might make an attack round after round, or something that’s relatively minor.
> 
> These numbers are comparable to a monster’s at-will attack. Use a limited damage expression, comparable to a monster’s special powers, for one-time damaging effects or massive damage.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 20, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> Where are the rules on falling into lava found?




Page 61 of the DMG, under Hindering Terrain.


----------



## delericho (Jun 20, 2008)

Oh, damn. I quoted the wrong bit of the post I was replying to!

Harr asked for an actual example of using the index that failed. The lava rules were one of the first things I wanted to check (because although I like "Fire & Brimstone", I don't think it fits as the general rule for a game involving creatures made out of fire). The index and table of contents failed me.


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 20, 2008)

*actually, no details*

It list pits, deep water, lava, fire, but provides no rules for any.

P44 provides the save throw rule for catching yourself from being pushed into hindering terrain, but not consequences for failing it.

So, in effect, no rules for hindering terrain-lava or hindering terrain-fire are provided.


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 20, 2008)

*improvising some lava rules*

My best guess was start with fire titans lava: 4D6+6 + Immobilized (save ends) maybe every turn.

and Taunting as a damager would be funny "I will taunt you viciously a second time"


----------



## delericho (Jun 20, 2008)

hamishspence said:
			
		

> My best guess was start with fire titans lava: 4D6+6 + Immobilized (save ends) maybe every turn.




Oh, you can certainly improvise it. However, I was commenting more on the ease of finding this information. Lava rules might be under "terrain", or might be under "environmental hazards" or, since this is an exception-based game, they might be hidden in some power somewhere. To know that it isn't covered, I had to read the whole of the PHB and the DMG (which, as has repeatedly been pointed out, no-one actually does  ).

(That the DMG doesn't even give ball-park advice on how to cover this is rather poor. It strikes me as being very good on general advice, but shockingly poor on specifics in many cases. But that's another thread.)

Oh, and yes, this has cropped up in actual play - in my Shackled City campaign a PC fell into lava. The contrast with the 3.5e DMG is stark. There, 'lava effects' is listed in the index. Moreover, such is the quality of that index, I can be reasonably sure that falling onto glass, for example, isn't covered by the rules - the same is not true of the 4e DMG.

Or how about fighting monsters with gaze attacks? The rule that blind creatures are immune to gaze attacks in clearly marked in the MM glossary, but what about closing your eyes? Such a character isn't really blind, but does it count? Well yes... but that's only covered in the 'Medusa' entry!

Then we look up 'blind', which isn't in the PHB index or table of contents. However, 'conditions' is listed in the index, so that's fine. Until we find that there's a sidebar on a separate page that deals with targetting creatures you cannot see - and it's only in the ToC, not the index!

I'm sorry, but this is not conducive to finding things quickly when they're needed.


----------

