It's probably no news that one of the aims of 4th edition, as mentioned by Scott Rouse himself, is to bring new people to hobby. Particularly, the current teenager generation who play videogames and MMORPGs.
Adapting to the new generations, at least to me, is necessary. Although a lot of people are complaining that "D&D is being dumbed down to be played by teenagers", it's worthwile of rememeber that most of us, "old-school gamers", were 10-15 years old when we started playing D&D. I myself was 11 years old.
How many 10-15 years old boys do you see playing D&D today? Let me guess... none? It's actually rare to see even new people to the hobby. But it's not uncommon to see buddies leaving the hobby for the most various reasons.
The fact is, even without precise statistics, it seems clear that the tabletop RPG market is shrinking. Gamers get older and are not replaced by new gamers.
4th edition is an ambitious/courageous/crazy attempt to reverse this situation. It introduces some fundamental changes to the game, on all aspects (crunch, fluff, and way of playing) to make D&D more appealing to the newer generations.
These radical changes made some people, like Rass, extremly pissed off, and I kinda understand it. How could WotC abandon those who play the game for decades, and invested thousands of dollars on it, in favor of new players who never cared about D&D at all? It's a good reason to feel upset/betrayed.
But... who wouldn't find nice if, after 15 years, we would still be playing D&D with our children and nephews? If we could discuss with them about the new exciting character class or race? Instead of making a nostalgic discussion with other 40-year buddies of how D&D was so great and so much better than the stupid hobbies young people have nowadays.
The question that remains is: can D&D attract the current teenager generation to the hobby? To make all those MMORPG gamers see that there is something better?
I stumbled on this 4th edition advertisement. It seems a good representation of how WotC wants to reach the teenagers of today.
Some remarkable quotes:
Dungeons & Dragons is different: you're allowed to shape the universe through your character's achievements.
...
In the D&D world, the fate of every character is truly unique, the future is unwritten. D&D frees your imagination from the confines of what someone else has written.
...
Then the storyteller stops. There is no more to tell. What happens next is yet to be written... He simply asks you: "what are you going to do?"
I loved the way this was presented. Because it tries, yes, to reach MMORPG and videogame players. But instead of saying that "D&D is a better MMORPG than your MMORPG", it says "on D&D you can do things that you can never do on your MMORPG".
To me, that's trying to sell D&D to a MMORPG player, but still being D&D.
What is the challenge of 4th edition, then?
D&D has a fundamental problem when compared to MMORPGs or even console RPGs. The fact that it strongly relies on a DM. Without a good DM, there is no compelling story to make players feel motivated. Even if the story is good, the DM may present it on a way that players don't feel that their characters have impact on story. They would feel as they are watching the story rather than helping building it. In other words: without a good DM, D&D can't do anything that a MMORPG or console RPG can't do.
I hope that you have different experience than me but... from my experience, average DM quality is not very good. Most DMs I've met have a deficiency on at least one of the two qualities I mentioned.
Published adventures also don't help. Exactly because they have to be generic, they revolve around the pre-defined plot and NPCs, instead of revolving around the PCs' backgrounds, personalities, and actions, which would be needed to truly make the players feel "protagonists" of the show.
To be honest, it seems that nowadays' console RPGs have plots and characters far more interesting than WotC official adventures. How would a player used to complex plots like such from Final Fantasy VIII, will find another enter-dungeon-kill-goblins-then-kill-dragon-pick-treasure adventure interesting?
It seems that 4th edition DM Guide will have lots of tips on how to get more player involvement into the game. Many 4th edition mechanics, such as skill challenges, action points, and immediate actions, also seem to be aimed of this. That's a good thing. But perhaps, a paradigm shift on design of official adventures would result on an even better improvement.
So, these are my concerns about the success (or failure) of D&D 4th edition on attracting new players to the hobby. End of post!
I think you are correct in pointing out WotC's concern about the age makeup of D&D players. Several quotes from their employees to the effect of "How do we make sure people are still playing D&D in 30 years" leads me to believe their uptake among kids is not so hot.
What you described is exactly what we are going to try to do with my girlfriend's nephews, who we turned on to WoW a couple of years ago. They love spending time with her, listening to her tell stories, and play Dark Tower (anyone remember that one), so this seemed like a natural thing. And everything I have seen really has made me feel 4e will be a better fit for their temperaments and our ability to DM (for the first time in 25 years).
I love all the richness and history of 3.5 and the amazing stories coming from Paizo, but 4e just feels like a more natural fit, which is no surprise, because it was deliberately tailored for people in our position, I think.
Maybe we will do as Lisa suggested a while back, and "graduate" to PRPG. In the meantime, this seems like a good start.
I agree with your sentiments and really don't think WotC is doing a bad job trying to revitalize the game. I just wish WotC had not chose to leave so many of us behind.
I was waiting for your plea to DM's to pick up the torch and teach the next generation 4th Edition D&D. Do it for your children!
I am really tempted by 4th Edition and wish it well. I will probably stay with PRPG. But if I was teaching some kids, I would probably teach them 4th Edition. They would not have the mental and physical investment I have in 3rd Edition.
There seems to be a flaw in the logic here. The idea is to make D&D more like video games in order to draw more support from children.
So what about books? The amount of young people that read books has been steadily dropping. So should we make books more like video games in order to get 10-15 year olds to read?
I've found that children often follow activities their parents enjoy because they are exposed to it at a young age and enthusiasm is contagious. More young people read less because their parents never taught them the joy of reading, not because reading suddenly became boring because of video games. I was an adolescent in the heyday of the video arcade. I clocked thousands of hours on video games. It didn't stop me from reading, because my parents showed me how wonderful it was. I also discovered D&D prior to video games.
I'm thinking the problem is an overarching one that goes way beyond D&D vs. video games. Best of luck to WotC, but I don't think 4E is the solution to the problem, just a temporary stop-gap measure.
|
I'm not sold on 4Ed. I think they could have consolidated all of the spin-off systems in 3.5 into a new Core Book. They could have released Dragonborn and Tieflings and new classes in this new Core Book. This way, they wouldn't be firing their existing fan-base, but providing new options to their existing games.
But what about bringing in new players? That is the purpose of D&D Basic. I learned the game through D&D Basic 20 years ago. I think the two recent D&D Basic boxes were quite good, particularly with maps and minis.
D&D Basic captured the imaginations of newphews I played it with, or gave to as birthday presents. I've heard of several instances where players have wanted to adopt the Black Dragon at the end of the game as their pet! At first I cried "NOOoooooo!" (game balance), but then I realised, that at that age, I'd have probably wanted to do the same thing, and if they're having fun with it, then don't spoil it! It's no different than players wanting to acquire the Sandpoint Glassworks. It shows they care about their characters and their place in the setting, that it's captured their imaginations fully!
Where the recent D&D Basic sets have failed, compared to the pre-1st Edition Basic set, is that once you've played the game once, there isn't a lot more you can do without purchasing the PHB, MM etc. You can re-arrange the map-tiles, and re-populate the creatures, but that grows a little tiresome after a while, and doesn't really capture the "only limited by your imaginaton" aspect of the game. There really needs to be better instructions for advancing your character to at least 3rd level, and a fuller creature appendix - or additional D&D Basic add-ons, such as at least a new D&D Basic boxed set every year (each of which could introduce four new classes or varied races - Dragonborn?), or a creature catalogue with which to expand your original purchase. You shouldn't be forced to upgrade to PHB status before you're ready.
And D&D Basic should be compatible with D&D PHB, just a cut-down version, so that you could then bring your D&D Basic pre-gen character to a game convention and play it with the big-boys as a fast-play character. Give the feeling that you're playing the same game, and that you belong, and that the PHB version isn't all that much different or difficult.
Paizo is doing the right thing with Pathfinder. You're right that you can't guarantee the quality of the GM. But I think Pathfinder adventures steer you in the right direction. They give the GM the kind of "behind the scenes" support, and story-line inspiration that budding GMs need. Pathfinder is the new breed of published adventure, that really encourage players and GMs to let their imaginations roam. There is plenty of room to explore the setting and stray from boxed text. So don't be surprised the next time your player asks if they can adopt the Black Dragon - that's what gaming is all about!
On June 7th, I'll be heading down to my FLGS and running a 4E adventure. My soon-to-be ten year-old son is going with me, and is really looking forward to it.
I've played WoW; it is a fun game. But I'll take a well-run D&D game over WoW any day of the week, and there is no *way* I'm letting my son miss out on that as long as he seems genuinely interested. Which he does. Now, my younger son is another story, but you can't win 'em all... :)
My point is: Pathfinder or D&D 4E, the best thing we can do for the hobby is to facilitate the enjoyment of others, and that most often means being a DM for a group of new players. Many people have no exposure to D&D as anything other than a lame joke on a stale sitcom; Let's do our part to fix that!
Ok, that is my inspirational speech for the day. As you can see, I lack levels in bard. ;-)
Although a lot of people are complaining that "D&D is being dumbed down to be played by teenagers", it's worthwile of rememeber that most of us, "old-school gamers", were 10-15 years old when we started playing D&D. I myself was 11 years old.
I was 6. And the thing that really strikes me is that nobody had to "dumb down" AD&D for me to learn it at that age. So why do we have to do it now?
Although a lot of people are complaining that "D&D is being dumbed down to be played by teenagers", it's worthwile of rememeber that most of us, "old-school gamers", were 10-15 years old when we started playing D&D. I myself was 11 years old.I was 6. And the thing that really strikes me is that nobody had to "dumb down" AD&D for me to learn it at that age. So why do we have to do it now?
I was wondering when we'd get this, It took a while. Now where are Razz and his anti-matter universe analogue Zzar?
I've found that children often follow activities their parents enjoy because they are exposed to it at a young age and enthusiasm is contagious. More young people read less because their parents never taught them the joy of reading, not because reading suddenly became boring because of video games. I was an adolescent in the heyday of the video arcade. I clocked thousands of hours on video games. It didn't stop me from reading, because my parents showed me how wonderful it was. I also discovered D&D prior to video games.
But in the other hand, probably it weren't your parents that told you to play D&D. There are things which depend on other influences - particularly, friends and internet. It's no suprise that WotC is so focused on D&D Insider/Gleemax.
Gleemax is what I would call another ambitious/courageus/crazy move. To provide a place for all gamers (not only RPG gamers). And once there, it would be technically easier to make them get into WotC stuff (including D&D).
Paizo is doing the right thing with Pathfinder. You're right that you can't guarantee the quality of the GM. But I think Pathfinder adventures steer you in the right direction. They give the GM the kind of "behind the scenes" support, and story-line inspiration that budding GMs need. Pathfinder is the new breed of published adventure, that really encourage players and GMs to let their imaginations roam. There is plenty of room to explore the setting and stray from boxed text. So don't be surprised the next time your player asks if they can adopt the Black Dragon - that's what gaming is all about!
I'm going to take a look, for sure. As far as I know, Pathfinder is not sold on brazillian shops, but I assume I can buy a PDF somehwere.
I was 6. And the thing that really strikes me is that nobody had to "dumb down" AD&D for me to learn it at that age. So why do we have to do it now?
I assume that you started playing OD&D or AD&D. 3E/3.5E are really not friendly to players of young age. But when I talk about something "more friendly" to the new generations, I'm not talking only about complexity. WoW and Final Fantasy have considerably complex systems, for instance, and young people still like them.
I talk also about popular culture - which include MMORPGs, other videogames, movies, books, manga/anime and TV shows. For instance, a lot of kids like Harry Potter. A little cousin of mine pretends to be Harry Potter all the time. They would perhaps love a game where they have a opportunity to play someone like Harry Potter - a guy who uses a wand and may use an unlimited number of spells per day.
They won't want, however, to play a guy who can may memorize a single spell from a spell book and forgets it after being cast, requiring 8 hours of sleep before being able to cast another spell. To them, this kind of "magic" is weird and alienating, just perhaps Harry Potter is weird and alienating to some gamers who are so used to Vancian spellcasting.
Similarly, those who are familiar with videogames would want a fight with a "boss" monster/NPC to be fast-paced, thrilling, where they start discharging their most powerful abilities (which they economized for this specific battle) and both sides use all sort of cool abilities. They would be disappointed by a fight where one of the sides simply uses an instant-kill spell and immediately defeats the other side, or a single round of actions take 45 minutes to accomplish.
Although a lot of people are complaining that "D&D is being dumbed down to be played by teenagers", it's worthwile of rememeber that most of us, "old-school gamers", were 10-15 years old when we started playing D&D. I myself was 11 years old.I was 6. And the thing that really strikes me is that nobody had to "dumb down" AD&D for me to learn it at that age. So why do we have to do it now?
What I would ask you is, what evidence do you have the the game is being dumbed down?
The game actually loosk more complex then 3rd edition was. Yes, some of the systems are being simplified and streamlined, but simple does not mean 'dumbed down'. Chess one of the smartest and deepest games in existance, and yet the rules are increadibly simple.
Every piece has only one form of movement, and there's only six different pieces. The rules, all the rules, are:White always moves first. You capture a piece when moving into it's square. Pawns can double move on their first move. You can't leave you king in danger. Get a pawn to the other end of the board, and get back a piece you lost in it's place. There is exactly one crazy power move, Castling.
That's it. Those are all the rules to chess, one of the most complex games to ever exist. The patterns and play styles put together under those simple rules are legion, and hundreds of thousands of people play the game all the time.
4th Edition looks a lot like chess to me. The rules have been streamlined yes, but the depth and complexity of the game has been increased. Especially when you include the sheer huge number of feats and powers coming out in the very first book. They're gonna have over 400 feats and powers.
What about that is dumbed down?
But when I talk about something "more friendly" to the new generations, I'm not talking only about complexity. WoW and Final Fantasy have considerably complex systems, for instance, and young people still like them.
I talk also about popular culture - which include MMORPGs, other videogames, movies, books, manga/anime and TV shows. For instance, a lot of kids like Harry Potter. A little cousin of mine pretends to be Harry Potter all the time. They would perhaps love a game where they have a opportunity to play someone like Harry Potter - a guy who uses a wand and may use an unlimited number of spells per day.
I think Krauser you have hit upon a major part of what the problem with the older editions of D&D has been in the last decade.
The game was originally based upon Tolkein, but it did not keep pace with the progression of the fantasy genre. It has been surpassed, and the concepts that are rooting in tolkein have been suplanted by similair, but very different ideas.
When people imagine wizards, they imagine men weilding terrible powers, capabale of leveling cities and altering the world with thier magic. The problem is, that's not what Gandalf did. The gray wizard never really used much magic, most of the time he weilded a sword. He's a very good analog for the way that the first edition wizards worked.
While I don't think the designers were looking at Harry Potter, the wizards in J.K Rowlings books are modeled after the new stereotype of the wizard. It's why her books are so popular, she mined the collective unconciousness about magic, growing up, and the modern day to write her stories.
It's a classic coming of age adventure story, and that is what most people want in their entertainment these days. They don't want a rote dungeon crawl, they want a grand story. Thats why Pathfinder has done so well in the last few years. The designers wanted to bring that kind of storytelling to life in the new edition, because doing so will draw in new players.
Similarly, those who are familiar with videogames would want a fight with a "boss" monster/NPC to be fast-paced, thrilling, where they start discharging their most powerful abilities (which they economized for this specific battle) and both sides use all sort of cool abilities. They would be disappointed by a fight where one of the sides simply uses an instant-kill spell and immediately defeats the other side, or a single round of actions take 45 minutes to accomplish.
Again, this is the classic storytelling model being implimented into the game. The big bad guy at the end of an adventure is the climax of a story. We've been playing this way forever, and in that we do mimic video games. The actual D&D game is just finally catching up to the way people play, and in doing so will again draw in new players because the system will feel familair to them.
But in the other hand, probably it weren't your parents that told you to play D&D. There are things which depend on other influences - particularly, friends and internet. It's no suprise that WotC is so focused on D&D Insider/Gleemax.
You're correct, it wasn't my parents. There was a D&D display up in a Waldens book store. I took one look at the warrior and the wizard on the cover, about to face off against the dragon that looked like it had stepped right out of The Hobbit, and the ten year old me had no clue what it was all about, but knew he had to play that game.
As for 3E being less approachable to young people, I'm inclined to disagree. I think the rules, being better consolidated and more uniform, are actually better than having to deal with things like negative AC and THAC0, not to mention the multiple effect saving throw tables, that were present in 1st and 2nd edition.
A very good OP.
I am very thankful that I don't care one whit about the "hobby" and getting new gamers into the hobby.
A very good OP.
I am very thankful that I don't care one whit about the "hobby" and getting new gamers into the hobby.
If you care about being able to buy Paizo's products for a long time, then you should care about the hobby and getting new people playing.
If new people don't join, then eventually enough people will leave the hobby, or simply just pass on as Gary did, that Paizo's fanbase will be too small to support the company. Paizo has to grow the RPG hobby just like WotC does, even if Paizo never makes a single 4th edition product.
If things don't evolve, they become old and ultimately they die.
This is true for living things, and this is true for a game like D&D, which also has to stay alive.
The game system actually has to evolve, to adapt to the mind of people, call it fashion if you want.
If the public is fond of video games and super-heroes, the products have to offer them something like that.
For the game to survive, it has to sell. Not only once every ten years for three core books, but every month, every day, with supplements and yes, new editions.
If WotC doesn't sell enough books, D&D dies, and in a few years there won't be any D&D players anymore, except a few survivors in basements.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If new people don't join, then eventually enough people will leave the hobby, or simply just pass on as Gary did, that Paizo's fanbase will be too small to support the company. Paizo has to grow the RPG hobby just like WotC does, even if Paizo never makes a single 4th edition product.
Paizo needs to grow their portion of the market, but they can let big players like Hasbro focus on growing the market as a whole. The drift of D&D players to other games has been enough to keep more than one gaming company viable.
Paizo needs to grow their portion of the market, but they can let big players like Hasbro focus on growing the market as a whole. The drift of D&D players to other games has been enough to keep more than one gaming company viable.
This has certainly been true in the past, yes. But now, the RPG hobby is facing way too many compeating forms of entertainment which are providing the kind of story expirences that roleplaying does. The smaller game companies cannot remain focused solely on drawing their new players from the existing pool.
This is not to say that Paizo should not market their products to the new players which 4E brings in. They should cross market their products to existing gamers, that's just good business sense. gamers play multiple games all the time, but they should also spend time to grow the hobby. They should encourage their fanbase to draw new players into the hobby, just like every other game company should.
Why fight for just a bigger slice of an existing pie, when you can work with everyone else to build a bigger pie and thus end up getting a bigger slice?
If you care about being able to buy Paizo's products for a long time, then you should care about the hobby and getting new people playing.
Agreed. I don't, though, hence my post. (I might if Dungeon still existed, or if Golarion didn't exist. But for now, I can take 'em or leave 'em. I'll keep buying as long as the APs are easily adaptable to my setting of choice, but I'll drop them as soon as they no longer do so.)
And in the end, getting new players often means focusing your products to entice said new players - and chances are very high that these types of products are not the least bit interesting to me (demonstrably so, when looking at such products in the past).
So either way, it would result in me not buying products since they either a) aren't for me, or b) don't exist. Thus my apathy. [But, like I said - good OP, and I agree with the general sentiment for those who actually do care.]
First of all, I do agree with the OP, for the most part. Where the logic of this thread breaks down, however, is that while WOTc /Paizo do need to atract new players, that attraction does not have to come at the expense of turning off older players.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and Hasbro (I no longer blame WOTC) seems to believe that they are - at least in terms of the D&D market.
|
Some thoughts (warning: just as long & boring as the OP's comments):
1. The OP actually expressed some great points about 4e. I've never complimented a 4e thread... until now. Nice job.
2. Wizards could disappear, and the game of dungeons and dragons would continue. I disagree that the death of wizards would end the game, they can't end it, and don't own it any more than the NFL owns the game of football. We've been conditioned for years by terms such as "official content" to believe that wizards was something special - they're not, in fact, they've lost touch with their customer base, mistreated them, and violated the solemn traditions of 30+ years that have given dnd an identity, a feel, a history, and a shared collective experience. The new steward of this game is PAIZO, and Erik and the team have taken up this mantle by publishing PRPG - where dungeons and dragons truly continues...
3. I agree that new folks are not getting into dnd. But since when would we change our perception of well written and performed music, just to get young kids to make some noise? I see 3.5 and PRPG as continuity and connection with the historical refinement of dnd. Running this system well can take a few years of practice, rather than instant gratification - but it is worth the investment of time to hone one's GM-craft. In a way, 4e is like providing sound-loops and sythesizers that make you sound good, even though you can't really play a lick of music. And yes, 4e IS dumbed-down so much that I consider it an illegitimate edition of our game, a bastard child born of videogame-like fixations. 3.5 and PRPG are sophisticated systems, true, but are still accessible to the young. Seasoned GMs should introduce young players to the ruleset with the basics: Attributes, AC, HP, Movement, character development, speaking improvised dialogue in 1st person, etc. In this same way, kids first learn the alphabet before they write words. By contrast, 4e is like providing a button to press for instant electronic sounds on an automated toy to get a quick and easy result rather than using one's own voice, effort (and imagination). This 4i munchkin game builds the roleplay into the mechanic - and this my friends is an insult to fantasy roleplay: the idea of using one's own imagination to portray characters and tell meaningful stories. IMHO, the damn thing should very well be called a tabletop fantasy mechanic-play game (MPG not RPG).
4. If something new is needed like a breath of fresh air in this industry, (perhaps something PAIZO could provide) is a "How to introduce the game" book, with layered rulesets, allowing young players to first use a handful (basic amount) of the rules, then a master level, then a companion level, etc. just like the days when the red, black, and light blue boxes were first published. IMHO, the main thing that's caused damage over the years is the dnd community's obsession with rules themselves over helping GMs refine their crafts. [And, this is not the fault of gamers in general.] Why? Because helping GMs get better doesn't sell books! Hasbro was tired of the purchase ratio proportion of one GM buying 10 books and everyone else buying just one PHB. In fact, the approach of wotc this decade, IMHO, was to release all the previously-DM-only content into the hands of players, thus obsessing EVERYONE with the rules, rules, rules. Bottom line - I'd like to see PAIZO help this situation with a GM-training program with layered rulesets, help, instructions, a virtual knowledge base for reference, and perhaps even new initiatives rewarding players who get new gamers to play PRPG (maybe part of the Pathfinder society's incentives?).
Look, I'm basically saying this is my perception and I'm not intending to get anyone upset with these comments. Please let me know if these thoughts provide any insight, or if you happen to agree. If I am completely alone here, I'd like to know that too.
... 4E only builds roleplay into the mechanic as much as 3.xE did: Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate - people still debate about these.
Can we all roll a Diplomacy check, to change the mind of WotC and bring them back to reason ?
If that fails, we still have Bluff to warn them with about a boycott, or Intimidate to threaten them about kidnapping their familiars until they compel to our desires, even the darkest and the vilest. Or the familiars get it >:)
I don't think 4E dumbs down the game at all. Take a look at skill challenges. You'll need some intelligence and game savvy to pull those off.
Also, I think the complexity of the 4e combat options will actually make people's head spin at first. (This is no different from 3E either, IMO.) Of course, what remains to be seen is if every 4e combat plays the same way every encounter for a particular group once each group learns how to work in tandem to maximize their combat potential.
Regarding the DM factor, I think it's a huge obsticle to attracting the MMO generation that is used to being a player, not a "programmer." It takes a special (and dedicated) individual to be a DM.
Actually, I should amend that. One part of 4E was considerably dumbed down, but not for the players.
Monster creation was dumbed down so that the whiney game designers would quit their b%&%@ing about writing 3.x monster stat blocks.
Wimps. ;)
Some thoughts (warning: just as long & boring as the OP's comments):
1. The OP actually expressed some great points about 4e. I've never complimented a 4e thread... until now. Nice job.
Thanks.
About your commnets, it's true that D&D destiny does not necessarily lie on WotC's hands.
However, it should be noted that D&D 4th edition is a focused effort to attract new generations to the game. Pathfinder RPG, while it will probably be a great game, is aimed at making the game better for those who already play it.
What does it mean? On the 80s, you could make a "basic set" to attract new players to the hobby. Today, it's simply not enough.
Why? Because on the 70s and 80s, D&D was probably the only meaningful reference on fantasy gaming. But the 90s met the profusion of videogame RPGs and other fantasy-based videogames, most of them influenced by D&D. But while D&D remained almost static as the years passed by, videogames suffered a radical evolution - not only on graphics and sound, but also on mechanical complexity, plot and character development. By the end of the 90s, D&D was already superpassed in popularity by videogame RPGs and fantasy-based videogames.
What is the similiarity between a D&D player, a WOW player, and a Final Fantasy player?
All of them know that your character drops when he reaches 0 hit points.
All of them know that your character gains a level when he attains X experience points.
All of them know that a character who can heal others is really useful.
All of them know that a character who is really good at magic isn't good on physical combat.
As you see, many of D&D influences are still present on popular culture. But most teenagers of today barely know (or don't know at all) what D&D is. In other words, D&D's true competition is not from GURPS or Storyteller, but from other sources which although influenced by D&D, are ridiculously more popular than it today.
Making a "basic set" may solve the problem of complexity. But complexity is not the real problem. The real problem is that D&D, on its current state, is alien to the tastes of current young people generation.
In the view of these people, D&D is not mechanically better than what they already seen. Vancian spellcasting does not make sense to them; they want to see someone using magic like Harry Potter, or their WOW/anime favorite magician.
In the view of these people, D&D does not have a better story/world than what they already seen. They don't give a damn about the Great Wheel and the need to have a plane and outsiders for each aligment. They want a world more grey and less black-and-white.
The only advantage D&D can offer - is that on D&D you can truly be a hero. You can truly decide the fate of the world. On a MMORPG you can make your own history but you can never be someone special. On a console RPG you can be special but you can never make your own history. But D&D, as the advertisement said, can you make your imagination truly run free.
However, what D&D can do - and what it does in practice, seems to be largely depend on the quality of DMs. And many DMs, unfortunately, make their games as restrictive as MMORPGs or console RPGs.
Don't take me wrong: I also have no idea if D&D 4th edition will have success on its ambitions or not. But it seems clear to me that a game redesigned for the current generation has more chance of attracting this generation - than a game designed to please old fans and improvised to have a hope of attracting new fans.
(Teiran made an analogy to the simplicity and complexity of Chess, although the en passant move seems to have passed him by, since he failed to mention it:))
Gah! I just KNEW some with more chess knowledge would show me up when I began using this analogy. Chess has always been a game which stole my pants and beat me about the head and neck with them.
But I think that the analogy holds. This was the genius of the d20 system, by making a lot of the rolls which people make a d20 based check. They have just continued applying that simplification concept to more things in 4E.
That doesn't dumb down the game, it just simplifies the rules, and simple rules can give rise to an increadibly complex game.
Opinions on this?
|
|
A very good OP.
I am very thankful that I don't care one whit about the "hobby" and getting new gamers into the hobby.
If you care about being able to buy Paizo's products for a long time, then you should care about the hobby and getting new people playing.
If new people don't join, then eventually enough people will leave the hobby, or simply just pass on as Gary did, that Paizo's fanbase will be too small to support the company. Paizo has to grow the RPG hobby just like WotC does, even if Paizo never makes a single 4th edition product.
Well playing and DMing the Pathfinder society modules at conventions seems like a good opportunity to start this.
|
|
Well playing and DMing the Pathfinder society modules at conventions seems like a good opportunity to start this.
Inform anyone that enjoyed Worldwide D&D Game Day (Saturday, 7th June) that another such event is scheduled in two weeks time - Free RPG Day (Saturday, 21st June) featuring Paizo/Pathfinder's Revenge of the Kobold King!
Also, I think the complexity of the 4e combat options will actually make people's head spin at first. (This is no different from 3E either, IMO.) Of course, what remains to be seen is if every 4e combat plays the same way every encounter for a particular group once each group learns how to work in tandem to maximize their combat potential.
The problem with 3E is that, put simply, there is no good place to put new players. The system wasn't designed with them in mind.
Mid and high levels are simply too complex for them to understand what is going on. Low levels, in the other hand, may become frustrating for those used to videogame RPGs.
I'm through this experience now. I'm DMing 3.5E for a group of newbie players, not only to D&D but to tabletop RPG in general. Low-level 3.5E characters die with extreme ease, are completely unbalanced between themselves, and become easily boring to use inside combat as they lack tactical options. We have both a barbarian with +9 to hit and 1d12+7 damage, and an archer which does 1d8 damage and rarely hits anything due to the fire into melee/cover penalties.
Probably those who play D&D for years don't care about a wizard running out of spells per day after using 2 spells. But for a new player it can be quite frustrating. Just like it's frustrating to see your PC dying in the first hour of the session and now having to wait the next session to play again. You can argue "But with time they get used to it", but there is a huge chance that they will say "No, thanks" the next time you invite them. Or, perhaps, "I'd rather stay home playing WOW".
I compensate this by making a compelling story with lack of focus on combat (which at least, WOW can never match), and some house rules (such as no XP cost for wizards making scrolls, no fire into melee penalty for ranged attacks, 4E death & dying rule, etc.).
But it's quite interesting to see how the ruleset that I admit, I also once considered to be the "almost perfect" ruleset, becomes so problematic when applied to new players.
Rewriting the rules will do little to draw new young players if they don't know what D&D or RPGs are. That will take serious advertising -- which only Wizards, of all RPG publishers, is in a position to do, and which they haven't done so far.
Do we know what's planned?
We know. Scott Rouse mentioned that they are going to start marketing 4E for non-D&D players at the end of the year. Their intent is to advertise on internet, computer/gaming magazines, and perhaps TV.
Apart from that, 4E looks to me to perpetuate 3E's rules-for-rules'-sake overcomplexity. Having to read 300-page rulebooks will put off far more people than the relatively subtle play dynamics discussed above.
If you have a DM with a good grasp of the rules, it seems that introducing new players will be relatively easy, which doesn't always occur on 3E/3.5E.
But I agree that for completely dummy groups (including the DM), things may be difficult without a Starter Set.