TheRPGSite

A presentation of the D&D Essentials DM Kit on YouTube. Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlIAPtdirY

Cool.  Thanks.

I'm still on the fence on this.

Whether it will be a worthwhile purchase for me, will be dependent on what is in the DM book which comes with this box set.  It will have to be more than just mapping out Fallcrest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuv6HKeJs0w

their store is outstanding! wish we had one like that.

Con: him saying (@4:00) "WOTC wants us to charge some kind of fee to come down here to play D&D Encounters"  really?!  hadn't heard of that, but great move WOTC. :\

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuv6HKeJs0w  

swoon...i want a store like this in my town.

Quote from: ggroy;402200Cool.  Thanks.

I'm still on the fence on this.

Whether it will be a worthwhile purchase for me, will be dependent on what is in the DM book which comes with this box set.  It will have to be more than just mapping out Fallcrest.

The DM's Kit is basically the DMG.
The Monster Vault is the MM.
The Heroes of... books are the PHBs.

All this minus the actual core of the game system, i.e. the combat chapter, for instance, maybe skill challenges too, i.e. how all the game elements come together and the game mechanics actually work, which is all contained in the Rules Compendium.

There are still some grey areas as to what exactly will go where, but the products' concepts seem to be well-defined to me. I don't know what all the confusion I see on the big purple and ENW is all about?

Quote from: kregmosier;402206http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuv6HKeJs0w  

swoon...i want a store like this in my town.

Dude. That's a cool store. And the guys seem really nice, too.

PS: JESUS! The number of game tables! How many customers do these guys HAVE?!

If the DM kit book ends up being largely a reprint of the 4E DMG1 and not much new stuff, then I'll probably skip it this time around.

Quote from: Benoist;402218PS: JESUS! The number of game tables! How many customers do these guys HAVE?!

Good question.  It looks like the store is in a nondescript suburb of Nashville, Tennessee.

Wonder if they're getting a good deal on the rent for such a location.

Quote from: Benoist;402218PS: JESUS! The number of game tables! How many customers do these guys HAVE?!

It is an impressive set-up; the most tables I've seen prior to this was at the shop I went to in San Diego. Their website says they moved there in March, so only time will tell if the gamble of moving into such a large space pans out. I hope it does.

The Rules Compendium's TOC:

Table of Contents (in brief)

Introduction (pg 5)
Chapter 1 The Basics (pg19)
Chapter 2 Adventurers and Monsters (pg59) (on page 74 they start the character creation rules)
Chapter 3 Understanding Powers (pg 89)
Chapter 4 Skills (pg123) (this includes skill checks and skill challenges)
Chapter 5 Exploration and the Environment (pg165)
Chapter 6 Combat (pg187)
Chapter 7 Equipment (pg263)
Appendix 1 Building a Combat Encounter (pg285)
Appendix 2 Rewards (pg289)
Appendix 3 Terrain Features (pg303)
Glossary (pg308)
Index (pg318)

From there. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/291694-essentials-rules-compendium-preview-copy-hand.html)

That GM screen looks really flimsy to me.

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;402264That GM screen looks really flimsy to me.

It's highly portable though, as is the DM book. That seems to be a major selling point to me as regards extant players. I did notice, though, that one corner of the screen seemed slightly damaged, even though the guy had just lifted it from the box.

As for the product itself... it's the most expensive of the three boxes (esp. here in Germany), and not enough to warrant the purchase as far as I'm concerned.

That said, that second battlemap as shown in the OP's video got to be the *prettiest* WotC has done so far.

Quote from: BenoistThere are still some grey areas as to what exactly will go where, but the products' concepts seem to be well-defined to me. I don't know what all the confusion I see on the big purple and ENW is all about?

Confusion in this case comes from the company sending contradictory signals. They keep saying that it's not a rules revision, which in turn spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If the DM Kit is essentially the DMG, but it's not a revision of the DMG, what exactly is it?

It's a pretty good question, but just looking at the product it seems pretty clear. The DM Kit is a Revised 4th edition DMG. But for some reason they don't want to be on record admitting that. And when you insist that ducks are not ducks, the plebeians get restless and fearful.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;402390Confusion in this case comes from the company sending contradictory signals. They keep saying that it's not a rules revision, which in turn spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If the DM Kit is essentially the DMG, but it's not a revision of the DMG, what exactly is it?

It's a pretty good question, but just looking at the product it seems pretty clear. The DM Kit is a Revised 4th edition DMG. But for some reason they don't want to be on record admitting that. And when you insist that ducks are not ducks, the plebeians get restless and fearful.

-Frank

Spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (and outright misinformation and negativity) has been Frank Trollman'smodus operandi from the beginning. "It's 4.5!" is an example of a FUD argument. "The End of 4e D&D" is a FUD argument. "It's a boardgame" is a FUD argument. "It's a videogame" is a FUD argument. "Now you'll be forced to buy a new edition" is a FUD argument. "Wizards is screwing you over again!" is a FUD argument. The entire point of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt is to get people not to play.

By contrast, creating a beginners supplement line to 4e and outright saying that's exactly what it is? That's not a FUD argument. And now everyone can see the video, and preview copies are already sort of making their way around, the red box is already for sale, and in a few weeks everyone will have figured this out. By that time everyone is going to be pretending we didn't have these delightful conversations.

The test will come when those who played with the core books sit down at the same table with those who only have Essentials and they feel they playing the same game. If they start going "no it this way in my rulebook" for stuff outside of a person's class then it is a edition change although one on the order of 3.0 to 3.5. If that not the case then it just a lot of hot air blowing around the internet.

My concern is that how much errata is already floating around for 4e whether that errata in of itself can be considered a 4.5. I am reading over on http://rpg.stackexchange.com of people wanting to revise the monsters in MMI to the standards of the MMIII because of some problem with the numbers making MMI (and MMII) monsters underpowered. Along with other errata like the various revisions to Skill challenges.

I seen in games like Star Fleet Battles, Battletech, Traveller (various editions), too much errata carries all the problems of minor editions changes. In effect those playing with errata are playing a different game then those without.

Quote from: estar;402413The test will come when those who played with the core books sit down at the same table with those who only have Essentials and they feel they playing the same game. If they start going "no it this way in my rulebook" for stuff outside of a person's class then it is a edition change although one on the order of 3.0 to 3.5. If that not the case then it just a lot of hot air blowing around the internet.

My concern is that how much errata is already floating around for 4e whether that errata in of itself can be considered a 4.5. I am reading over on http://rpg.stackexchange.com of people wanting to revise the monsters in MMI to the standards of the MMIII because of some problem with the numbers making MMI (and MMII) monsters underpowered. Along with other errata like the various revisions to Skill challenges.

I seen in games like Star Fleet Battles, Battletech, Traveller (various editions), too much errata carries all the problems of minor editions changes. In effect those playing with errata are playing a different game then those without.

Specifically in regard to this question then: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1980/how-to-update-a-monster-using-the-dnd4-monster-builder

The example the guy wants to change is a Harpy Screecher.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l84e0cPEdH1qzbcyr.png)

Note: Strangely enough, that's not even a MM1 monster. That's a monster from Dungeon 161 (December 08) and the Tomb of Horrors (which just came out a couple of months ago!). The standards in the earlier MM aren't wrong, they're just different. And not a whole lot different, either.

To compare: Here's a Meenlock Stalker (level 9 controller) from MM3.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l84e240vPx1qzbcyr.png)

So, while I agree that the Meenlock is going to do more damage with it's basic attack- (and that Horrid Link power is cool).. it's not as if the harpy is "useless", especially if the battle takes place on a ship, high cliff, or atop a tall building.

Also, note that if the DM is doing his job, he really wants to use the Meenlock's 1d6+4 attack and be dazing and "twisting" the PCs while other Meenlocks do the damage. It's entirely feasible to use both the Harpy and the Meenlock without ever resorting to a basic attack, unless you absolutely had to.

THIS doesn't make it a new edition.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402414THIS doesn't make it a new edition.

No but 37 pages for the core rule books (along with this) has the same effect.  This is not just edition bashing either I seen the problem afflict MegaTraveller and later editions, Star Fleet Battle, Battletech.

It not a good thing when this much errata accumulates for a game as it makes the first time buyer feel that he was ripped off when he bought his copy. If D&D Essentials doesn't a get a grip on this then it going to hurt D&D bad in the long run.

DDI in theory should help with this but given the level of use of the internet for gaming it only mitigates the problem for the core fans. The large periphery of causal gamers this situation will only be a negative. Every time errata got out of control the game started shedding players like crazy.

By the way, this prompted me to give my own answer to the question. I think benchmarking is a lot more than just resetting the damage values (do the harpy's claws really become sharper when it hits 9th level?)

My recommendation is to leave the base attack like it is, and add in a rechargeable minor action (similar to the Meenlock) that grants a vulnerability to thunder damage and/or a reduced defense against charm attacks. The claw attack on a ranged controller isn't that important in the way it should be used, I think. By the time that particular type of harpy is down to claws, it's probably already as good as dead.

Quote from: estar;402416No but 37 pages for the core rule books (along with this) has the same effect.  This is not just edition bashing either I seen the problem afflict MegaTraveller and later editions, Star Fleet Battle, Battletech.

It not a good thing when this much errata accumulates for a game as it makes the first time buyer feel that he was ripped off when he bought his copy. If D&D Essentials doesn't a get a grip on this then it going to hurt D&D bad in the long run.

DDI in theory should help with this but given the level of use of the internet for gaming it only mitigates the problem for the core fans. The large periphery of causal gamers this situation will only be a negative. Every time errata got out of control the game started shedding players like crazy.

Ok, honest question though: Who seems to *really* have a problem with D&D Essentials? Is it the core fans or the outsiders? I know what kind of errata annoys people who are playing this game. For example, Veterans Armor, that drove people nuts, including my 11 year old son. Matt James of Loremaster was accumulating crazy temp hit points for his Battlerager dwarf long after the errata was released. But monster standards? That's not even errata. That's just a new way of building stuff.

I'm going on two assumptions that may not exactly be universally held positions, but nonetheless, it's what i think:

• Errata serves to correct mistakes and make a game better.
• Most games don't release errata, not because they are "designed perfect", but because the companies that produce them lack the resources or interest. They rely on people being willing to work around or house rule obvious problems.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418Ok, honest question though: Who seems to *really* have a problem with D&D Essentials?

For me? I don't see a problem with D&D Essentials. Pundit, myself and others have advocated that Wizards should be doing something like this for years. As long as they make it complete and not some bastardized stripped down version (like say First Quest) it will achieve the goal of being a good introduction to Dungeons & Dragons. Even if it is based on the 4e ruleset ;)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418

• Errata serves to correct mistakes and make a game better.

You #2 point I think is an accurate observation. But as for the above there is a negative when you have too much errata. Players of the older edition book feel ripped off as there books are not an accurate reflection of the game and/or just has broken rules.

Arguments of "Well you can just ignore the errata for your group." doesn't work in this situation because we are not talking isolated little pockets of gamers anymore. With the internet this stuff gets spread around. Even my casual gamers friend are aware that there is a lot of "fixes" to 4e and they feel negative about it. I just didn't realize that it was 117 pages bad.

Quote from: estar;402420For me? I don't see a problem with D&D Essentials. Pundit, myself and others have advocated that Wizards should be doing something like this for years. As long as they make it complete and not some bastardized stripped down version (like say First Quest) it will achieve the goal of being a good introduction to Dungeons & Dragons. Even if it is based on the 4e ruleset ;)

AKA, the best version of D&D ever published!

QuoteYou #2 point I think is an accurate observation. But as for the above there is a negative when you have too much errata. Players of the older edition book feel ripped off as there books are not an accurate reflection of the game and/or just has broken rules.

Arguments of "Well you can just ignore the errata for your group." doesn't work in this situation because we are not talking isolated little pockets of gamers anymore. With the internet this stuff gets spread around. Even my casual gamers friend are aware that there is a lot of "fixes" to 4e and they feel negative about it. I just didn't realize that it was 117 pages bad.

Well, if it helps the conversation, I don't think you can just ignore errata. I do think it's worth reading the errata commentary and decide if you agree or not.

In the AD&D1e DMG I seem to recall there's a section of commentary about how certain spells should be handled. It clarifies things about (for example) how a light spell could be used to blind an opponent, or whether or not you could use create water to drown an opponent, or how many spells starting characters should have in their spellbook. I recall entire dragon articles clarifying how Hold person works (are you paralyzed? Do you freeze in position? can you talk?). It's not always clear how stuff works even when you simplify it.

Errata at it's best, tries to explain that stuff, and I think a rules update is better than a Dragon Article or a section in a future book or just ignoring the issue.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402428AKA, the best version of D&D never published!

A foolproof version of D&D?  :)

Quote from: ggroy;402433A foolproof version of D&D?  :)

If it were "fool"proof, I'd barely have anyone to argue with.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418Ok, honest question though: Who seems to *really* have a problem with D&D Essentials?

I have no problem with Essentials. I'm kind of hopeful about it, truth be told.

I see a lot of 4E fans confused, though. Some of them disappointed. And some (few) actually angry.

Quote from: estar;402416It not a good thing when this much errata accumulates for a game as it makes the first time buyer feel that he was ripped off when he bought his copy.

As errata has been around for some time in the land of RPGs and as folks are used to products being patched and updated, I'm not sure they'd be exactly shaking in anger over the game having been updated since it was printed.

And, as others have noted, the actual errata itself isn't 37 pages long.

Personally, I feel the only errata that matters is that which substantially affects the core of the game for the majority of folks using it. How much of that is true of the current 4e errata I don't know as I'm happily playing without it...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;402453As errata has been around for some time in the land of RPGs and as folks are used to products being patched and updated, I'm not sure they'd be exactly shaking in anger over the game having been updated since it was printed.

QuoteI didn't say they were shaking in anger.  My meaning with feeling ripped off is that the typical gamer feels that they got a substandard product. It discourages new gamers. Basically they start evaluating alternatives that doesn't have these issues. And the more errata that piles the more apt they will feel.

there is a line and I think Wizards has crossed it with the first version of 4e. Hopefully this won't an issue with Essentials.

Quote from: Seanchai;402453And, as others have noted, the actual errata itself isn't 37 pages long.

QuoteNo but the print document you have to pick through to find out what is important errata for the PHB is 22 pages. And 5 and 7 pages are on the border for the MM and DMG.

Quote from: Benoist;402452I have no problem with Essentials. I'm kind of hopeful about it, truth be told.

I see a lot of 4E fans confused, though. Some of them disappointed. And some (few) actually angry.

I consider myself more annoyed than angry.  And my sole complaint is that they want to change the fundamental ways some powers (rules) work without giving me the option to not use that rule change in the DDI.  If I could turn off the "rule update" for magic missile, and any future similar changes, I would be fine with the whole thing.

As for Essentials themselves, my biggest complaint is that I wish they would have come out with it first because its a lot closer to what I was originally hoping 4e would be (and in fact, comes pretty close to the pseudo-4e version I created when I ran a one-shot based on the preview material before 4e actually came out).  But now I'm deep into my campaign, so no point switching now.

Quote from: estar;402457I didn't say they were shaking in anger.

I know. You meant they'd be upset or irritated. But I don't think they'll be too upset because they're used to it.

For example, I got and installed StarCraft II two days after it was released. There were already patches. There have been several since the game came out. Also, I can wander down to my FLGS and still get the first edition of SpyCraft (and quite a bit of supporting materials). If someone who didn't know there was a significantly expanded second out there, they could easily pick up outdated first edition materials.

That's just the way of the world.

Quote from: estar;402457No but the print document you have to pick through to find out what is important errata for the PHB is 22 pages.

When did looking at a 22 page document become a challenge for people in a hobby centered around books?

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;402452I have no problem with Essentials. I'm kind of hopeful about it, truth be told.

I see a lot of 4E fans confused, though. Some of them disappointed. And some (few) actually angry.

This.

I have no problem with them making changes to the game. I want them to make changes to the game. Heck, the new Wizard power preparation rule is much better than the old one.

But having people go out and say that changes are not being made is just asshattery. Not only is it blithely counterfactual, but it makes it harder for the changes to be implemented if you tell people ahead of time that changes are not being made. If you make changes, you tell people you are making changes. Anything else spreads confusion.

After an advance look at the Heroes of the Something Something player's guide part 1, it appears that Marks are essentially gone. To be replaced with little aura thingies instead. That's fine. In fact, it's easier book keeping than the marks were (no little tokens to hand around for such a minor effect). But it is different. And telling the player base that no differences exist causes such differences to be surprising and counterintuitive.

They should be saying "We figured out better ways to get these ideas across and we're changing the rules to something that is more intuitive." By claiming that no changes exist, they provoke cognitive dissonance every time players encounter a new rule in the books. Which is actually kind of a lot.

-Frank

Quote from: Seanchai;402474I know. You meant they'd be upset or irritated. But I don't think they'll be too upset because they're used to it.

For example, I got and installed StarCraft II two days after it was released. There were already patches. There have been several since the game came out. Also, I can wander down to my FLGS and still get the first edition of SpyCraft (and quite a bit of supporting materials). If someone who didn't know there was a significantly expanded second out there, they could easily pick up outdated first edition materials.

That's just the way of the world.



When did looking at a 22 page document become a challenge for people in a hobby centered around books?

Seanchai

Well, when you get a patch for a computer game, you load it and you're done. It is now part of that computer game. Not really an issue anymore once it is loaded.

When you have just spent a similar amount of money on a RPG, and then find that you have to chase down errata, or get a subscription to DDI which turns your RPG into a "living document" (like an ISO 9000 manual) with constant game rule changing updates - you might not be as interested in getting into the hobby.

It is an unneeded barrier to entry for new Players.

I think the issue is, you interpret everything through your prediction that Essentials is a new edition.

Your evidence is that Fighters Marks (vice the aura used by the Knight build) aren't part of the Essentials books?

It doesn't matter how many people tell you or even when the books actually come out, or..any possible other fact.. that the systems (such as fighters marks, or even the builds that lack daily powers) in Essentials (which is D&D 4th edition) represent an alternate set of integrated and yet slightly simplified mechanics for new players?

Well, that's settled then. New book means new system. New system, means new edition, and new edition means the old one is done. I get that's what some people believe, but I always wonder how far they'll commit to this belief. When challenged on it, they always back down.

When Essentials comes out and it turns out to be 4e and the systems turn out to be additions to (rather than replacements) of existing stuff..what then?

Quote from: jeff37923;402479It is an unneeded barrier to entry for new Players.

New players are in luck for the next few months then. Because the entire D&D Essentials line is pretty much written just for them.

Well to me, the whole 'is it a new edition or not' really is nothing more than an avatar of the old edition wars. The opponents want to "prove" that WotC is lying again and in fact doing exactly what it said it wouldn't do, i.e. 4.5., while the proponents just cling to the idea that no change is taking place whatsoever.

As usual, the truth of the matter is somewhere in-between, and frankly, not relevant at all to what the product is and isn't, in its actual contents, in the end. Each and everyone of us will make that choice upon reading the results.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402483New players are in luck for the next few months then.

This points out that the idea of updates and errata via DDI and actual "evergreen" physical books are contrary ideas, by the way. By which I mean that implementing errata and updates electronically, no matter how smoothly, over whatever period of time, ends up creating a discrepency between what the game has become online and how the game was conceived and still appears on paper. So DDI will *not* in its present form solve the problem of new editions and revisions of the game. This was a red herring from the start akin to the "soon, we won't be using paper at all in offices!" BS of the 90s.

Well, I'd rather have DDI than not have it. If I were playing some other game- any other game--I'd wish there was something akin to DDI for that as well. Managing content, tools, and community in a centralized way would benefit any gaming community. I feel the same way about organized play.

There's no question that DDI has been successful for its present core audience. Though there are some rumblings I read recently on ENWorld on how the content of Dragon and Dungeon is going downhill (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/291906-disappointment-thinning-dragon-content.html). The tools at least have found their hardcore aficionados, no question about it.

Personally, I'm the kind of guy who thinks that if a tabletop RPG requires online tools to be usable or comprehensible, then something's seriously wrong with its design. But hey, I'm not biting into the whole "electronic everything is awesome!" fashion these days, to begin with. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I like it when I can just sit down with a notebook and prepare my game from start to finish using only a pencil, an eraser, and maybe a few dice to spice things up.

Quote from: Benoist;402494There's no question that DDI has been successful for its present core audience. Though there are some rumblings I read recently on ENWorld on how the content of Dragon and Dungeon is going downhill (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/291906-disappointment-thinning-dragon-content.html). The tools at least have found their hardcore aficionados, no question about it.

I've actually found a lot more useful stuff in Dragon  lately, so I didn't comment on that thread

QuotePersonally, I'm the kind of guy who thinks that if a tabletop RPG requires online tools to be usable or comprehensible, then something's seriously wrong with its design. But hey, I'm not biting into the whole "electronic everything is awesome!" fashion these days, to begin with. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I like it when I can just sit down with a notebook and prepare my game from start to finish using only a pencil, an eraser, and maybe a few dice to spice things up.

The bolded word is a disconnect. "requires"? We didn't even have DDI running for a good (critical) chunk of that first year (something that was held up as a subject of great mirth here I recall). And yet- people were still playing.. all of the huge 4E blogs kicked off around that time. Some of the LFR admins that I know of even held off on getting DDI  (well, I think some of them thought they might get free subscriptions, which they didn't, haha).
What it *did* do was make it so easy it's hard to imagine going back. But I got the Essentials Red Box and the Psionic Power book this last month- I got a hands on experience making characters from scratch ust this week.

 It's not that hard. Easier than 3e. Was 3e a problem?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402496The bolded word is a disconnect. "requires"? We didn't even have DDI running for a good (critical) chunk of that first year (something that was held up as a subject of great mirth here I recall). And yet- people were still playing.. all of the huge 4E blogs kicked off around that time. Some of the LFR admins that I know of even held off on getting DDI  (well, I think some of them thought they might get free subscriptions, which they didn't, haha).

Sure. 4E doesn't "require" DDI. I agree. My whole thing was stating "IF a tabletop RPG requires..." to explain my POV on DDI. I wasn't stating that 4E specifically does require DDI. Should have been more precise.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402496What it *did* do was make it so easy it's hard to imagine going back. But I got the Essentials Red Box and the Psionic Power book this last month- I got a hands on experience making characters from scratch ust this week.

AH. That is cool. So maybe that's going to please me.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402496It's not that hard. Easier than 3e. Was 3e a problem?

3e sure was WAY too complicated for many, many people. I manage personally just by having a metric shitload of pregenerated monsters, adventures, treasure etc. I pick and choose, mix and mash, steal encounters here and there, and sometimes, when I want something really specific, THEN I'll go the extra mile and do it from scratch.

If I had to do everything from scratch with 3e, bet your ass that would annoy the heck out of me.

For what its worth, I think the boxed set looks cool. If it includes the errata that's been piling up for two years, I think I could see myself buying the Essentials line or at least some of it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418

• Errata serves to correct mistakes and make a game better.
• Most games don't release errata, not because they are "designed perfect", but because the companies that produce them lack the resources or interest. They rely on people being willing to work around or house rule obvious problems.

Good points.

Quote from: jeff37923;402479When you have just spent a similar amount of money on a RPG, and then find that you have to chase down errata, or get a subscription to DDI which turns your RPG into a "living document" (like an ISO 9000 manual) with constant game rule changing updates - you might not be as interested in getting into the hobby.

I don't know - it may push as much as pull.  The whole "Living Edition" concept of 4e/DDI is intriguing because your game is constantly evolving.

Well...we can see for ourselves how compatible D&D Essentials is with the rest of the 4E line.

Here is a series of videos that feature a game run by Chris Perkins wherein Essentials classes are playing alongside PHB1 classes.

Of further interest, the players include Ed Greenwood, Larry Elmore and R.A. Salvatore along with popular game blogger Matt James (from Critical Hits)

The videos can be found here. (http://www.youtube.com/DNDWizards#p/u)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402483New players are in luck for the next few months then. Because the entire D&D Essentials line is pretty much written just for them.

Except they really haven't made it clear.  Even the local 4e players don't know WTF is going on it with it, and even store clerks who DM 4e aren't quite sure what they should order or why.

Most hobby games are a bit clearer on what their intro or side lines are.

For Battletech you UNDERSTAND the Intro Starter Box is for newbies or people who want more plastic minis.

For Advanced Squad Leader you KNOW the Starter Kits are stripped down versions of the rulesets that build on each other but (usually) stand alone.

For Starfleet Battles they make it clear Federation Commander is a seperate but similar game in the same setting with higher production values and a bunch of rules changing and streamlining.

Back in the TSR days AD&D and D&D were two seperate lines that were mostly compatible but not 100% so.

Essentials seems to be confusing the whole fucking matter.

Is it for new people?  Is it 4.5?  Is it for grognards and people like me who consider 4e a cancer on RPGs?  

They haven't done a good job of it.  Even the propaganda slip in the Ravenloft boardgame doesn't do much more than confuse the issue.  It doesn't show a SINGLE 4e product.  Only Essentials.

Of course this is WOTC so doing things sensibly is problematic for them.  (Water tiles in the Dark Sun tile set?  REALLY?)

Quote from: Shazbot79;402594Well...we can see for ourselves how compatible D&D Essentials is with the rest of the 4E line.

Here is a series of videos that feature a game run by Chris Perkins wherein Essentials classes are playing alongside PHB1 classes.

Of further interest, the players include Ed Greenwood, Larry Elmore and R.A. Salvatore along with popular game blogger Matt James (from Critical Hits)

The videos can be found here. (http://www.youtube.com/DNDWizards#p/u)

Ooooh. Cool. Thanks for the link, mate!

Quote from: Captain Rufus;402627Essentials seems to be confusing the whole fucking matter.

Is it for new people?  Is it 4.5?  Is it for grognards and people like me who consider 4e a cancer on RPGs?  

That's pretty much the bottom line. Let's use WotC's own numbers for a minute. A few years back, they claimed to have six million players. As of this year, they reported that the number of "lapsed players" (whatever that means) is 24 million, and the number of current players is one and a half million.

The people who played D&D but don't play 4e outnumber the people who do by sixteen to one. The 4e tenure of stewarding the title of "Dungeons & Dragons" has witnessed a player base contraction of seventy five percent. And that's their numbers. The ones which are presumably done up in as rosy a manner as possible. For all I know, they could be counting each DMG as corresponding to six actual players (since the suggested table size is one DM and five other players). It's entirely possible that the "real" numbers are uglier even than that. But they don't have to be. WotC's own report presents a hobby is serious "sky-is-falling-this-time-for-real" crisis. And somebody had better do something about it.

And now they are bringing out a bunch of changes and a whole new set of core books. The question is really whether it will be enough to stop the incredible freefall in the number of players that WotC reports that they have. So to me, the thing they should be getting across to people is that they are doing "enough".

But then we got supposed fans like Abyssal Maw ranting about how they aren't doing anything at all. About how nothing has "Really" changed. And that's supposed to make things OK? The player base is a quarter the size it was in the heyday of 3e. That's not OK. Change is necessary. I don't understand why the 4venger crowd thinks they are doing anything other than hurting the franchise by claiming that major changes aren't happening. Even if major changes are not happening, they should still be claiming that they are. Because if Essentials doesn't turn things around you can bet money that Hasbro will ask for something drastic to be done in the near future.

The number of people who aren't buying 4e materials outnumber the people who are by sixteen to one. People who are satisfied with 4e as-is are therefore polling at 5.9%. That's lower than the approval rating of Congress. The question on everyone's mind is "are the changes for Essentials big enough? Are they even changes in the right direction?" And honestly: only time can tell. But if people like AM convince prospective buyers that there are no meaningful changes, then we'll keep staggering on as-is. And the status quo is: D&D is smaller right now than it has been since before most of the people on this board were born. And that's bad.

-Frank

Agreed that the Essentials situation is a mess.  And after all the discussion, everyone still seems as confused as ever what it is.  It still seems like a new edition to me.

I think their mistake was to try and create a simplified version for newbies while trying to appeal to lapsed gamers at the same time.  They should have just left out some of the lesser-used rules (grappling, etc) and restricted PC build options (like one or two power choices at each level, only the four main classes and races) and left it at that.

Instead, we get a bizarre hybrid that is compatible with the 4e rules but the PC builds work completely different (and yet, we're told this is not changing the rules, which just confuses us all more).

In my case, I get to have my 4e campaign interfered with courtesy of DDI (you can't use the CB and not use the rule changes, after all) which is a pain, but I can't just switch over to Essentials either because it is much more limited in the scope of PCs that can be created for it.  I seriously, seriously would have preferred a full 5th edition release to this.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;402777That's pretty much the bottom line. Let's use WotC's own numbers for a minute. A few years back, they claimed to have six million players. As of this year, they reported that the number of "lapsed players" (whatever that means) is 24 million, and the number of current players is one and a half million.

The people who played D&D but don't play 4e outnumber the people who do by sixteen to one. The 4e tenure of stewarding the title of "Dungeons & Dragons" has witnessed a player base contraction of seventy five percent. And that's their numbers. The ones which are presumably done up in as rosy a manner as possible. For all I know, they could be counting each DMG as corresponding to six actual players (since the suggested table size is one DM and five other players). It's entirely possible that the "real" numbers are uglier even than that. But they don't have to be. WotC's own report presents a hobby is serious "sky-is-falling-this-time-for-real" crisis. And somebody had better do something about it.

And now they are bringing out a bunch of changes and a whole new set of core books. The question is really whether it will be enough to stop the incredible freefall in the number of players that WotC reports that they have. So to me, the thing they should be getting across to people is that they are doing "enough".

But then we got supposed fans like Abyssal Maw ranting about how they aren't doing anything at all. About how nothing has "Really" changed. And that's supposed to make things OK? The player base is a quarter the size it was in the heyday of 3e. That's not OK. Change is necessary. I don't understand why the 4venger crowd thinks they are doing anything other than hurting the franchise by claiming that major changes aren't happening. Even if major changes are not happening, they should still be claiming that they are. Because if Essentials doesn't turn things around you can bet money that Hasbro will ask for something drastic to be done in the near future.

The number of people who aren't buying 4e materials outnumber the people who are by sixteen to one. People who are satisfied with 4e as-is are therefore polling at 5.9%. That's lower than the approval rating of Congress. The question on everyone's mind is "are the changes for Essentials big enough? Are they even changes in the right direction?" And honestly: only time can tell. But if people like AM convince prospective buyers that there are no meaningful changes, then we'll keep staggering on as-is. And the status quo is: D&D is smaller right now than it has been since before most of the people on this board were born. And that's bad.

-Frank

I think I understand the issue now.

You are an insane person.

I'll do my best to be nice or neutral about it when at the store...but all this talk about it makes me happy that I play and GM/Reff GURPS.

Less hassle in the long run.


- Ed C.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;402777That's pretty much the bottom line. Let's use WotC's own numbers for a minute. A few years back, they claimed to have six million players. As of this year, they reported that the number of "lapsed players" (whatever that means) is 24 million, and the number of current players is one and a half million.

Wait wait. Where does that last number come from?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402795I think I understand the issue now.

You are an insane person.

I am cornholio!

Quote from: Captain Rufus;402627Is it for grognards and people like me who consider 4e a cancer on RPGs?

There is NOTHING that WotC can do for you.  Zero.  

WotC could reprint AD&D 1e and you would bitch they were profiting from Gygax's corpse.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;402777As of this year, they reported that the number of "lapsed players" (whatever that means) is 24 million, and the number of current players is one and a half million.

I am quite sure the "people who saw Star Wars" compared to the number of people who self-identify as "Star Wars fans" is greater than 16:1.

The RPG populace is dwindling.  No surprise there.  As I've said before, the only hope for D&D's future is an online game table with worldwide 24/7 gameplay that is user friendly and merges quality graphics with the power of a live DM and small group live player interaction.

I have no doubt that would shock the MMO world.   It wouldn't takeover WoW, but it would easily get a 1M+ online players and probably more.

Quote from: Spinachcat;402810As I've said before, the only hope for D&D's future is an online game table with worldwide 24/7 gameplay that is user friendly and merges quality graphics with the power of a live DM and small group live player interaction.

I have no doubt that would shock the MMO world.   It wouldn't takeover WoW, but it would easily get a 1M+ online players and probably more.

If done properly (i.e. NOT as an in-house WotC job), that could be seriously cool.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402795You are an insane person.

He's not insane, he's just bitter, disgruntled, envious, and has blinders on. Personally, I looked at what he had to say for about a week and came to the conclusion he was only here to bitch, almost without exception about 4e, WotC, or his previous employers. Thus I just scroll right on past his posts. Try it - you'll like it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;402805Where does that last number come from?

Where do any of them come from? There's the survey which has a number and a blurb on at least one of the For Dummies books. Those are the only numbers WotC has released that I've seen.

Seanchai

Quote from: Captain Rufus;402627(Water tiles in the Dark Sun tile set?  REALLY?)

This is silly.

A-There is water on Athas.
B-The water is usually poisonous, acidic, salty, or otherwise undrinkable.

The idea that Athas has no water just needs to be done away with.

It's drinkable water that is rare on Athas, not all water.

Quote from: Benoist;402812If done properly (i.e. NOT as an in-house WotC job), that could be seriously cool.

People have already done this...they're called MUD's.

Quote from: Seanchai;402814Where do any of them come from? There's the survey which has a number and a blurb on at least one of the For Dummies books. Those are the only numbers WotC has released that I've seen.

Seanchai

He actually got that from WotC's panel from the 2009 GAMA trade show.

Quote from: Shazbot79;402822People have already done this...they're called MUD's.

Yeah, if you will. But a universal, modern, updated MUD official for D&D, that you can modify at will, etc, search gamer for, join games, create friends list and have all the PMs, voice chat etc functions as well. The XBOX Live of D&D. You know, the virtual game table that never happened for DDI? That was a MAJOR botch in the way WotC managed its marketing for the new game right there.

Thing is? That's THE thing I would have been interested in in DDI. But nooo... they had to botch that one like you know, they botched pretty much everything electronic before.

Quote from: Benoist;402823Yeah, if you will. But a universal, modern, updated MUD official for D&D, that you can modify at will, etc, search gamer for, join games, create friends list and have all the PMs, voice chat etc functions as well. The XBOX Live of D&D. You know, the virtual game table that never happened for DDI? That was a MAJOR botch in the way WotC managed its marketing for the new game right there.

Thing is? That's THE thing I would have been interested in in DDI. But nooo... they had to botch that one like you know, they botched pretty much everything electronic before.

Sort of surprising, given how many gamers are actually in the tech industry...you wouldn't think they'd have so much trouble finding an enthusiastic contractor to do the work.

Quote from: Shazbot79;402822He actually got that from WotC's panel from the 2009 GAMA trade show.

What are the numbers again?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;402825What are the numbers again?

Seanchai

Look at his post?

Quote from: Seanchai;402825What are the numbers again?

Seanchai

According to WotC's presentation, they boast a current 1.5 million players and 24 million "lapsed players".

The info is here (http://www.livingdice.com/3690/wizards-of-the-coast-gts-2010-seminar/)

Frank Trollman may not be the most pleasant guy around, but he doesn't just make shit up.

Quote5:25 PM: Trask 1.5 million players. 24 million lapsed players

Read more: http://www.livingdice.com/3690/wizards-of-the-coast-gts-2010-seminar/#ixzz0yVoSwIWO

WOW. That is true! 75% Drop compared to the 3rd ed estimation!

Quote from: Benoist;402830WOW. That is true! 75% Drop compared to the 3rd ed estimation!

If the 3rd Edition estimate was at all accurate. Furthermore, if it is accurate, we don't know if the drop off in players is do to the rise in prevalence of MMORPG's during that time or if it's because 4E is unanimously regarded by all but a small enclave of slavishly devoted fans as "teh suxxorz".

Truth is, that no one really knows how D&D 4th Edition is doing except for WotC...and they aren't showing us the numbers.

Quote from: Benoist;40283075% Drop compared to the 3rd ed estimation!

75% loss is no surprise.  

I saw many groups vaporize when WoW hit the scene [it butchered the RPG scene at cons] and now C&C and Pathfinder offer previous edition players a continuing line of FLGS products.   And products that are equally glossy in the case of Paizo.

WotC never adjusted to compete with MMOs and then the moronic OGL bit them in the ass.

Quote from: Spinachcat;40283575% loss is no surprise.  

I saw many groups vaporize when WoW hit the scene [it butchered the RPG scene at cons] and now C&C and Pathfinder offer previous edition players a continuing line of FLGS products.   And products that are equally glossy in the case of Paizo.

WotC never adjusted to compete with MMOs and then the moronic OGL bit them in the ass.

Quite a number of 1E AD&D players I knew back in the day, are now heavily addicted WoW players.  About a decade ago or so, they were heavily addicted Diablo or EverQuest players.  

During the 1990's, quite a number of these same individuals were heavily addicted to Doom and Quake.

None of them have played any tabletop pen-and-paper rpgs in more than a decade or two.

Quote from: Spinachcat;40283575% loss is no surprise.

WotC CANNOT be happy with these numbers. At all.

Also, I don't think WoW can be blamed in this instance, since the 6 Million players estimation is from 2007 (Svensson; Dungeons & Dragons reborn, from the Buffalo News, as far as I can tell). No. The difference is clearly 4th edition D&D, with, as you said, a splintering of the D&D audience as a result.

Quote from: Shazbot79;402834If the 3rd Edition estimate was at all accurate.

Granted.

So if the Buffalo News got its numbers from WotC (I seem to remember that's where the estimation comes from in the end, but someone would have to confirm), somehow WotC would have overblown the D&D population in 2007, but now would give an accurate, or underestimated number? I somehow don't think the tools for estimation have improved that much in three years.

Wonder if TSR had any hard numbers on the number of D&D players back in the 1990's and earlier.

Quote from: Shazbot79;402829Frank Trollman may not be the most pleasant guy around, but he doesn't just make shit up.

Make stuff up wholesale? No. Misinterpret or creatively interpret stuff? That I'd buy.

Seanchai

OK. More about this. Someone on RPGnet linked me to the original Buffalo News article (http://web.archive.org/web/20080822150013/http://www.buffalonews.com/185/story/396318.html), which I quote here for fear it disappears:

Quote from: Buffalo NewsDungeons & Dragons reborn
The role-playing legend faces the future by borrowing from its offspring, the online game
By Peter Svensson - ASSOCIATED PRESS
Updated: 07/21/08 10:53 AM

It must be tough to be 34 and already see your children overshadow you. That’s what’s happened to “Dungeons & Dragons,” the role-playing game that for decades has drawn geeks to roll dice and pretend to be elves, sorcerers and other fantasy heroes. It has never quite become mainstream entertainment, but it has inspired role-playing computer games like “World of Warcraft” to borrow its principles and turn them into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Now, “D&D” is borrowing from its imitators. The newest edition of the game, which came out in June, has for the first time paired with online features that the publisher hopes will lure lapsed players back to the dungeon.

“That group that broke up in 1987 because you all graduated from high school and went to schools across the country? Well, you can get that old teenage group back together,” said Scott Rouse, brand manager for “D&D” at Wizards of the Coast. The Hasbro Inc. subsidiary publishes the game.

Role-players have always faced the difficulty of getting together regularly, especially since the games are lengthy. But they talk warmly about the camaraderie fostered by the games, since the players cooperate rather than compete. Though guided by thick rulebooks, the games have an element of theater, with players using the voices of their characters. Not surprisingly, they’re considered uncool by those who lack an appreciation of fantasy.

The new edition, the fourth since “D&D” was created in 1974, may do nothing for the game’s social stigma, but at least players now have the option to commune online. Each screen shows the same virtual 3-D “tabletop” with monsters and heroes, and the players are able to talk via Internet voice chat.

Wizards is also building its own social networking site as a Facebook or MySpace for gamers. The players will be able to create fantasy characters for themselves with an online tool. That streamlines a process that can take hours and dozens of reference books.

Wizards employees are avid players of online games, and the new initiative springs from that experience, Rouse said. It should make it easier to tuck the kids into bed, then “jump on the computer and delve into dungeons, kill monsters and take their stuff,” as he put it.

“D&D’s” influence on computer games was highlighted recently when the death of Gary Gygax, the game’s co-creator, sparked reminiscences across the computer industry. A senior editor at Wired magazine even hailed Gygax as “architect of the now,” seeing the game as inspiring Internet culture in general, like Gmail accounts and Flickr photo sharing.

Yet Gygax, who had not been involved with the game’s development since the 1980s, told the New York Times in 2006 that he wasn’t much into computer games and preferred the intimacy and imagination of the face-to-face game.

“What tabletop gaming gives to people is a reason to get together with your friends and hang out and do a fun social activity together,” said Chris Pramas, a former Wizards employee and now the president of another game company, Green Ronin Publishing.

Wizards emphasizes that it’s trying to keep the good parts of the tabletop game. It lets players, rather than computers, maintain control of the virtual world. It’s also streamlining the rules of the tabletop game to make it faster to play and more accessible.

“D&D” had about 6 million players worldwide last year, according to a survey by Wizards, though Rouse said the figure may be somewhat inflated. Many of those players probably yield little revenue for the company. The gamers buy books and sometimes miniatures, but only one player in the group needs to own a copy of each book.

Wizards does not reveal sales figures, but Pramas estimates the overall market for traditional role-playing games at $30 million annually.

Meanwhile, the massively multiplayer online (or MMO) game “World of Warcraft” has more than 10 million subscribers, most of them paying. Publisher Blizzard Entertainment, a unit of France’s Vivendi conglomerate, doesn’t say how much the game is earning, but a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests it pulls in more than $1 billion per year. U. S. subscribers pay $14.95 per month.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the online features of fourth-edition “D&D” carry a monthly fee of $14.95, though a one-year contract brings the cost down to $9.95 per month.

The new direction for “D&D” isn’t risk-free. “Dungeons & Dragons Online,” an MMO game like “World of Warcraft,” hasn’t done very well. The game, run by Atari Inc. under a license from Hasbro, has less than 100,000 subscribers, according to various estimates.

The new edition of the printed game has already caused a rift in the “D&D” community. Paizo Publishing, an independent company that publishes popular supplementary books for the game, announced recently that it will not support the new edition. It says the previous edition of “D&D” is a better fit and will even create its own game based on that edition.

Then there’s the risk that the future has passed “D&D” by. Many of the core fans that got hooked in their teens are in their 30s now, and today’s teenagers have a wealth of entertainment options.

“ ‘World of Warcraft’ has become the ‘D&D’ of this generation,” said Pramas, 38. “When I was a kid, if you were any sort of nerd, you played ‘D&D.’ That’s not the case anymore.”

Jack Warecki, a software developer in Shirley, N. Y., is also 38. He used to play “D&D” but has shifted toward MMO games — he plays “Lord of the Rings Online” at the moment.

“In terms of time spent and bang for the buck, MMOs just do it better right now, so I’m just not interested in role-playing,” he said.

All the same, he does find a “great social aspect” to the face-to- face game that’s absent from the computer versions. And yes, he and his high school buddies still get together now and then for a game of “D&D.” He plays a wizard who shoots fireballs.

Bolded emphasis mine. It seems that this count of 6 million D&D players might not only include 3e/3.5, but mix all editions of D&D together. It's not obvious, but possible, and might explain the discrepency between the numbers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;402810The RPG populace is dwindling.  No surprise there.  As I've said before, the only hope for D&D's future is an online game table with worldwide 24/7 gameplay that is user friendly and merges quality graphics with the power of a live DM and small group live player interaction.

You mean like NWN tried to do and succeeded quite well, but didn't break into the mainstream?  It had a live DM client and Neverwinter Connections was quite active, AFAIK.  You'd sign up for a game on the calendar, then join the server on game-day and the DM would run you through the adventure via text and real-time game-play.

Still, there are more people playing PbP and IRC RPGs than there are MMO players, I'd guess.  I'd put money on it.  Most of them are not using a system, however, and usually engage in collaborative storytelling, so most of those communities are shunned by tabletop players who hate fanfic and all that stuff, even though most of the people who roleplay on these forums are normal, everyday people who aren't gamers.  I'm serious.  People don't care because they know they're anonymous online, so it doesn't carry any embarrassment or risk of social labeling.   I have friends who'd never sit down to play D&D who only admitted this to me because they knew I played tabletop RPGs and I wouldn't judge them for it.

So, RPG populace as in guys who buy retail games, yeah.  RPG populace as in people who role-play using no system or homebrew, not so clear.

Quote from: BenoistBolded emphasis mine. It seems that this count of 6 million D&D players might not only include 3e/3.5, but mix all editions of D&D together. It's not obvious, but possible, and might explain the discrepency between the numbers.

Well, we don't know what WotC means by "players" and "lapsed players" either. Also, we don't know if their sampling methods are over or under counting. We could seriously suggest alternative versions of interpretations around and around in a circle until we are blue in the face.

Literally all we know is that a bit over a year before 4e dropped, the official word through official channels was that WotC's estimate of their audience was six million people, and nearly 2 years after 4e went up, the official word through official channels was that WotC's estimate of their audience was 1.5 million people. We can speculate as to the hows and whys but the truth is we don't know and won't ever know. But we are confronted with the fact that WotC's public estimate of how many D&D players are left dropped by three quarters in three years. And you know that the biggest single event in that period by a substantial amount was 4e. I mean sure, Elder Evils was a crappy book, but it didn't make 75% of the player base quit.

To say that 4e was anything other than a terrifying and colossal failure is grossly irresponsible. The statistics we have been given by WotC are woefully incomplete, but the picture they present is extremely grim for D&D and by extension the hobby as a whole. We literally can't maintain the rate of collapse, because at the presented rate of player hemorrhage there would be no players left in a year. WotC has to turn things around. Which means that they need change. Change of leadership, change of mechanics, change of presentation, change of rules, change of everything.

I hope that Essentials is enough change to salvage things. But from what I've seen, it isn't. It's a substantial set of changes mind, it's a complete replacement of how things on the player side work and a whole new paradigm of monster numbers. But most of the writers are the same, and most of the "feel" is pretty similar. There's a lot of change, but none of it addresses the methodologies that I believe put them in this situation. That makes me sad.

To put this in perspective: Magic the Gathering also had six million players back in 2003 (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/magiconline/news050903). But in the years since then, they've grown that audience. This year, Hasbro announced that M:tG had had its most successful year ever. It's not like WotC does not have the expertise required to grow their fantasy gaming franchises, it's just that that expertise apparently does not exist in their D&D department.

-Frank

Quote from: Spinachcat;402810As I've said before, the only hope for D&D's future is an online game table with worldwide 24/7 gameplay that is user friendly and merges quality graphics with the power of a live DM and small group live player interaction.

I have no doubt that would shock the MMO world.   It wouldn't takeover WoW, but it would easily get a 1M+ online players and probably more.

Absolutely.  Right now we have a handful of small-funded, labor-of-love Virtual Tabletop Programs out there.  Why aren't they more popular?  You need to be a programmer to houserule anything (or at least be versed in xml).

WoW is so big, so much a part of everyone's lives (if you never played it, you know someone who does/has), that people aren't looking for the next WoW, they are looking for the next thing that isn't WoW.  That thing very well could be online D&D.  

Have a VTT that looks like a modern NWN and simplify the building process so you don't have to have more then average geek-level tech skills to run the damn thing.

Every lapsed player I know personally or have ever asked would jump on a VTT solution in a heartbeat if they could get a regular group for a few hours a week or even month.

D&D requires a much more significant time investment than Magic or video-games.  Most people I know who are video-gamers/Magic players don't play D&D for two reasons:

A) They don't like the idea of roleplaying, or feel embarassed by it
B) They don't want to invest the time to learn or play RPGs

People lead increasingly busy lives and there are tons of distractions out there that are easier to get into.  And with other popular tabletop games, your typical "go" is 45 minutes to an hour and a half, max.  Even making RPGs digital isn't going to easily solve this problem without fundamentally changing the experience of role-playing into something else.  Encounters is a nice idea, but I haven't had a chance to sit down for one, yet, nor do I know if they provide the variety of play necessary to keep new players hooked for the long-term.

The things that I have seen frustrate new players (to tabletop games in general, or just D&D) are combat length and information overload.  Combat length gets exponentially longer the less mastery you have, and there aren't many "simple" options for people who aren't used to minis games or RPGs.  Information overload is also part of the problem with combat, but I've seen it frustrate players and I've almost had people give up during chargen.

'Dissociated' mechanics and all of that are the realm of older players and I have not seen any indication that it's a turn off to new players.  They just don't care.

Of course, if Essentials can help ease newer players into the system, and reconcile some things previous players didn't like, then that's gravy, and I really hope it works out.

Well, I don't believe in any of the estimates. If you watch the Gygax on 60 Minutes interview, they boasted of 3.5 million at the height of AD&D's popularity.

I do know that there's plenty of 4e where I live and literally everywhere I have traveled. I know that I have seen the worst of human behavior in the haters, and I know some people have a desperate desire to spread as much fear, uncertainty and doubt as they can in order to "stop" D&D.

And that's been true forever. I mean, it was true in the 3e days as well. I don't get the industry obsession, really. 4E is ruling now, and it will continue to rule. The fact that it changed enough to cause a split basically made Paizo the second largest RPG company in the entire world. It's like D&D rules twice. I've got more gaming opportunities (and really that's the only standard I can measure any of this stupidity by, in the end) than I have had since AD&D1e. More than even then, really.

There's no such thing as turning the clocks backward. It's never going to be 1980 again. Never ever.

Quote from: CRKrueger;402907Absolutely.  Right now we have a handful of small-funded, labor-of-love Virtual Tabletop Programs out there.  Why aren't they more popular?  You need to be a programmer to houserule anything (or at least be versed in xml).

WoW is so big, so much a part of everyone's lives (if you never played it, you know someone who does/has), that people aren't looking for the next WoW, they are looking for the next thing that isn't WoW.  That thing very well could be online D&D.  

Have a VTT that looks like a modern NWN and simplify the building process so you don't have to have more then average geek-level tech skills to run the damn thing.

Every lapsed player I know personally or have ever asked would jump on a VTT solution in a heartbeat if they could get a regular group for a few hours a week or even month.

Two things:

1) I get the feeling WoW is smaller than ever. I think many of the latest changes are specifically geared to trying to shore up a disppearing player base.

2) With VTT's, XML aint the issue. It's setting up a Virtual network. You have to either be ready to use Hamachi or log into your router and do a lot of fairly complex operations to make your DNS static.

Right, but how do you convince new players that using a VTT or even a system at all is worth it when they can just as while log onto insanely huge message-boards with freeform RP, and they don't have to bother learning anything new, just make a cool character and post?

Quote from: Peregrin;402908A) They don't like the idea of roleplaying, or feel embarassed by it
B) They don't want to invest the time to learn or play RPGs

B) is the biggie amongst the people I know. It's a time sink, and people usually don't understand why one would devote so much time to "just a game". This is where games like D&D Essentials can make a big dent.

As for lapsed players, the one major reason I see for not playing is just "having a life". Explaining you might not show up for the next eight hours to your wife. Having kids around. Schedules. "Other things to do". Or just wanting to take a break during the week-end and not feel like you're going at a game table like it's your second job (don't laugh - there are people who feel like this, especially when the DM starts bitching that the players don't do their job, could be more attentive, etc etc).

Quote from: Peregrin;402908The things that I have seen frustrate new players (to tabletop games in general, or just D&D) are combat length and information overload.  Combat length gets exponentially longer the less mastery you have, and there aren't many "simple" options for people who aren't used to minis games or RPGs.  Information overload is also part of the problem with combat, but I've seen it frustrate players and I've almost had people give up during chargen.

Absoluto-mundo! How many times have I seen newbies to 3rd ed wondering WHY it matters so much to get that +1 instead of +2 right, why is it that there are so many complicated explanations to simple words like "unconscious", why is it that nothing in this freaking game can be SIMPLE, FOR ONCE?

That's a major barrier. And that does NOT mean the rules have to be simplistic, or written for mentally disabled children. That's not the point. The point is the piling up of rules upon rules on the paper instead of having emergent complexity in the ACTUAL game as it is being played. Clear, straightforward rules, but with lots of subtleties in the way they may be employed at the game table. That'd be a winner.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;4029111) I get the feeling WoW is smaller than ever. I think many of the latest changes are specifically geared to trying to shore up a disppearing player base.

Are you innumerate? Do you honestly think your "feelings" about games affect the raw numbers of how many people play them? Do you think that selection bias is a good sampling technique? What the heck?

OK, World of Warcraft numbers. They hit Ten Million (http://www.massively.com/2008/01/22/world-of-warcraft-hits-10-million-players/) in July of 2008; they hit Eleven Million (http://www.wow.com/2008/10/28/world-of-warcraft-hits-11-million-subscribers-worldwide/) in October of the same year. Since then, they have basically "stagnated" at about Eleven and a Half Million Players (http://kotaku.com/5469063/world-of-warcraft-no-growth-since-2008).

But you know what? That's not "smaller than ever". Heck, that's not even smaller. That's the same size. That would be good news, not bad. If 4e D&D were pulling the same number of people now as it was three years ago, that would be great.

Why is it that every time actual published numbers don't agree with your narrative you go on about your feelings? No one cares about your feelings. Facts are more important, and they do not change when you wish super hard.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;402922Are you innumerate? Do you honestly think your "feelings" about games affect the raw numbers of how many people play them? Do you think that selection bias is a good sampling technique? What the heck?

OK, World of Warcraft numbers. They hit Ten Million (http://www.massively.com/2008/01/22/world-of-warcraft-hits-10-million-players/) in July of 2008; they hit Eleven Million (http://www.wow.com/2008/10/28/world-of-warcraft-hits-11-million-subscribers-worldwide/) in October of the same year. Since then, they have basically "stagnated" at about Eleven and a Half Million Players (http://kotaku.com/5469063/world-of-warcraft-no-growth-since-2008).

But you know what? That's not "smaller than ever". Heck, that's not even smaller. That's the same size. That would be good news, not bad. If 4e D&D were pulling the same number of people now as it was three years ago, that would be great.

Why is it that every time actual published numbers don't agree with your narrative you go on about your feelings? No one cares about your feelings. Facts are more important, and they do not change when you wish super hard.

-Frank

It's not 2008 anymore, Frank. Starcraft 2 is out.
Why are the servers more open than ever, then? Why did they change the recruit a friend program to offer ever increasing rewards. At this point you can even get a flying mount.

It's definitely still huge, but is it as huge as it always was? There was a time when almost everyone I knew was playing, and a good percentage of them were even doing stuff like buying gold on Ebay, that sort of thing. And now almost everyone I knew.."has played" but isn't any longer. Last year, I walked through the hotel lobby at GenCon and saw a lot of people casually playing on laptops. This year, not a single person.

I think things have changed.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the population just shifted from here to Asia, or maybe it's something else entirely.

But that's kind of a side argument, I guess.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402923It's not 2008 anymore, Frank. Starcraft 2 is out.

That's why the third link was from 2010, which reported 11.5 million players. Admittedly, Starcraft 2 did come out since then, and so did a great many other games. But WoW has stayed fairly steady for nearly 2 years before that, do you honestly expect us to believe that there was a catastrophic drop in players in the last six months without any hard evidence?

QuoteWhy are the servers more open than ever, then?

Well, the number of players has stayed fairly constant since Q4 2008, is it really surprising that they would have built up server space to handle that load in that time? Open servers just means that they aren't pushed beyond capacity by growth beyond their ability to handle.

QuoteWhy did they change the recruit a friend program to offer ever increasing rewards. At this point you can even get a flying mount.

Maybe someone in marketing thinks they are going to get fired if they can't get the kind of expansion they had in 2008? Sure it's profitable to have 11.5 million paid subscribers, but they are still a business and still want to get more players. Changes in marketing strategy do not necessarily mean that populations of players have fallen (although it could mean that). It could also mean that growth has fallen.

To bring this back to 4th edition D&D, the arrival of Essentials doesn't necessarily mean that 4e has hemorrhaged players left and right. It could just
mean that the number of players was some fixed number and someone in marketing is making a gamble to try to reach other players they didn't have already. It's the actual published numbers that mean that the player base has shrunk.

-Frank

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402909There's no such thing as turning the clocks backward.

Nonsense.

Just drive a DeLorean DMC-12 at 88 mph.  :D

Quote from: ggroy;402926Nonsense.

Just drive a DeLorean DMC-12 at 88 mph.  :D

I got to get me one of those. :D

Quote from: Benoist;402929I got to get me one of those. :D

Time machine, yeah. But the DeLorean is a crappy looking vehicle. Crap. :D

Quote from: PaladinCA;403025Time machine, yeah. But the DeLorean is a crappy looking vehicle. Crap. :D

A couple of days ago I saw one driving around near where I live. I hadn't seen one on the road in years; a few of them were in the area because I'd see them parked or running around back in the 90s. I have to say that the car still looks pretty cool, though I missed the time machine equipment on the rear.