TheRPGSite

I admit, I haven't seen the actual D&D starter set.  But I did just read the review at RPG.NET (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=422691).

From the review, the starter set apparently includes mostly only combat rules, some decent tile and counter components, and five pre-generated characters with no way to make your own characters.  It seems to be just like Keep on the Shadowfell, written to an audience of 3e players.

To me, this would seem to be yet another missed opportunity by WotC.

Why, oh why, do they never try to reproduce the massively successful appeal of the 80's basic sets and instead provide customers with completely gimped starter sets???

Wouldn't it have made way more sense to create a version that served as a true intro to role-playing games?  With scaled-back rules that would let you create your own characters using the four basic races and classes up to, say, level 10?  Or even just level 5?

Why bother to redesign the whole game to appeal to the non-RPG WoW crowd, and then completely fail to provide an introductory product that might actually catch their interest?

EDIT: I will concede the point that they managed to put something out for a pretty good price point ($18).  But still...

Fully agree.   They could have had 4 races and 4 classes with abbreviated chargen rules to 3rd level (human, eladrin, dragonborn, dwarf with paladin, rogue, wizard and warlord).   Taking out character creation and the ability to make your own hero is a BAD way to market a game which is hugely about creating diverse characters.

I've got a copy of the 4e Starter Set on order, should arrive soon. I want to compare it with what is in Keep on the Shadowfell.

Honestly, I thought WotC hit the mark right on the nose with the first version of the 3e D&D Basic Game. You had a simple character generation ruleset, some dungeon design rules, map tiles, dice, and minis plus you got some pregenerated PCs for those who wanted to just use the included Quick-Start rules. Why they ever abandoned that model is beyond me.

Quote from: jgants;262997To me, this would seem to be yet another missed opportunity by WotC.

Why, oh why, do they never try to reproduce the massively successful appeal of the 80's basic sets and instead provide customers with completely gimped starter sets???

I don't think it's a failure, fumble or missed opportunity anymore. This is exactly the kind of set I expected. A set that sucks balls in your eyes and mines, but directs a few interested players as quickly as possible to the "big game" for more options. The set seems to be very representative of what 4th edition is going for.

I still get your point that it sucks. And I could never buy this thing as a gift for anyone.

As for the 80s set appeal... it's true that they were wonderful (just the mention of them always makes me want to play a little) but I think it can be acknowledged that it was a different era. I doubt a more well-rounded product would make much of a positive difference for WotC. (that was a bit off-topic but I still felt like sharing  :D )

Quote from: Consonant Dude;263013I don't think it's a failure, fumble or missed opportunity anymore. This is exactly the kind of set I expected. A set that sucks balls in your eyes and mines, but directs a few interested players as quickly as possible to the "big game" for more options. The set seems to be very representative of what 4th edition is going for.

I still get your point that it sucks. And I could never buy this thing as a gift for anyone.

Well, isn't that a failure (if widespread)?  I mean, surely as a product it should be the sort of thing that a gamer would buy as a Christmas present for one's nieces or nephews or younger cousins, say -- or that a parent would buy based on gamer reviews.  That seems like the target market.  

There are a few role-playing game sets that I would recommend for my niece, nephews, or friend's kids.

Quote from: jhkim;263025Well, isn't that a failure (if widespread)?  I mean, surely as a product it should be the sort of thing that a gamer would buy as a Christmas present for one's nieces or nephews or younger cousins, say -- or that a parent would buy based on gamer reviews.  That seems like the target market.

I don't know if the failure is widespread. I think this basic set is mostly to be pushed by stores for newbies and parents on a budget. But if the game is fantastic and more self-contained, would people switch to the (themselves lacking) corebooks?

It seems to me WotC has now firmly established a model where self-contained products have little place.

I see the basic set as a business card of sort and something to pass time until you're "cool enough" to get the core books and more.

Quote from: jhkim;263025There are a few role-playing game sets that I would recommend for my niece, nephews, or friend's kids.

Would you mind recommending them? I have three roleplaying gift bags to give for Christmas. I'm aiming in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 if possible but can be flexible.

So far, I only have one gift bag figured out: Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Points of Light.

I thought about offering three identical sets but would prefer the joy of variety :)

WoTC knows exactly what they're doing.  They've designed their basic set to be an intro to the full version and thats it.  

  To be honest, it sickens me to no end too.  I would like to have a MUCH simplified version to play ( that doesn't use minis ), but WoTC will never do that because it would take away sales of the full version.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;263029Would you mind recommending them? I have three roleplaying gift bags to give for Christmas. I'm aiming in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 if possible but can be flexible.

So far, I only have one gift bag figured out: Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Points of Light.

I thought about offering three identical sets but would prefer the joy of variety :)

Depending on the age, there's Faery's Tale Deluxe (http://firefly-games.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=25&products_id=48) (that'd be more for younger kids, I imagine).  Brave Halfling Publishing has Castles, Kids, and Caves (http://bravehalflingpublishing.blogspot.com/2008/10/kids-castles-caves-is-released.html),  but I haven't looked at it yet.

I was thinking that a D&D Lite (such as what SJ Games did with GURPS Lite) would be a great starting point.  A free basic pdf or printed nibbler would encourage people to pick up the rules to check it out, and then point people in the direction of the big game as they want more options.  That free basic nibbler could also appeal to kids who don't want to wade through the full books but are curious about the game.

--Mike L.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;263029IBut if the game is fantastic and more self-contained, would people switch to the (themselves lacking) corebooks?  

It worked for Basic.  It was the only really successful intro product that D&D had.  Some people stuck with it but even most of those bought the AD&D books.  
 
Based on the description, I can't see this as adding very many new players.  I can see not wanting to give everything at start but you have to give enough for people to most of the parts and what's really cool about the game.
 
I would have gone up to level 10 or so with 3-4 races and 4 classes, with a slightly reduced suite of powers and none of the higher level powers (Hey Kids! Wanna blow up thing better?  Buy the full books!)

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263150I was thinking that a D&D Lite (such as what SJ Games did with GURPS Lite) would be a great starting point.  A free basic pdf or printed nibbler would encourage people to pick up the rules to check it out, and then point people in the direction of the big game as they want more options.  That free basic nibbler could also appeal to kids who don't want to wade through the full books but are curious about the game.

--Mike L.

There used to be something like this set up as a Flash Player game on the old WotC 3e website. It worked pretty well as advertising.

Oh for fuck's sake...

RPGPundit

Quote from: jgants;262997Why, oh why, do they never try to reproduce the massively successful appeal of the 80's basic sets and instead provide customers with completely gimped starter sets?

Because it's failed to work time and time again. Yes, absolutely, it worked well in the early 80s. Not so much since then.

Quote from: jgants;262997Wouldn't it have made way more sense to create a version that served as a true intro to role-playing games?

The starter set, which I actually have, does serve as a true introduction to roleplaying games. What it isn't is a stand alone product.

Quote from: jgants;262997Why bother to redesign the whole game to appeal to the non-RPG WoW crowd, and then completely fail to provide an introductory product that might actually catch their interest?

They did. It just didn't catch your interest. Or met your expectations.

Gamers already in the hobby expect the box labeled "starter set" and "intro" to be a "complete" game that's playable for decades because that's how they began in the hobby. That isn't necessarily what today's new gamer expects or even wants.

Quote from: jgants;262997EDIT: I will concede the point that they managed to put something out for a pretty good price point ($18).  But still...

It's actually $16.99. Which would have been $7.73 in 1983.

And, apparently, Amazon only has three left in stock.

Seanchai

Quote from: Nicephorus;263169It worked for Basic.

No, it didn't.

First and foremost, the Basic set is hardly a complete game. You can play in the same little pond forever if you'd like, but you're still not swimming in an ocean. You've got dungeons, the same character options, the same levels, the same spells, the same monster, etc., over and over and over again.

Second, folks moved from OD&D to AD&D, which was a different game. As I understand it, it was intended that OD&D continue on as a separate product line after AD&D was introduced and folks who liked the (relative) simplicity of OD&D could stick with it while others could use AD&D. What happened, however, was that most folks just moved on to AD&D. And while it certain bares similarities with OD&D, AD&D is a separate and distinct game.

So, no, OD&D didn't move folks along to a more complete version of itself.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;263242No, it didn't.

Really? Basic box sets sold extremely well.  RPGs had a boom time.  How is that not working?  I bet no other intro D&D game since then has sold a tenth as many copies.
 
Secondly, The red box set was far more complete than any basic set since.  It had full character creation rules, dungeon creation, and monsters.  Keep on the Borderlands was enough to keep going for several sessions, far more gaming content that was in the D20 intro game.
 
Thirdly, moving on to AD&D was the intent.  That's what an intro product is for.  Then some people wanted to stay with D&D, so they made books for that too.  Either way, people where getting enough out of the basic set that they were going on to buy more product.
 
Basic (OD&D typically refers to the original rules not the later Moldvay/Mentzer line) is different from AD&D but they are quite similar on the whole and people mixed and matched between games and adapted products across systems without much thought.

Quote from: Nicephorus;263247Basic box sets sold extremely well.

And in less than two weeks, Amazon is almost out of stock of the 4e one.

Quote from: Nicephorus;263247Secondly, The red box set was far more complete than any basic set since.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Granted, it's certainly more complete than WotC's intro sets, but there are a surprising number of intro sets that TSR put out. I don't have all of them, so I can't say how complete or incomplete they are.

Quote from: Nicephorus;263247...far more gaming content that was in the D20 intro game.

You're missing the point. OD&D was more complete because it wasn't meant to be an intro to anything, but rather a game in its own right. You're comparing it to products that are meant to be incomplete.

Whether or not WotC should be releasing an incomplete intro set is what you want to be arguing as this apples and oranges approach.
 

Quote from: Nicephorus;263247Thirdly, moving on to AD&D was the intent.

That's not what I've been told. Apparently, there was something in Dragon to the effect. Moreover, when OD&D was created, there was no AD&D for folks to move on to.

Quote from: Nicephorus;263247Basic (OD&D typically refers to the original rules not the later Moldvay/Mentzer line) is different from AD&D but they are quite similar on the whole...

"And while it certainly bares similarities with OD&D, AD&D is a separate and distinct game." In other words, I already said it was similar.

But there are also some big difference, particular with races and classes. The depth and addition of rules also move the games further apart, particularly if you actually use the rules.

Quote from: Nicephorus;263247...and people mixed and matched between games and adapted products across systems without much thought.

As I said in another thread, I converted a 1920's BRP CoC campaign on the fly for use with a d20 1990's CoC game. People used OD&D products in AD&D and vice versa? Big deal.

Seanchai

You skipped the bottom line.  Red box D&D generated tons of additional sales for D&D and AD&D; that made it a great intro.  None of the other intro sets did nearly as well, though it is too soon to tell with 4e.
 
my impression is that most 3e players started with the phb and high percentage of them were experienced players.  I'm not sure how many jr. high kids started with the basic set and moved on to 3e, I don't think there were that many jr. high 3e players at all.

Quote from: Nicephorus;263272You skipped the bottom line.  Red box D&D generated tons of additional sales for D&D and AD&D; that made it a great intro.  None of the other intro sets did nearly as well, though it is too soon to tell with 4e.

I agree with your points here. But, as you say, it's too soon to tell how 4e's intro set will do. I suspect, however, given this metric, it won't do any better than previous set.

Seanchai

Quote from: Nicephorus;263272You skipped the bottom line.  Red box D&D generated tons of additional sales for D&D and AD&D; that made it a great intro.  None of the other intro sets did nearly as well, though it is too soon to tell with 4e.
 
my impression is that most 3e players started with the phb and high percentage of them were experienced players.  I'm not sure how many jr. high kids started with the basic set and moved on to 3e, I don't think there were that many jr. high 3e players at all.

Several years ago, I stopped by the cubicle of a coworker to discuss some coding he was doing.  One of his kids (aged 10) was in the room with him poring over something.  When I got done talking to my coworker, I got a better glance at what the kid was going through:  the D&D Basic Game.  A basic game -done right- is one way the hobby can bring in new blood.

--Mike L.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263290A basic game -done right- is one way the hobby can bring in new blood.

I agree that it can, it's just not.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;263300I agree that it can, it's just not.

  Because it doesn't exist.

Quote from: Seanchai;263300I agree that it can, it's just not.

Seanchai

Yeah, I know.  To expand upon my first point (back earlier in the thread) is that an intro set should be written for a person who has never picked up an RPG at all and should just simply propel them into gaming.  That's it.  All you need is a 40 page pdf or a free printout to get people roleplaying:  

• Explanation what roleplaying is
• Short explanation of the D&D Universe
• Character creation with 4 classes
• A level or three's worth of data
• Stats for 5-10 monsters
• Stats for some equipment and magic items
• Explanation of challenges (skill and combat)
• Sample adventure with some pregen characters (Black Dougal, anyone?)

That's it.  No minis, no paper maps, no nothing.  The Moldvay Basic Set had levels 1-3 data and the KotB to keep people busy.  Keeping the characters to four basic types (Cleric, Fighter, Wizard and Rogue) and Levels 1-3 allows for enough simplicity for a newbie to pick up the game, but gives that newbie enough flexibility to play for a while before upgrading to the full game.

WotC could market a doc like this in a similar fashion to when Tor was putting out those "first several chapters" of The Eye of the World into a free book; booksellers I knew used to call those free books "a free sample of crack".

--Mike L.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263400Yeah, I know.  To expand upon my first point (back earlier in the thread) is that an intro set should be written for a person who has never picked up an RPG at all and should just simply propel them into gaming.  That's it.  

That was my original point as well - why bother to produce an "intro set" that is useless for pretty much everyone.  

Sure, it sold well - it was cheap and there are tons of people out there who will buy darn near anything WotC puts out.  The 4e advertisement books that people bought were more than enough proof of that.

But it is pretty unlikely to bring in new role-players, nor does that appear to be its main purpose.  Honestly, I don't really know if it has a main purpose other than "Let's get those collectors to buy something they already own again" or maybe "One last attempt to appeal to 3e players who didn't buy the previews, the H1 module, or the 4e core books".

Ahem.

Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm)

Swords & Wizardry (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/corerulesproducts.htm)[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

It's interesting that WotC just didn't follow the formula that TSR established for their introductory RPG sets, and even their own for 3.0 D&D and 3.5 D&D introductory sets.

Excluding B/X and BECMI (which were great), there were several introductory sets over the years:

Dungeons & Dragons Game (1991)
Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game (1994)
First Quest (1994)
Introduction to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1995)
Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game (1999)
Dungeons & Dragons Basic Game (2004, 2006)

These all used the same formula, which is to provide several races, several classes, and rules for advancement up to 1-5 level.  These all provided pre-generated characters, but also provided rules for creating your own character.

I don't understand why WotC deviated from the successful formula of providing rules for advancement up to 3rd or 5th level, and rules for creating your character.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263400Yeah, I know.  To expand upon my first point (back earlier in the thread) is that an intro set should be written for a person who has never picked up an RPG at all and should just simply propel them into gaming.  That's it.  All you need is a 40 page pdf or a free printout to get people roleplaying:  

• Explanation what roleplaying is
• Short explanation of the D&D Universe
• Character creation with 4 classes
• A level or three's worth of data
• Stats for 5-10 monsters
• Stats for some equipment and magic items
• Explanation of challenges (skill and combat)
• Sample adventure with some pregen characters (Black Dougal, anyone?)

If it really is just an introduction and aimed at folks who have never played before, why character creation and advancement? I mean, if I went to an Intro to Dance class, I wouldn't be learning hours worth of dance, how to create my own choreography, etc.. I'd learn a couple of basic dances.

Again, I think the idea that the intro set has to provide more than a few sessions worth of play springs almost solely from the manner in which we were introduced to gaming, not the needs or expectations of new gamers.

Seanchai

Quote from: Drohem;263561I don't understand why WotC deviated from the successful formula of providing rules for advancement up to 3rd or 5th level, and rules for creating your character.

Because it wasn't a successful formula. As you noted, there many other introductory products TSR put out besides the red box. How often do you meet someone who says, "I learned how to play using First Quest!" as opposed to "I started with the red box!"?

You've got a plethora of introductory products that are either in print or not very long out of print, yet no corresponding jump in the number of gamers. I wouldn't say that was successful.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;263604If it really is just an introduction and aimed at folks who have never played before, why character creation and advancement? I mean, if I went to an Intro to Dance class, I wouldn't be learning hours worth of dance, how to create my own choreography, etc.. I'd learn a couple of basic dances.

Again, I think the idea that the intro set has to provide more than a few sessions worth of play springs almost solely from the manner in which we were introduced to gaming, not the needs or expectations of new gamers.

Seanchai

I think any basic set needs to contain character creation and advancement info (even if only 1-3 levels worth) because it adds value to the basic set.  Otherwise, someone who would be interested in starting from scratch would skip the basic set and buy the core books.  

That is where WotC's strategy falls down:  people who want to start gaming will look at the price tag of the basic game and the price tag of the core books, and figure why spend the extra dollars if I end up wanting the core books anyway?  WotC has missed a golden opportunity to create an intro set of rules as a free pdf or a free doc that could be easily distributed and would generate interest without a prospective gamer wondering why he/she should shell out the additional money for the intro game.

--Mike L.

Quote from: Seanchai;263606Because it wasn't a successful formula. As you noted, there many other introductory products TSR put out besides the red box. How often do you meet someone who says, "I learned how to play using First Quest!" as opposed to "I started with the red box!"?

You've got a plethora of introductory products that are either in print or not very long out of print, yet no corresponding jump in the number of gamers. I wouldn't say that was successful.

Seanchai

If it wasn't successful, then why did WotC use that temple for their introductory set for 3.0 D&D, and then again for 3.5 D&D as recently as 2004 and 2006?  All the TSR introductory sets are 10-15 years old.

Quote from: Drohem;263618If it wasn't successful, then why did WotC use that temple for their introductory set for 3.0 D&D, and then again for 3.5 D&D as recently as 2004 and 2006?

They did? You said, "I don't understand why WotC deviated from the successful formula of providing rules for advancement up to 3rd or 5th level, and rules for creating your character." I could have sworn TSR's late stuff and WotC's stuff did not include the types of rules you're talking about.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;263632They did? You said, "I don't understand why WotC deviated from the successful formula of providing rules for advancement up to 3rd or 5th level, and rules for creating your character." I could have sworn TSR's late stuff and WotC's stuff did not include the types of rules you're talking about.

Seanchai

That statement was specifically for the 4e introductory game.

The 1999 game included information on raising a character up to 3rd level, and the 2004/2006 game included information on raising a character to 2nd level.

Character creation and advancement are important because they are two of the defining characteristics of RPGs (despite what unpopular Forge games may try and tell you, they really are).

They are also very much part of the MMO phenomena - do you really think MMOs would be nearly as popular if you weren't able to create your own character and get level advances?  That's pretty much the whole point.

So if you are going to build a new edition around the idea of attracting MMO players, it makes sense to include the most popular features of MMOs, does it not?

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263616I think any basic set needs to contain character creation and advancement info (even if only 1-3 levels worth) because it adds value to the basic set.

For me, a person who already knows how to play, I agree - rules for character creation and advancement are great and value added. I'm not sure that a person who picks up an intro kit expects anything more than an intro.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263616Otherwise, someone who would be interested in starting from scratch would skip the basic set and buy the core books.

That could be. But people do chose short introductions over full materials. For example, I understand the Dummies series is booming...

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263616WotC has missed a golden opportunity to create an intro set of rules as a free pdf or a free doc that could be easily distributed and would generate interest without a prospective gamer wondering why he/she should shell out the additional money for the intro game.

I do agree with you there.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgants;263640Character creation and advancement are important because they are two of the defining characteristics of RPGs (despite what unpopular Forge games may try and tell you, they really are).

*cough*TRAVELLER*cough*

Quote from: jgants;262997From the review, the starter set apparently includes mostly only combat rules, some decent tile and counter components, and five pre-generated characters with no way to make your own characters.  It seems to be just like Keep on the Shadowfell, written to an audience of 3e players.

To me, this would seem to be yet another missed opportunity by WotC.

Yup. However because it is a game instead of a book the retailers will at least not rip off the cover when it is returned to the distributor, and it will likely be sold later on down the road at a steep discount.

This is known as devaluing intellectual property and is an accepted practice if you just happen to buy the IP of your competitor. That's how you break down their market share and rebuild it into something useful for your new game lines.

I'm voting with my pocketbook here and just saying no to 4e all together.  Better to put that money into developing OGL material that everyone can use.

Wouldn't the D&D Miniatures Game be the 'Basic D&D' of today?

I don't actually know the answer to this - this is a request for information, not a rhetorical question:

Did GURPS Lite either

* Succeed in getting new people into role-playing (as opposed to getting existing role-players into GURPS)?

* fail, by reducing sales of GURPS?

Quote from: droog;263666*cough*TRAVELLER*cough*

If rpg's need advancement, why does Traveller have an ongoing popularity? If rpg's don't need advancement, why does Traveller seem to be the only one that doesn't have it?

Quote from: Age of Fable;263728If rpg's need advancement, why does Traveller have an ongoing popularity? If rpg's don't need advancement, why does Traveller seem to be the only one that doesn't have it?

Traveller's the only famous one I can think of, but there are others. I'm not going to say that a lot of people don't want some form of advancement, but it can't be definitional.

Fun fact: Traveller does have advancement rules, but the system is so ham-fisted and the gain so marginal that everyone upon first reading promptly forgets they exist.

In any case, leveling up is part of the core D&D experience, and not including that in an introductory game for fear of "cannibalizing the brand" or some shit is a bit silly.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;263746Fun fact: Traveller does have advancement rules, but the system is so ham-fisted and the gain so marginal that everyone upon first reading promptly forgets they exist.

I can even tell you that they are to be found in Book 2, but they are pretty useless.

Quote from: Age of Fable;263723I don't actually know the answer to this - this is a request for information, not a rhetorical question:

Did GURPS Lite either

* Succeed in getting new people into role-playing (as opposed to getting existing role-players into GURPS)?

* fail, by reducing sales of GURPS?

Don't know on the first count, but I picked up Gurps 3rd edition after Downloading and printing the Gurps Lite and trying out the system. I have over a dozen books in my Gurps library now, and run Alpha Centauri games from time-to-time. Have always wanted to a run a Witch World game as well.

Quote from: Age of Fable;263723I don't actually know the answer to this - this is a request for information, not a rhetorical question:

Did GURPS Lite either

* Succeed in getting new people into role-playing (as opposed to getting existing role-players into GURPS)?

* fail, by reducing sales of GURPS?

I can't tell you about getting new people into roleplaying, but when I was considering GURPS:Traveller, one of my local FLGS' had printed out copies of GURPS Lite as a free handout.  I was able to peruse GURPS Lite and decide whether I wanted to pursue G:T without standing around and reading the GURPS books for an hour or so at the store.  While I still haven't gotten the G:T campaign off the ground, I did decide to buy the main GURPS books based on what I saw (and liked).

--Mike L.

Quote from: Age of Fable;263728If rpg's need advancement, why does Traveller have an ongoing popularity? If rpg's don't need advancement, why does Traveller seem to be the only one that doesn't have it?

Traveller is clearly the exception that proves the rule.

And again, it's the advancement characteristic that has made every MMO, like the CRPGs before them, popular.  Heck, it's the only reason why CRPGs were even called RPGs, as most even lacked the ability to create your own unique characters in the beginning.

Quote from: Drohem;263638The 1999 game included information on raising a character up to 3rd level, and the 2004/2006 game included information on raising a character to 2nd level.

In other words, the intro kits are contain fewer and fewer character creation and advancement options as time passes...

Seanchai

Quote from: jgants;263640Character creation and advancement are important because they are two of the defining characteristics of RPGs (despite what unpopular Forge games may try and tell you, they really are).

Yet they're played without either of those all the time.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgants;263941Traveller is clearly the exception that proves the rule.

It's not the only exception. Without even thinking about it, I know of one other game which doesn't have advancement rules: Everway.

Seanchai

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263867I can't tell you about getting new people into roleplaying, but when I was considering GURPS:Traveller, one of my local FLGS' had printed out copies of GURPS Lite as a free handout.  I was able to peruse GURPS Lite and decide whether I wanted to pursue G:T without standing around and reading the GURPS books for an hour or so at the store.  While I still haven't gotten the G:T campaign off the ground, I did decide to buy the main GURPS books based on what I saw (and liked).

Along those lines, I will say that I do think an existing gamer who was new to D&D would like a more full game in the starter set.

Seanchai

Quote from: Age of Fable;263728If rpg's need advancement, why does Traveller have an ongoing popularity? If rpg's don't need advancement, why does Traveller seem to be the only one that doesn't have it?

Traveller has clear advancement it is in a form other than updating character stats. It is reflected in the two most popular forms of traveller campaigns; the mercenary and the free trader.

It the acquisition of more wealth, and power along with the accumulation of knowledge about the mysteries of the setting of the Third Imperium. The major rule subsystems and the subsequent supplements support these theme so strongly that the lack of character advancement hasn't held back Traveller. However it hasn't helped it either. As many noted character advancement is so prevalent in RPG design it is a shock when it is not present.

I will add that the character generation system also contributes to having Traveller accepted despite it lack of advancement. However the lack advancement that most people, in my experiences, wind up rolling characters with 5 to 7 terms.

Quote from: Seanchai;263953It's not the only exception. Without even thinking about it, I know of one other game which doesn't have advancement rules: Everway.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about popular games.

Quote from: jgants;264032I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about popular games.

And Traveller is popular? C'mon.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;264057And Traveller is popular? C'mon.

Well, popular-ish, at least.  

I admit, I usually find the purported historical popularity of Traveller and (especially) Runequest to be rather exaggerated from my observations of the 80's gaming scene.  But maybe that's a US vs UK thing.

Anyhow, wouldn't that just prove my point further - that popular games all used character advancement rules, making such rules a cornerstone of the RPG experience?

Quote from: jgants;263941Traveller is clearly the exception that proves the rule.

No, it's not, 'cause Traveller does include rules for character advancement.

It just doesn't have classes and levels.

Quote from: jgants;263941Traveller is clearly the exception that proves the rule.

How does that one work again?

Quote from: The Shaman;264204No, it's not, 'cause Traveller does include rules for character advancement.

It just doesn't have classes and levels.

If I recall correctly, the only game that really eschewed just about any kind of character advancement to a noticeable degree was probably TSRs Boot Hill.  It took grueling, painful  scores of 'adventures' to finally scrape together enough xp to raise one of your skills a point or two.  And it has been so long since I played that, I don't really recall if you even could raise scores.

Regarding advancement in Traveller, it was hardly worth the effort.  Any improvement to skills is done in four year blocks, in which you can increase your education by 6 (only if your EDU was below your INT to begin with), or you can obtain a single skill at level 2.  After you spend CR 70k.

You can temporarily increase weapon skills for the duration of a four year training regimen, but those increases aren't permanent until the end of a second four year course, and you have to make a dedication to purpose throw of 8+.  Increasing other skills is similar in mechanics.

STR, END and DEX can be increased through a physical training program, but only if you make a dedication throw of 8+, and the benefits are lost if you discontinue the program.

In other words, those really aren't advancement rules.  Those are occasional minor improvement rules, as long as you don't mind being more or less out of the action for almost a decade.

Quote from: StormBringer;264278If I recall correctly, the only game that really eschewed just about any kind of character advancement to a noticeable degree was probably TSRs Boot Hill.  It took grueling, painful  scores of 'adventures' to finally scrape together enough xp to raise one of your skills a point or two.  And it has been so long since I played that, I don't really recall if you even could raise scores.

Are you thinking of 3e Boot Hill?

The 2e BH experience metric is very simple: number of gunfights survived. As your character survives gunfights, s/he becomes faster and more accurate.

(As a side note, my favorite rules in BH have to do with drinking: if your character consumes alcohol, the character's gun and throwing accuracy decreases but his or her courage increases. I discoverd that my character was actually more accurate drunk than sober as the increase in courage-related accuracy was greater than the loss from the gun accuracy score. Good times.)

Quote from: StormBringerRegarding advancement in Traveller, it was hardly worth the effort. . . . In other words, those really aren't advancement rules.  Those are occasional minor improvement rules, as long as you don't mind being more or less out of the action for almost a decade.

That's not accurate.

The only one that required your character to spend a term-equivalent was the trade school option, that granted a single [skill]-2 (or college to increase Edu) at the end of four years. We most often use this option as part of chargen: after the character musters out, the player might spend some cash to pick up an additional skill before actual adventuring begins.

All of the other advancement options can be pursued in the course of adventuring; they happen in the background for all intents and purposes, provided the character is able to justify some time spent in study. Usually this is time spent in jump space between worlds.

There are also the training rules associated with the Instruction skill: new skills can be picked up in as little as weeks, or at worst months, rather than years.

I really like advancement in Traveller, because it's something that a player chooses, rather than an across the board increase in stats gained from potentially unrelated activity. I also like that the advancement rules improved skills at the same rate as normal chargen.

Shaman, per LBB 2 a PC needs to enlist in two four-year "programs" to raise two skills permanently by one level. Eight (8) years. *And* he needs to make his "dedication roll" twice.

In the case of non-weapon skills he can't learn new skills at all. He can only increase skills in which he already has levels.

Sure, for some weird reason the skill is increased provisionally right at the start of the program. But that's just it. Advancement is either a dead giveaway, or, if the GM takes it seriously, 8 years game time spent exercising on the side.

What it boils down to (with thanks to Pierce Inverarity for the confirm) is that the advancement in Traveller was sparse and barely worth the effort, unless you were in dire need of a certain skill four to eight years down the road; in Boot Hill, it was nearly as spotty.  Boot Hill, of course, lacked any kind of extra-combat skills to begin with, so advancing your speed and to hit can only be considered 'character improvement' by the narrowest of margins, and almost in a wholly technical sense.

Mr Gants' point, then, still stands.  You can't heave a brick without hitting a half-dozen (popular/mainstream) games with some kind of tangible character advancement.  One of the major factors of role-playing games is that your character gets better skills and abilities as you progress.  Very, very few have limited or no character advancement, so it is reasonable to assume that if you want your game to be popular, or at least played by a wider group of people, character advancement rules are essential.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;264406Sure, for some weird reason the skill is increased provisionally right at the start of the program. But that's just it. Advancement is either a dead giveaway, or, if the GM takes it seriously, 8 years game time spent exercising on the side.

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

First, I don't find anything "weird" about how advancement is handled. Skills increase provisionally because of the extra attention they receive from the character: my character is more skilled as a pilot because he's running intensive computer simulations in his downtime, or she's a better medic because of the time spent studying Growfrowf's Manual of Vargr Diseases of the Urinary Tract.

If my characters are dilligent in their studies and practice, then the abilities and knowledge gained result in a higher rating; if not, then the extra work just didn't stick enough to make a long-term difference in the characters' skills.

Second, the character can learn new non-weapon skills via trade school or the aforementioned Instruction skill. (As a house rule I allow characters to advance a non-weapon [skill]-0 to [skill]-1, in the same fashion as weapon skills.)

Third, success in training means the character advances one skill level per term, same as the rate of advancement in basic chargen.

Quote from: StormBringer;264409What it boils down to (with thanks to Pierce Inverarity for the confirm) is that the advancement in Traveller was sparse and barely worth the effort, unless you were in dire need of a certain skill four to eight years down the road . . .

No, once again you've got it wrong: the skill advanced increases immediately on a successful dedication roll, which means your character's two skills are each a level higher for at least the next four years in the game. With a 2d6 system and modifiers for skill levels of +2 or more in some cases (e.g., Admin, Forgery, Vacc Suit), that can be a significant improvement.

In BH the experience difference between no gunfights and 11+ gunfights is an increase of 20% in accuracy. I wouldn't call that a negligible change, but your mileage may vary.

I'm not asking you to embrace how advancement is handled in either of these systems, but saying there's no meaningful character advancement in either game is just demonstrably wrong. There's a big difference between saying, "I don't like the rules as written," and, "There are no rules."

Quote from: The Shaman;264418First, I don't find anything "weird" about how advancement is handled. Skills increase provisionally because of the extra attention they receive from the character: my character is more skilled as a pilot because he's running intensive computer simulations in his downtime, or she's a better medic because of the time spent studying Growfrowf's Manual of Vargr Diseases of the Urinary Tract.

If my characters are dilligent in their studies and practice, then the abilities and knowledge gained result in a higher rating; if not, then the extra work just didn't stick enough to make a long-term difference in the characters' skills.

Which is rather tricky to adjudicate.  "Hey, the last three sessions, I don't recall you mentioning that Susan was studying that Vargr urine book.  I guess you will have to start over when you get a chance."

And it doesn't really say how this training regimen is to be undertaken, except in the case of the Education boost, which quite specifically states it is a correspondence course, or tutoring.  I have serious doubts that a tutor is going to wander the galaxy with a group of mercenaries/merchants, but it is possible.

QuoteSecond, the character can learn new non-weapon skills via trade school or the aforementioned Instruction skill. (As a house rule I allow characters to advance a non-weapon [skill]-0 to [skill]-1, in the same fashion as weapon skills.)

No, a character can learn a new skill once in their lifetime, specifically by taking a sabbatical.  Meaning, they are not doing normal character stuff for four years.  Essentially, they are going to college or tech school, exclusively.

Personally, I don't think you need an entire four years to get one 'level' better at using most weapons, so I would probably allow two blade and several gun weapons to be increased over the four years, but that depends on the availability of practice space.  I suppose that would be a large reason for the four year blocks, however.  A hour or two here and there stretched out over four years.

QuoteThird, success in training means the character advances one skill level per term, same as the rate of advancement in basic chargen.No, once again you've got it wrong: the skill advanced increases immediately on a successful dedication roll, which means your character's two skills are each a level higher for at least the next four years in the game. With a 2d6 system and modifiers for skill levels of +2 or more in some cases (e.g., Admin, Forgery, Vacc Suit), that can be a significant improvement.

That is the 'throwaway' mentioned.  What imposes the further training on the character at that point?  Immediate loss of skill?  What kind of logistical nightmare would it be to continually have the player scheduling their Imperium Wide Web sessions in the middle of a game?  Admittedly, it could add some tension to a particular session, if the computer communications went down in the middle of a lesson or something; but other than an occasional story related glitch, who wants to track that kind of thing?  

The non-weapon skills also directly state that they work in a manner similar to the weapon skills increases.  Four years of personal study for a temp boost, followed by four more years of study, or in a formal program.  "Formal program" is not the same as "I'll hit the books on the weekend".

Now, the last section in there is titled 'Alternatives'.  This alternative consists of 'whatever the referee wants'.  In other words, you can certainly have a given group of players attend the Imperium version of the Univeristy of Phoenix and get new skills or increases to skills in any manner they wish.  But that isn't the standard method.

QuoteIn BH the experience difference between no gunfights and 11+ gunfights is an increase of 20% in accuracy. I wouldn't call that a negligible change, but your mileage may vary.

So, something like 2% per gunfight.  Fighters in AD&D go up in their 'accuracy' by over twice that at each level.

QuoteI'm not asking you to embrace how advancement is handled in either of these systems, but saying there's no meaningful character advancement in either game is just demonstrably wrong. There's a big difference between saying, "I don't like the rules as written," and, "There are no rules."

I didn't say there weren't any rules, just that they were nigh useless.  Advancement in Traveller has less to do with improving your character as it does improving their means or standard of living.  A better ship, a better cargo run, and so forth.

There plainly is a degree of character improvement in Traveller, but I would disagree that it is 'meaningful'.  You are almost always going to be better off hiring someone with the skill level you want than going through the trouble of increasing a skill you have one or two points.

Quote from: The Shaman;264418I'm sorry, but I disagree.

First, I don't find anything "weird" about how advancement is handled. Skills increase provisionally because of the extra attention they receive from the character: my character is more skilled as a pilot because he's running intensive computer simulations in his downtime, or she's a better medic because of the time spent studying Growfrowf's Manual of Vargr Diseases of the Urinary Tract.

What I find weird is that the skill level improves on the very first day. You open the manual on page 1, and whammo, you're an MD. Makes the following 3 years and 363 days somewhat anticlimactic.

QuoteSecond, the character can learn new non-weapon skills via trade school or the aforementioned Instruction skill. (As a house rule I allow characters to advance a non-weapon [skill]-0 to [skill]-1, in the same fashion as weapon skills.)

Right now we're debating whether the rules as written are good or not. The very existence of house rules is often an implicit proof that they aren't.

In order to receive skills through Instruction three things need to happen, none of which is a done deal at all:

a) The party must contain a PC with the Instruction skill;

b) The PC with the Instruction skill must have skills other PCs consider worth learning from him;

c) We are playing Traveller using LBBs 4 to 6, rather than just LBBs 1-3.

Quote from: StormBringer;264424I didn't say there weren't any rules, just that they were nigh useless.

Considering how poorly you understand the either system, your pronouncement that the rules are "nigh useless" really doesn't carry much weight.

However, I'm done dragging this thread further off topic with Traveller and Boot Hill minutiae. If you want to start a separate discussion of either game, I'll be happy to continue shooting down your mistakes, but until then, I leave you to your misapprehensions.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;264495Right now we're debating whether the rules as written are good or not. The very existence of house rules is often an implicit proof that they aren't.

I'm sorry, PI, but you're assuming facts not in evidence. My house rule is a function of how I handle [skill]-0 in my game, not a reflection on the utility (or lack thereof) of the advancement rules as written.

As far as instruction goes, it's my experience that our characters tend to recruit instructors to learn certain skills as needed. The recruitment and merc ticket rules work just fine for this.

As I said above, I'm done here. If you want to discuss this further, please by all means feel free to start another thread and I'll be happy to join in.

Quote from: The Shaman;264560Considering how poorly you understand the either system, your pronouncement that the rules are "nigh useless" really doesn't carry much weight.

However, I'm done dragging this thread further off topic with Traveller and Boot Hill minutiae. If you want to start a separate discussion of either game, I'll be happy to continue shooting down your mistakes, but until then, I leave you to your misapprehensions.

Are you fucking serious?  You have several people here telling you the same thing, that the advancement rules are negligible at best, and you think other people don't know what they are talking about?  Pierce even mentioned that you are houseruling the system, which is the surest sign there is something less than ideal about it, and you think you have the 100% correct position?

You are a douchebag of the highest order.  You can't possibly shoot down anyone's mistakes, because you are clearly unfamiliar with the rules.  Go read the books a couple of times, take your anti-jackass pills, and head on back when you are ready to discuss things.

Quote from: The Shaman;264569I'm sorry, PI, but you're assuming facts not in evidence. My house rule is a function of how I handle [skill]-0 in my game, not a reflection on the utility (or lack thereof) of the advancement rules as written.

And what do the rules as written say about advancing non-weapon 0 level skills?
EDIT:  Book 4 has a section on Recruiting, with some rules about training recruits.  It is fairly clear that those training rules are intended for the NPC recruits that make up your mercenary group.  If you are using those for training PCs, that is another houserule that demonstrates the lack of significant PC advancement in the rules as presented.