Making the game simple and complete conflicts with those who want depth, and a deep game with tons of supplements makes the game more difficult to just pick up and play.
I think this needs to happen, and it needs to happen without condescending to the pick up and play crowd.
i think this is a terrible idea from a business standpoint. that is unless they are pdfs
Personally I think I would use both.
The viability of that approach hinges on whether or not the two products would be in such competition that one would threaten the other and WotC would be mostly competing against itself. I think there is probably enough room on the shelves for both, but what do I know? That's just a guess, not even an educated one.
I think they need to craft a Basic DnD that they can work to get the recognition of Monopoly or Scrabble, a game that every kid would play at some point in their life, that families can play, and that new players can be initiated into with less than 20 minutes of description and prep. The game would hopefull remain relatively static across generations.
Then you can have your ADnD that has a new edition every ten years and a new supplement released every month or whatever. I really think there is a market for both, and that where they overlap those customers are more likely to purchase both than feel the need to choose. But again I have no real data on this.
Both would be worthy of the DnD label because both would deal with the same themes in a similar way. The only difference is the complexity of the mechanics. It might even make sense to make one version only go to level 10 or so, and then publish a short guide to how to make ADnD characters reminiscent in playstyle and abilities to their Basic counterparts, so that players who get hooked on Basic can continue their characters almost seamlessly in the advanced edition.
I'm kind of thinking of Hero Quest as a model for the basic edition. It had pregenerated monsters and heroes, as well as maps, but also gave instructions and suggestions for creating your own quests. (To be honest I don't know much about the DnD board games. Maybe the product I am describing already exists.)
you mean like a red box and an actual game? like they have now? or are you saying the red box is too complicated?
i think this is a terrible idea from a business standpoint. that is unless they are pdfs
I think the red box/essentials they did release ended up being condescending to those who wanted a simpler, more managable game. Its a second rate, dumbed down version and as such doesn't stand on its own.
I think D&D needs to be a game that people can just pick up and play, and it can't do that and be as big and complicated as 3E and 4E have been. I personally like big and complicated, and 4E is perfect for me just the way it is. I don't think D&D can be the game people like me want, and be a quality game people can just pick up and play. That is why I think there needs to be two, and the simple game needs to not be a dumbed down second rate version of the main game and the game needs to be separate to do that.
I don't mind this idea. I would only disagree in that I think they should be compatible, like how Essentials is compatible. Like how Basic and AD&D were more or less compatible. Characters were of similar capability and monsters were of similar threat. That's all I mean by compatible, not the super strict compatibility of having every power be interchangable with every other. I think if they weren't compatible, it would not only split the base but also create a lot of confusion as to what you can buy and use with what. Especially if both were called D&D.
I don't mind this idea. I would only disagree in that I think they should be compatible, like how Essentials is compatible. Like how Basic and AD&D were more or less compatible. Characters were of similar capability and monsters were of similar threat. That's all I mean by compatible, not the super strict compatibility of having every power be interchangable with every other. I think if they weren't compatible, it would not only split the base but also create a lot of confusion as to what you can buy and use with what. Especially if both were called D&D.
That's not really compatible. That's more like comparable. Compatible implies that the two can be used interchangeably.
I think requiring that elements of the two be able to be used interchangeably makes the whole idea worthless. The two games would need to be separate in order to have the freedom to design around their respective goals. Otherwise you would just end up with a mess.
Rather than increase confusion, I think clearly establishing what works with what would reduce confusion. A parent or grandparent could walk into a store and say they want to buy DnD for their kid, and get handed a single, complete, comprehensive product that is clearly labeled.
Compatibility or at least similarity would be a good thing, as long as it doesn't render the simpler version a dumbed down second rate version of the game. As long as the 'basic' D&D is a good game in it's own right, I agree with you.
So not Red Box, and not something like Ravenloft? So Essentials?
I have to be honest, I neither get your point, nor the reason for it. There's roughly 4 levels of DnD currently; board games like Ravenloft, Red Box, Essentials, and what we could consider 'Full D&D.'
So you would be asking for a 5th variant, seemingly using some simpler version that isn't dumbed down, which I don't really see how you can make something simpler without dumbing it down.
What is the goal of this?
Compatibility or at least similarity would be a good thing, as long as it doesn't render the simpler version a dumbed down second rate version of the game. As long as the 'basic' D&D is a good game in it's own right, I agree with you.
So not Red Box, and not something like Ravenloft? So Essentials?
I have to be honest, I neither get your point, nor the reason for it. There's roughly 4 levels of DnD currently; board games like Ravenloft, Red Box, Essentials, and what we could consider 'Full D&D.'
So you would be asking for a 5th variant, seemingly using some simpler version that isn't dumbed down, which I don't really see how you can make something simpler without dumbing it down.
What is the goal of this?
Red box is an introduction to a game, not a game. Essentials is 4E, not a separate game. If they meant Essentials to be a stand alone game they failed, and if people think Essentials is stand alone they are mistaken, and people still complaining about it are misguided. Ravenloft is a board game and doesn't figure in this discussion.
So no, what I'm talking about doesn't exist, and what exists now isn't confusing to people who aren't intentionally obtuse.
Compatibility or at least similarity would be a good thing, as long as it doesn't render the simpler version a dumbed down second rate version of the game. As long as the 'basic' D&D is a good game in it's own right, I agree with you.
So not Red Box, and not something like Ravenloft? So Essentials?
I have to be honest, I neither get your point, nor the reason for it. There's roughly 4 levels of DnD currently; board games like Ravenloft, Red Box, Essentials, and what we could consider 'Full D&D.'
So you would be asking for a 5th variant, seemingly using some simpler version that isn't dumbed down, which I don't really see how you can make something simpler without dumbing it down.
What is the goal of this?
Red box is an introduction to a game, not a game. Essentials is 4E, not a separate game. If they meant Essentials to be a stand alone game they failed, and if people think Essentials is stand alone they are mistaken, and people still complaining about it are misguided. Ravenloft is a board game and doesn't figure in this discussion. So no, what I'm talking about doesn't exist, and what exists now isn't confusing to people who aren't intentionally obtuse.
So what you want is a completely separate game that uses the same basic structure and rules?
My table doesn't get to lord it over all the other tables in the land that we have DDi, other tables are not at a disadvantage for only having DMG/MV/PHB1 and not being able to make pixie witch whatever doesn't actually effect people.
I will say they do need a single entry box, made cheaply and in every book store, game store, online bookstore and App Store so everyone can get to it as easily as possible but that's different then making things more complicated by having two Dungeons & Dragons that don't work together.
Two points of entry with one being a dead end isn't the way to go. You'll end up with people buying one and being pissed off that they have to start from scratch to play "real" DnD rather then "gimp" DnD, it'll be like getting Gobots for Christmas in '85.
Also, Gobots were the bomb. Transformers just had a stupid cartoon. Zoot!
I don't mind this idea. I would only disagree in that I think they should be compatible, like how Essentials is compatible. Like how Basic and AD&D were more or less compatible. Characters were of similar capability and monsters were of similar threat. That's all I mean by compatible, not the super strict compatibility of having every power be interchangable with every other. I think if they weren't compatible, it would not only split the base but also create a lot of confusion as to what you can buy and use with what. Especially if both were called D&D.
That's not really compatible. That's more like comparable. Compatible implies that the two can be used interchangeably.
I think requiring that elements of the two be able to be used interchangeably makes the whole idea worthless. The two games would need to be separate in order to have the freedom to design around their respective goals. Otherwise you would just end up with a mess.
Rather than increase confusion, I think clearly establishing what works with what would reduce confusion. A parent or grandparent could walk into a store and say they want to buy DnD for their kid, and get handed a single, complete, comprehensive product that is clearly labeled.
It's compatible. Compatible does not mean interchangeable. That's too different things. I gave examples. Essentials is compatible with traditional 4E. It's not interchangeable. BD&D was compatible with AD&D. It wasn't interchangeable. You could easily use a class from one system in a game run using the rules of the other with very few problems That's what I mean by compatible. I don't think the systems would need to be interchangeable.
Two points of entry with one being a dead end isn't the way to go. You'll end up with people buying one and being pissed off that they have to start from scratch to play "real" DnD rather then "gimp" DnD, it'll be like getting Gobots for Christmas in '85.
I disagree. I think most people wouldn't progress past the Basic version. Most people would play Basic DnD for a few hours at a time, but probably not weekly. They might have ongoing characters but they would advance slowly if at all. This is an audience that is currently totally untapped by DnD.
Also the idea that they would have to "start from scratch" to play "real" DnD is frankly ludicrous. If players enjoyed the basic game and wanted more, then they could easily purchase the advanced version and start their characters at any level they like. "Starting from scratch," as a concept, is not really applicable to DnD anyway in my experience, unless you are talking about learning an entirely new system. Campaigns begin and campaigns end. Sometimes they begin at level 1 and sometimes they begin at level 16. Sometimes they end at level 2 and sometimes they end at level 30. Additionally the asinine distinction between "real" and "gimped" is your own invention. Both are real DnD, they just serve different niches.
Gobots were less popular than Transformers in 1985, and you could argue that somebody who has a Transformers collection and receives Gobots for Christmas is comparable to somebody who already plays advanced DnD getting basic DnD for Christmas. But comparable situations already exist. You think anybody in my family wants to buy me DnD stuff for Christmas? Of course not. They would have to waid into the utterly confounding rubrik of what I have vs. what I want vs. what I need vs. what is or isn't compatible. And for all that there is still the chance that a clueless aunt will walk out of the store with GURPS or Pathfinder.
I really think there needs to be a version of the game that enables this scenario:
"Hey guys, want to play DnD?"
"Sure!"
(They all play DnD.)
That's just not feasible with 4e. Games have to be scheduled and prepped, and new players who are not up on the latest developments will find themselves decidedly behind the most attentive players in a powercurve, not to mention finding that some of the rules have been completely rewritten since the PHB. Consistency, simplicity, and speed are all valuable things for a game system, and also totally anathema to 4e which has decided to prioritize complexity and adaptability. Both approaches are good but no one game system can deliver them at the same time. Hence the value of splitting the product line.
I'm kind of thinking of Hero Quest as a model for the basic edition. It had pregenerated monsters and heroes, as well as maps, but also gave instructions and suggestions for creating your own quests. (To be honest I don't know much about the DnD board games. Maybe the product I am describing already exists.)
The old TSR game Dragon Strike was a lot like that. It had your major archetypes -cleric (warrior, wizard, thief, elf, dwarf) and some pregnerated monsters. It had an adventure book that if played in order formed a quasi-campaign and even included a solo adventure that could be played without a DM. All of the adventures had a few variables to allow for replayability. The rules enforced the idea of teamwork (if the heroes attacked each other, the dragon arrived early and that was a BAMF).
It was a game that was complex in its simplicity. The rules were few. Attacks were simple but bore some resemblance to D&D (roll an attack die, which varied by character, if you beat the target's AC you hit). "Feats" were a catch-all for resolving any improvised action, like climbing, tumbling under the monster's legs, pushing a boulder down a hill, etc.
I think that game was awesome and should be the basis for future D&D board games.
If the table, or DM, chooses to limit certain books, then do so. I mean, the game is playable just w/ the PHB, DMG, and MM. I say just edit yourself and not let every book and every rule join the table.
It's compatible. Compatible does not mean interchangeable. That's too different things. I gave examples. Essentials is compatible with traditional 4E. It's not interchangeable. BD&D was compatible with AD&D. It wasn't interchangeable. You could easily use a class from one system in a game run using the rules of the other with very few problems That's what I mean by compatible. I don't think the systems would need to be interchangeable.
This is just a semantics argument. I don't really care what word you want to use. I disagree, and that's all there is to it. The two should use similar systems, enough that a player of one will be able to grasp the rules of the other fairly quickly, but enforcing any kind of mixability, compatibility, or interchangeability only interferes with both products' ability to accomplish their goals.
For an example my company produces two products that are very similar. One is more lightweight and fast and the other is more complex and more robust. You can click a button and go from one to the other, but you can't really use both at the same time. Or you could, technically, but it would be confusing.
When we add or change features of either product we think about the goals of the product and its users, and how the new features suit those goals. We don't worry that new features that make product A slimmer and more efficient will not work with product B because that is not the goal of product B. Product A needs to be able to do its job, and that is more important than compatibility between A and B because if we prioritize compatibility it means that we are necessarily giving lower priority to the product meeting its own goals.
The desperate need to make Essentials compatible is what led to it being an unsatisfying addition to 4e. If it had gone its own way I think it would have been much better since the designers could make decisions to depart from 4e's ruleset in ways that they couldn't if they want the two to work together.
Capcom makes both MvC3 and SSF4 AE and the fighting game community didn't facture.
ESPN covers football and baseball and the professional sports community is doing fine.
I wonder strongly about the notion of exclusivity in the RPG community that doesn't exist in other leisure communities. They grow around the common joy while simultaneously celebrating the diversity. Sure, a few games manage to pull off creating an obessive community that heavily invests in a single product. Magic, Starcraft and Chess come to mind, but I think it is the competitive nature of these games, which D&D doesn't have, creates that atmosphere.
"Clear" and "complete" separation will have to come from media and mechanics that are "clearly and completely" different . For example, D&D#1 is a computer game, card game or board game, and D&D#2 is the pen and paper RPG of whatever edition you prefer.
Two points of entry with one being a dead end isn't the way to go. You'll end up with people buying one and being pissed off that they have to start from scratch to play "real" DnD rather then "gimp" DnD, it'll be like getting Gobots for Christmas in '85.
I disagree. I think most people wouldn't progress past the Basic version. Most people would play Basic DnD for a few hours at a time, but probably not weekly. They might have ongoing characters but they would advance slowly if at all. This is an audience that is currently totally untapped by DnD.
Also the idea that they would have to "start from scratch" to play "real" DnD is frankly ludicrous. If players enjoyed the basic game and wanted more, then they could easily purchase the advanced version and start their characters at any level they like. "Starting from scratch," as a concept, is not really applicable to DnD anyway in my experience, unless you are talking about learning an entirely new system. Campaigns begin and campaigns end. Sometimes they begin at level 1 and sometimes they begin at level 16. Sometimes they end at level 2 and sometimes they end at level 30. Additionally the asinine distinction between "real" and "gimped" is your own invention. Both are real DnD, they just serve different niches.
Gobots were less popular than Transformers in 1985, and you could argue that somebody who has a Transformers collection and receives Gobots for Christmas is comparable to somebody who already plays advanced DnD getting basic DnD for Christmas. But comparable situations already exist. You think anybody in my family wants to buy me DnD stuff for Christmas? Of course not. They would have to waid into the utterly confounding rubrik of what I have vs. what I want vs. what I need vs. what is or isn't compatible. And for all that there is still the chance that a clueless aunt will walk out of the store with GURPS or Pathfinder.
I really think there needs to be a version of the game that enables this scenario:
"Hey guys, want to play DnD?"
"Sure!"
(They all play DnD.)
That's just not feasible with 4e. Games have to be scheduled and prepped, and new players who are not up on the latest developments will find themselves decidedly behind the most attentive players in a powercurve, not to mention finding that some of the rules have been completely rewritten since the PHB. Consistency, simplicity, and speed are all valuable things for a game system, and also totally anathema to 4e which has decided to prioritize complexity and adaptability. Both approaches are good but no one game system can deliver them at the same time. Hence the value of splitting the product line.
This sums it up rather nicely.
4E, as much as I love it, doesn't do simple, consistent and fast well. It isn't possible to do those things well and be as expansive as 4E was designed for the beginning to be. We can say the game can be played with just the first three books all we want, but the game wasn't designed for that.
If the table, or DM, chooses to limit certain books, then do so. I mean, the game is playable just w/ the PHB, DMG, and MM. I say just edit yourself and not let every book and every rule join the table.
I don't see this as a valid argument in terms of 4E. The way 4E is designed, what the players do has little impact on the DM side of things, and what you allow your players to do doesn't fundamentally interfere with adventure design to any significant degree. You could argue the DM has a genre/world perogative, but 4E is a system badly suited to that sort of game, and is more a genre to itself.
There really isn't a strong justification for a DM to ban anything in 4E, which leaves the players end. Some players will want a system that is simple but robust, and some will want a bottomless pit of fiddly bits. Either way, somebody isn't going home happy.
The DM shouldn’t be making choices on what is and is not allowed in a vacuum. Decisions such as setting, house rules, what books you and cannot use should be made following consultation with the player. If you, as a player, want to limit the choices made at the table, there is not thing stopping you from proposing your idea to the table and seeing how it runs.
It's a fallacy to suggest that players can limit the system simply by saying so. Those options exist, they serve a purpose, they were introduced for specific reasons. You cannot undo their existence.
The value of a separate, consistent, and comprehensive ruleset is that it is fixed. You don't have to fix it yourself, which requires understanding at the least that the system is not in fact fixed. It's like buying your grandma the newest smartphone when she has just gotten used to these newfangle button phones without a dialer. Sure, she can use the smartphone and just ignore the existence of all of its other features. But the fact is she would be better off if you just got her a nice simple phone that just makes calls. The smartphone was built on the assumption that the user wants a smartphone. It was not designed for people who just want to make phone calls.
Edit: basically if you are talking about a player who has the familiarity and experience with a game system sufficient to critically evaluate it and make edits to focus the system on their personal needs, then you are already talking about a level of system mastery that I do not believe should be necessary to play DnD. The system I am suggesting (and I think casualoblivion as well, although he might have his own take) is aimed at people who don't have that level of mastery or control over their game. There are a lot of situations where having the rulset fixed in advance is far preferable to a negotiation or discussion.
Further, this doesn't suit my needs. Rather than increasing the ability of a group to "pick up and play," the need to modify the rules to simplify the game decreases that ability.
If you, as a player, want to limit the options for other players' characters that implies that you and they already have knowledge of those options. If you want to limit or edit rules, or roll them back to their previous form, that implies that you are aware of changes and their impact.
It's a fallacy to suggest that players can limit the system simply by saying so. Those options exist, they serve a purpose, they were introduced for specific reasons. You cannot undo their existence.
I don’t know what you’re getting at here.
It seems obvious to me that the table can easily limit, edit, change, or add character options. I mean, the D&D police aren’t going to come and bang on our door because don’t allow any Martial Power II feats for whatever reason.
You, however, seem to suggest that such an arrangement is impossible or, at the least, nonviable. I don’t know why you think that. Please elaborate.
What people get wrong is that 4E is an expansive system that isn't particularly flexible. It does the things it is designed to do fantastic, and it does a lackluster job at doing things it isn't designed to do. Historically, D&D was very flexible. 1E/2E/basic were vague and open to interpretation, and 3E was a mess that tried to be everything to everybody, all at once. People try to project that flexibility onto 4E when it really isn't suited too it.
If you, as a player, want to limit the options for other players' characters that implies that you and they already have knowledge of those options. If you want to limit or edit rules, or roll them back to their previous form, that implies that you are aware of changes and their impact.
It's a fallacy to suggest that players can limit the system simply by saying so. Those options exist, they serve a purpose, they were introduced for specific reasons. You cannot undo their existence.I don’t know what you’re getting at here.
It seems obvious to me that the table can easily limit, edit, change, or add character options. I mean, the D&D police aren’t going to come and bang on our door because don’t allow any Martial Power II feats for whatever reason.
You, however, seem to suggest that such an arrangement is impossible or, at the least, nonviable. I don’t know why you think that. Please elaborate.
Sure.
I'm not suggesting that limiting, editing, or changing options is nonviable. I am suggesting that in order to do so the group needs to have sufficient awareness of them to feel that it is worthwhile to do so.
Basically the ability to edit or change character options is not a viable alternative to a simpler, more consistent game because editing a complex, elaborate, and everchanging system is ADDING a level of complexity, not simplifying.
As for the game playing with 3 books, it was explicitly designed for that it plays perfectly with 3 books.
I just think 2 D&D RPGs will dilute the game and for no actual monetary gain but possible loss. i also think the game plays fine with 3 book.
I really think D&D doesn't have any market value for anyone who doesn't play it or have someone who plays it pulling them in and 2 D&D Rpgs will divide the same amount of money from the same people into 2 pools and for more work and time thus a net loss.
It is arbitrary and unjustified.
Of course it is. It can also be fun. The very fact that this thread exists and that people are looking for slim-downed D&D tells us that the deluge of options available to the 4e character does not necessarily translate into additional fun for the table. The fun factor has to trump everything else, or else the game stops being a game and becomes tedium. I mean, you can tell me that not having access to MP II feats totally breaks the game and ruins the system and you might be right (although I doubt it), but that wouldn’t change that fact that the theoretical table before us is having more fun without MP II than with it.
There might be hiccups, sure, but a good bunch of players with a good DM should be able to work around those. If you can’t take weapon expertise then maybe the DM will want to drop every enemy’s defense by a point per tier or something. Not that hard.
You might be right that a system purposefully built to be slimmed down might work better than a limited 4e, but that’s difficult to substantiate. There aren’t a lot of RPGs that come in full figure and slimmed down options so we don’t have a lot of evidence either way. However, using limited 4e system, as opposed to building up a new system, does have the advantage that existing D&D players will have some idea of how the system works, whereas a new system could have sufficient differences that require retraining of players and DMs. Then again, a savvy designer would set up D&D Lite to be sufficiently similar to your full figure D&D that established players could just grab and go.
I'm not suggesting that limiting, editing, or changing options is nonviable. I am suggesting that in order to do so the group needs to have sufficient awareness of them to feel that it is worthwhile to do so.
Basically the ability to edit or change character options is not a viable alternative to a simpler, more consistent game because editing a complex, elaborate, and everchanging system is ADDING a level of complexity, not simplifying.
I disagree. If I don't know what feats are in MP II then I will not miss them. Same thing with players new to the hobby, they might be over whelmed by the options available to them so it is perfectly reasonable to narrow those options down on their behalf. Sort of a "what you don't know wouldn't hurt you," kind of deal.
It's compatible. Compatible does not mean interchangeable. That's too different things. I gave examples. Essentials is compatible with traditional 4E. It's not interchangeable. BD&D was compatible with AD&D. It wasn't interchangeable. You could easily use a class from one system in a game run using the rules of the other with very few problems That's what I mean by compatible. I don't think the systems would need to be interchangeable.
This is just a semantics argument. I don't really care what word you want to use. I disagree, and that's all there is to it. The two should use similar systems, enough that a player of one will be able to grasp the rules of the other fairly quickly, but enforcing any kind of mixability, compatibility, or interchangeability only interferes with both products' ability to accomplish their goals.
For an example my company produces two products that are very similar. One is more lightweight and fast and the other is more complex and more robust. You can click a button and go from one to the other, but you can't really use both at the same time. Or you could, technically, but it would be confusing.
When we add or change features of either product we think about the goals of the product and its users, and how the new features suit those goals. We don't worry that new features that make product A slimmer and more efficient will not work with product B because that is not the goal of product B. Product A needs to be able to do its job, and that is more important than compatibility between A and B because if we prioritize compatibility it means that we are necessarily giving lower priority to the product meeting its own goals.
The desperate need to make Essentials compatible is what led to it being an unsatisfying addition to 4e. If it had gone its own way I think it would have been much better since the designers could make decisions to depart from 4e's ruleset in ways that they couldn't if they want the two to work together.
I definitely think we use the words differently.
"For an example my company produces two products that are very similar. One is more lightweight and fast and the other is more complex and more robust. You can click a button and go from one to the other, but you can't really use both at the same time."
But would you want to? Would there be a benefit to do so? In the case of basic and advanced D&D, there would be.
" if we prioritize compatibility it means that we are necessarily giving lower priority to the product meeting its own goals."
Unless of course, one of the goals is compatibility. It sounds like the products you describe don't have that as a goal. I'm just saying it might be worthwhile to have that as a goal with D&D.
"The desperate need to make Essentials compatible is what led to it being an unsatisfying addition to 4e."
I found it pretty satisfying.
"If it had gone its own way I think it would have been much better since the designers could make decisions to depart from 4e's ruleset in ways that they couldn't if they want the two to work together. "
I actually disagree with this. I think they could have deviated much more heavily in Essentails, as you say, and STILL not sacrificed combatility. Certainly they would have sacrificed interchangeability.
FOr the purposes of my comments, I define combatility as having roughly equivalent damage output, defenses per level and out of combat options. That's it. If both systems use similar defenses and and both systems do damage at the same rate, I consider them compatible, simply because you could allow a character designed in either system to operate in either ruleset. I don't care if you can multiclass them or swap feats, etc. That's not important to me, nor to this line of products I think. This is all just my opinion.
When I say from scratch, I mean monetarily having to buy all new starting stuff.
That's no different than anytime you buy a new game, though.
As for the game playing with 3 books, it was explicitly designed for that it plays perfectly with 3 books.
I just think 2 D&D RPGs will dilute the game and for no actual monetary gain but possible loss. i also think the game plays fine with 3 book.
I agree that it plays fine with 3 books, but I don't think that is a satisfactory substitute. It's still not a game you can pick up and play, although it does get a lot closer.
I really think D&D doesn't have any market value for anyone who doesn't play it or have someone who plays it pulling them in and 2 D&D Rpgs will divide the same amount of money from the same people into 2 pools and for more work and time thus a net loss.
This is wrong. I have gotten to know a lot of players over the last couple of years whose intro to DnD was buying a book and then going down to their FLGS and playing with strangers, or answering ads on Craigslist or NearbyGamers or some similar service. I myself got into the game without any friends trying to pull me in. It sounded like fun so I thought I would give it a shot.
I believe there are a lot of people who would be into DnD but are put off by the way that DnD is played in practice plus the initial investment of time and energy necessary to create a character. A more casual approach would draw them in. I think people who don't necessarily want to commit to a weekly session would be interested in the ability to throw a game together with little notice. I believe a simplified ruleset would be more attractive to people who don't want to invest themselves too deeply in the game.
I'm not suggesting that limiting, editing, or changing options is nonviable. I am suggesting that in order to do so the group needs to have sufficient awareness of them to feel that it is worthwhile to do so.
Basically the ability to edit or change character options is not a viable alternative to a simpler, more consistent game because editing a complex, elaborate, and everchanging system is ADDING a level of complexity, not simplifying.
I disagree. If I don't know what feats are in MP II then I will not miss them. Same thing with players new to the hobby, they might be over whelmed by the options available to them so it is perfectly reasonable to narrow those options down on their behalf. Sort of a "what you don't know wouldn't hurt you," kind of deal.
That's not a disagreement, that's an evasion.
4th edition came up with some very interesting ways of scaling monsters and powers that meant you could see "the framework" of how the rules operated. You could, for example, make a monster at any level, using the monster construction rules, quite easily whereas in previous editions, each monster was pretty unrelated to any other.
I would love them to go one step further and to take the good elements of what is a balanced and open set of mechanics and free them up, to be used with 4th ed modern or 4th ed sci-fi.
A core rules set and then a D&D line. It could and should work.
The desperate need to make Essentials compatible is what led to it being an unsatisfying addition to 4e.
"Desperate need"? Why would they have even concidered making a 4E product incompatible with 4E? Isn't this like saying that the devs had a "desperate need" to make Martial Power compatible with 4E?
Also, please note that some of us do not think that Essentials was "an unsatisfying addition to 4E". That may be your opinion, but stateing it as if it were a fact that we all agreed to doesn't work. You can't argue that making Essentials (a 4E product that was always meant to be in the 4E line) compatible with the game it belongs to is an example of compatibility being "unsatisfying", because to some of us that isn't a true example.
If Essentials was meant as a seperate game system, then you could start argueing that the two games shouldn't have been made as compatible as they were. In fact, if one of the goals of Essentials was to be a seperate "Basic D&D", I would totally agree that the games are too similar. But that was never the case.
What i would like to see is a kind of "core skeleton" that could be applied to a modern setting etc, a bit like the world of darkness rules can be applied to various settings.
4th edition came up with some very interesting ways of scaling monsters and powers that meant you could see "the framework" of how the rules operated. You could, for example, make a monster at any level, using the monster construction rules, quite easily whereas in previous editions, each monster was pretty unrelated to any other.
I would love them to go one step further and to take the good elements of what is a balanced and open set of mechanics and free them up, to be used with 4th ed modern or 4th ed sci-fi.
A core rules set and then a D&D line. It could and should work.
So what you are proposing, just to be clear, is a blanket "ruleset", with the different types of games such as Sci-Fi, Urban, Fantasy (D&D), etc having their own rulebook which would insert things such as the classes, equipment, et al for the respective type of game being played? That sounds like a grand idea, honestly.
The more and more time passes, the more and more I believe there needs to be two D&Ds. One that you can simply pick up and play and is more or less complete right out of the box, and one that is very deep, has a billion supplements, and caters to the hardcore crowd. The key is that I think the two should be clearly and completely separate from each other. I really don't think the two mix. Having them both together creates a situation of haves and have nots, where those with system mastery lord over those without, and certain character concepts can't be done without a pile of books.
Making the game simple and complete conflicts with those who want depth, and a deep game with tons of supplements makes the game more difficult to just pick up and play.
I think this needs to happen, and it needs to happen without condescending to the pick up and play crowd.
I do not understand what your point is. We already have five different versions of D&D for people to play. Old D&D; Basic D&D; Advanced D&D (1st and 2nd editions); 3rd edition D&D; and 4th edition D&D. The wonders of the internet mean that all the books and rules and adventures for all of these versions are widely available. I have played most of these versions over the years, even those which are officially out of print. Between the five different versions there is every shade of complexity and simplicity, of simulationism and gamism.
In other words, it has already happened. And people are already enjoying the choice. That is why all of these editions are thriving simultaneously in clubs, conventions and stores across the world (not all in the same time and place of course). There was recently a very successful Old School Renaissance convention in Toronto, Canada, for example.
I just hope that 4th edition will remain as lively as OD&D is when 5th edition arrives.
Underneath DnD there is a very simple mechanics system that involves building your character around a small number of primary stats. You then build a few other defenses extrapolating from those stats, add in hp, equip weapons and go.
If you want to simplify the game, make all races equal with no stat bonuses or extra abilities so your elf is statistically the same as my dwarf etc.
If you want to get creative, call your guy a cyborg and instead of a crossbow the guy fires bolts of energy out of his arm. This system is so disgustingly simple and flexible it's abolutely mind boggling that you don't see that.
The fantasy and class structure is merely an overlay on top of the system. It's what DnD is known for so of course they would color everything in that way. But if you want it to be easier, or if you want it to be about Space Nazis fighting Samurai Vampires in 12th century England, just do it!
I've been playing for maybe 18mo now; this is the first tabletop rpg I've ever played and in the last 2 months I've begun DM'ing and it's easy and fun and it flows very naturally from my brain, through the mechanics and onto the table.
Now, if you've gotten this far, know that I don't understand what it is you want or need that doesn't already exist, so it's entirely possible my post is useless to you, but oh well, there it is.
What i would like to see is a kind of "core skeleton" that could be applied to a modern setting etc, a bit like the world of darkness rules can be applied to various settings.
4th edition came up with some very interesting ways of scaling monsters and powers that meant you could see "the framework" of how the rules operated. You could, for example, make a monster at any level, using the monster construction rules, quite easily whereas in previous editions, each monster was pretty unrelated to any other.
I would love them to go one step further and to take the good elements of what is a balanced and open set of mechanics and free them up, to be used with 4th ed modern or 4th ed sci-fi.
A core rules set and then a D&D line. It could and should work.
Well really the core engine is already there and can be used in other settings. The only thing that was missing was the other settings to take advantage of this engine. WotC might be focused on fantasy, but Amethyst and the hopefully soon to be released Ultramodern4 from Dias Ex Machina might show you what 4e can do with modern/sci-fi.
It's really easy from there to make a d20 Modern 4E and other stuff (and DMs can even port over monsters from the MMs or MVs or campaign books as desired, with little [in the case of MM] or no tweaks at all).Just like how it was so easy for GW4E to strip away the existing skill table AND classes and impose its own, it's so easy to add and remove so many components of the D&D 4E's chassis, and you can even play D&D 4E with only ability scores and p.42 of the DMG (even if you remove just about everything else)! With that much flexibility, I'm pretty certain we can play around with the entire system for quite awhile, even if rumors of 5E are true
This thread is making me ridiculously angry. It's ridiculous because I shouldn't be angry, but it's also ridiculous because many of you are asking for the system to do exactly what it already does.
its always that way. a day doesnt go by where someone doesnt post something they want out of the game or a new edition that isnt already printed in a book word for word. dmg2 is notorious for this
Red box is an introduction to a game, not a game. Essentials is 4E, not a separate game. If they meant Essentials to be a stand alone game they failed, and if people think Essentials is stand alone they are mistaken, and people still complaining about it are misguided. Ravenloft is a board game and doesn't figure in this discussion. So no, what I'm talking about doesn't exist, and what exists now isn't confusing to people who aren't intentionally obtuse.
It does exist. There are several versions of D&D, very many if you include the third party retroclones. Buy a retroclone or buy an old copy from Ebay or download a copy: you and your friends can play any style of D&D you want.
The rest of 4e hangs together just fine.
I game with people who have been with 4e from the start (and then 3e before it). We have playtested nearly every combo and PC race imaginable (except minotaur and shardmind -- because I disallowed them IMC).
In mid-Septemer, we had a total 4e newbie (had only played 2e briefly many years ago) join us and it was interesting to see him build a totally non-optimized elf ranger -- with not editorial input from the other players -- and just show up and game. He was really the first new addition to our group in a long long time.
He only had the Heroes of the Fallen Lands (and oddly the Monster Vault), but he didn't even use that resource for his character -- merely the 'free' online 1-3 level Character Builder demo because he unknowingly liked the 'AEDU' powers of the original Ranger more for whatever reason.
He did fine -- had a blast and has been back every week since. One of the players -- our polite rules lawyer -- eventually started to nitpick about his 'CharOp' -- but I quickly nixed that since there was no need to make the guy stress. The newbie had already said his wife wouldn't let him get many books (and he didn't want a DDI subscription). 4e is a strong enough system that nearly ALL character concepts will function and thrive just fine in a normal campaign setting/adventure (yes there are corner cases).
Anyway, my point is -- I've seen different levels of enjoyment within the same game. It just takes maturity to let all types coalesce for the game to be fun.
The new player approaches the game from a pickup perspective. Most of the other players are a mix of that mentality or are total stat/rules/CharOp types and I'm the OCD DM with a 20-page backstory for a straight forward adventure.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I don't know if splitting the next edition into a Basic and Advanced D&D is a good idea or not, but I really believe, based on some writings of people at WoTC, that some people really want to do this. Especially when I read some of the concepts introduced in the Legends and Lore column. It's almost like the plan has already been settled upon and they're just now looking for the justification to do it.
All I can say is that if you're going to split the edition, tread carefully. Ask yourself what the goal of the split is, then if you feel you can meet your goals with a split, actually SPLIT it - don't go half way. Two seperate games, not meant to be compatible, interchangeable or mixable. The only thing they would have in common is that they're both D&D. Having two mixable editions could lead to a situation where you have a mess that satisfies neither the beginning nor the veteran player.
After all, it did work okay for TSR if you want to go there. Having two versions of D&D was not what led to their shutdown.
I do predict we will see an edition split when the next version of D&D is created.
The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
I think that WotC would have to be very, very careful going down the proposed road of splitting their game into two parts. A certain owner of D&D already learned the hard way that running Basic and Advanced editions side by side works only up to a certain point, and past that point it begins to fall apart dramatically...
Wizards already split D&D. 3rd edition created a split between the old school and the new. 4th edition created a split between Pathfinder and WOTC D&D. And yet all three streams are flourishing happily, just not under one company. If you add up all those players, D&D is extremely healthy.
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
Try out Old D&D: the three little brown books from 1974. I just played it with a group last year.
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
So... PHB1, DMG1, MM1 and you're done.
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
Try out Old D&D: the three little brown books from 1974. I just played it with a group last year.
right and they refer you to chainmail more than once so
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
I think I know what you're saying, and I agree.
I have friends that I'd love to play D&D with, but they're not Gamers with a capital G. Unfortunately there's not a single edition of the game that I'm comfortable introducing them to, because every edition is confusing or needlessly complicated in one way or another.
The more and more time passes, the more and more I believe there needs to be two D&Ds. One that you can simply pick up and play and is more or less complete right out of the box, and one that is very deep, has a billion supplements, and caters to the hardcore crowd. The key is that I think the two should be clearly and completely separate from each other. I really don't think the two mix. Having them both together creates a situation of haves and have nots, where those with system mastery lord over those without, and certain character concepts can't be done without a pile of books.
Making the game simple and complete conflicts with those who want depth, and a deep game with tons of supplements makes the game more difficult to just pick up and play.
I think this needs to happen, and it needs to happen without condescending to the pick up and play crowd.
It did not work in the early AD&D days, that was the truth.
The two ended up competiting EACH others, and ONE had to go - Basic line disapeared.
What is wrong with simplicity, also?
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
So... PHB1, DMG1, MM1 and you're done.
Personally I'd rather put it as: PHB1, DMG1, and DMG2
You can create just about any monster using the guidelines in DMG1, and completely ignore all the MMs and MVs, taking powers from the PHB1 if you want. The DMG2 would have the update to Solo monsters, as well as exceptional guidelines for a whole slew of custom stuff that could easily be rewarded as part of a homebrew campaign. The PHB1 would be the only player resource needed by the group basically But yeah, since thecausaloblivion did mention "less of a hardcore commitment... a game that is more or less complete in three books or less" (emphasis mine, minor spelling issue corrected), the MM1 -- or better yet, the MM2, MM3 or MV, given how much the MM1 sometimes veers off the DMG guidelines on monster creation -- would be an appropriate third book instead of DMG2, since you can easily pull out monsters from the MMs and run them as is, complete with suggested team monster line-up which, when combined with the DMG1 suggestions on random encounters, you could easily set up an entire dungeon delve within half an hour or so
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
I think I know what you're saying, and I agree.
I have friends that I'd love to play D&D with, but they're not Gamers with a capital G. Unfortunately there's not a single edition of the game that I'm comfortable introducing them to, because every edition is confusing or needlessly complicated in one way or another.
I don't understand how the game isn't simple enough for this level of player. I ran a group with my sisters and my father once, none of whom had any table top experience. The most rpg'ing my father had ever done was play a Ranger in EQ, my little sister had played some WoW before and my older sister had run around Red Dead Redemption for a few hours.
If you can't use what exists to teach new players it isn't because of a lack in the materials and game product.
It did not work in the early AD&D days, that was the truth.
The two ended up competiting EACH others, and ONE had to go - Basic line disapeared.
That is an entirely incorrect statement.
The BECMI line and AD&D line existed quite well alongside each other from 1977 until 1997.
That's 20 years. If there had been an actual issue with the 2 lines "competing against each other", there's simply no way they would have been able to coexist for that long. The truth is, both lines enjoyed a stable customer base. TSR was receiving all of the income from both lines. Both lines were very successful. Had one been dropped in lieu of the other prematurely, that would have made an impact that could have been financially ruinous for TSR (even long before they did become financially ruined under Lorraine Williams).
One of the long-time rumors is that the BECMI line was started so that D&D co-creator Dave Arneson would not receive any credit (or royalties) for the AD&D line. I can neither confirm nor deny this rumor, and anyone who does know the truth isn't talking about it.
Fact is, TSR produced the BECMI-line products right up until the WotC buyout. The Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals (the final product in the BECMI line) was printed right up until 1997, when WotC bought out TSR. To claim that the Basic line disappeared is a shady statement. Yes, it disappeared...at the same time AD&D did.
I look at Gamma World 4E and I'm thinking that, removing the quirky bits like random mutations and card-based play, and you can easily have the 4E chassis there and then
Just like how it was so easy for GW4E to strip away the existing skill table AND classes and impose its own, it's so easy to add and remove so many components of the D&D 4E's chassis, and you can even play D&D 4E with only ability scores and p.42 of the DMG (even if you remove just about everything else)! With that much flexibility, I'm pretty certain we can play around with the entire system for quite awhile, even if rumors of 5E are true
+1
My first thought when reading the OP was Gamma World--especially if you take out the "complicated" bits like the mutations and card based items and streamline the combat a little.
Gamma World really is an easy set-up, low prep, casual version of 4e. Character generation is both short and really *fun* (don't underestimate how important that is for a casual pick-up game). If they threw in a couple more pregenerated scenarios, the DM would practically never need to prep ahead of time.
Also: as noted by several others above, if you're less about the role-play aspect of it and more about the tactical fighting, the Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon board games are also fun, casual, no-prep versions of 4e.
So, how many people have played the board games? Like Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon. I've seen them played, and they look like a quick, pregen pick-up of D&D, a perfect "basic game" if you will. Why not use that as a baseline? Because it's 60 bucks? I mean, I can get all three core books off of Amazon for that; I can get one of those board games for 10ish bucks less. Makes sense to me.
I loved the Ravenloft game the first few times I played it...then it got a little monotonous.
It's been sitting in the family game closet for a few months now, and has slowly drifted its way down under Scrabble, Monopoly, Age of Mythology, and...embarassing as it is...the WWE board game.
I had really hoped for $60 it would've had more going for it.
This is the main reason I didn't pick up Ashardalon.
I think one big hurdle to getting people into RPGs is because so many of them are based on fantasy and science fiction. Those are nerdy things, and aren't instantly appealing to all young people. This may sound cheesy, but a RPG about Sports Teams might really break open the market. People from all walks of life like sports, lots of grown adults play Fantasy Football, and the goals of RPing a Football player/coach/reporter is more easily grasped than being a Dwarf/Paladin/Archmage.
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
I think I know what you're saying, and I agree.
I have friends that I'd love to play D&D with, but they're not Gamers with a capital G. Unfortunately there's not a single edition of the game that I'm comfortable introducing them to, because every edition is confusing or needlessly complicated in one way or another.
I don't understand how the game isn't simple enough for this level of player. I ran a group with my sisters and my father once, none of whom had any table top experience. The most rpg'ing my father had ever done was play a Ranger in EQ, my little sister had played some WoW before and my older sister had run around Red Dead Redemption for a few hours.
If you can't use what exists to teach new players it isn't because of a lack in the materials and game product.
My best friend, and one of those I'd love to introduce to D&D, is a Shakespearean actor. Loves the plays, the language, the roles, the drama, everything. Me, I occasionally see a Shakespeare when he invites me to one of his shows. I probably understand Shakespearean plays better than the average Joe, but I still think "This would be so much easier to enjoy if it were in modern English" every time I see a show.
I'm sure I could corner him into a D&D game if I tried, and he wouldn't hate it. But I don't want him to feel like I feel at his shows; like he has to wade through needlessly confusing static noise just to play the game.
Point buying stats, races, classes, builds, powers, feats, weapons, skills, backgrounds, themes...WotC makes special software just to keep track of all the stuff a player has to choose before he can even start playing the game. No, nobody needs the CB, but it's undeniably useful. It's verging on necessary. Just consider that for a moment.
Most editions can claim varying degrees of simplicity, but they all have flaws that make them unappealing as a quick-run or starter game; archaic and confusing mechanics, needlessly restrictive tropes, gross imbalance. As far as I'm concerned, D&D is a Gamer's game.
So, how many people have played the board games? Like Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon. I've seen them played, and they look like a quick, pregen pick-up of D&D, a perfect "basic game" if you will. Why not use that as a baseline? Because it's 60 bucks? I mean, I can get all three core books off of Amazon for that; I can get one of those board games for 10ish bucks less. Makes sense to me.
I loved the Ravenloft game the first few times I played it...then it got a little monotonous.
It's been sitting in the family game closet for a few months now, and has slowly drifted its way down under Scrabble, Monopoly, Age of Mythology, and...embarassing as it is...the WWE board game.
I had really hoped for $60 it would've had more going for it.
This is the main reason I didn't pick up Ashardalon.
Would it/they be useful for a person with no minis whatsoever? Or someone who wants to use the tiles for more than just the boardgame?
Wizards already split D&D.
But not into Basic and Advanced versions.
1. On splitting the fanbase--
Wizards already split D&D.
But not into Basic and Advanced versions.
The difference is between two more or less comparable versions of the same game(AD&D/basic), focusing on a specific slice of the fanbase and "firing" the rest(the 3E/4E edition change), and producing two different games to cater to two audiences who want different and conflicting things(what I am proposing).
Listen, I'm a 4E guy. If Wizards were to produce the second version of D&D I am imagining and asking for, I'll still be playing 4E. That being said, while I am a fan of 4E I can be honest enough to say that there are things 4E just does not do, things D&D has done in the past and things D&D has no business not doing.
This is the important part here, and the part people in this thread and people at WotC seem to miss out on: what I'm talking about here isn't about new players, its about people who want a casual commitment to the game. People who only want to deal with a limited amount of content, and want to play an ongoing game based on that limited content and never upgrade. This is why I'm not talking about new players, I'm talking about(for example) people who played 1E/2E with just the core books for years on end and were perfectly satisfied doing so. 4E as it stands now just isn't designed for this. The core books, either in original or essentials trim, really don't give a sense of completeness. They are gateways to the larger game, and hint of all the fun toys in the supplemental books and DDI. They are a hook. You can limit yourself to just the starting books, but it lessens the game and intentionally so. The fact that you can do so doesn't make it right or even appealing. People who want don't want to make the committment and be a "hardcore gamer" can take one look at the enormity of 4E and just walk away. To be honest, 3E was the same way though it lacked the clarity of 4E in this(and a lot of other) ways. That sort of person should not be driven from D&D.
2. Playing older editions
There are problems with older editions and retro clones being a solution to this. A lot of the reasons were stated in this post:
Most editions can claim varying degrees of simplicity, but they all have flaws that make them unappealing as a quick-run or starter game; archaic and confusing mechanics, needlessly restrictive tropes, gross imbalance. As far as I'm concerned, D&D is a Gamer's game.
Archaic mechanics and restrictive tropes describe pre-3E D&D. The RPG community has come to expect a larger degree of character customization than early editions of D&D provide. While it doesn't need to be expansive as character creation in 3E and 4E can be, there is a minimum of customization expected by modern gamers that early D&D just doesn't meet. There are also some idiosyncracies in the early games that make them hopelessly dated to modern eyes. On the other hand, 3E suffers from gross imbalance and has a steeper curve for system mastery than 4E.
To add to this, not all of us live in major metropolitan areas. I live in a secondary metropolitan area(about 750k people) and finding a game of 4E is hard enough. Trying to cobble together a table of anything other than mainstream D&D is swimming upstream. Playing a "dead game" out of print for over 10 years or some strangly named clone of such makes it even more difficult.
3. Board Games
I own Nerath and Ravenloft, and play them with a modest frequency. Ravenloft doesn't provide a real roleplaying experience, and isn't a solution for people who want to roleplay without dealing with 50 character classes and thousands of feats and powers.
4. Playing 4E with just the core 3 books
I stated the reasons for this above, that 4E really isn't designed to be a home run using just the core books. Its meant to be played using everything, and provides the best experience doing so. To be honest, I'd say that the Essentials line does a better job of being "complete" than the first wave of PHB/MM/DMG. While you can do it, it isn't a good fit. If you want a game with a smaller scope where you don't have to grok the content of piles of books, you want a game that can do that well and provide a first rate experience. 4E isn't that game.
5. Simplicity vs complex
I don't think new/veteran is where the split lies and I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms. The split lies between people who want a big, deep game with billions of options and supplements and people who want something that is less of a hardcore comittment and want a game that is more or less complete in three books or less. The issue isn't complexity, it's depth.
I think I know what you're saying, and I agree.
I have friends that I'd love to play D&D with, but they're not Gamers with a capital G. Unfortunately there's not a single edition of the game that I'm comfortable introducing them to, because every edition is confusing or needlessly complicated in one way or another.
I don't understand how the game isn't simple enough for this level of player. I ran a group with my sisters and my father once, none of whom had any table top experience. The most rpg'ing my father had ever done was play a Ranger in EQ, my little sister had played some WoW before and my older sister had run around Red Dead Redemption for a few hours.
If you can't use what exists to teach new players it isn't because of a lack in the materials and game product.
People(including) seem to still be making this mistake. People are smarter than you'd expect, and can deal with complexity better than you'd think. The complexity of 4E isn't the issue, its the depth. The issue isn't understanding the mechanics, its eyes glazing over when they see the list of 3000+ feats to choose from. DDI tools make this managable, but don't solve the issue. For a hardcore gamer like me, the depth is part of the experience, and one I choose to embrace, but not everybody wants their RPG to be homework. 4E is really enjoyable homework, but homework nonetheless. D&D should have some ability to appeal to players who don't want homework.
Replace PHB1 with either HoFL or HoFK, and it still works out the same way more or less. DMG might be swappable with DMK, but if there's one book I'd love to add but couldn't because of the book limit given by the OP, it'd be DMG2, from the sheer awesomeness of the book for the DM's side.
And frankly, compared to HoFL or HoFK, I still prefer the PHB1's layout. As for the learning curve required for 4E, while it's not 100% intuitive, it's still surprisingly easy to learn for a supposedly-archaic RPG system (I'd rate it at around 60% ~ 70% intuitive).
EDIT: Oh I get it, the problem is that thecasualoblivion basically wants a D&D that can be played for a very long time in isolation without the need to update, uses only 3 or less books, and is easy to learn and is fully compatible with a secondary D&D that has a myriad of additional options... and yet 4E supposedly doesn't have that, because it lacks, err, "depth".
I'm thinking, how can you have more options than the infinity* of options offered by p.42 of the DMG? As I mentioned earlier, get the PHB, get your ability scores, derive your ability modifiers, get p.42 of the DMG, and set up an entire campaign with nothing else than that -- no classes, no powers, no hit points, no healing surges, no skills... just d20 rolls with ability modifiers when needed, and tons of RPing when they're not. That's basically all you need to be able to play for years without having to worry about updates or anything.
To put it simply: 4E already supports this, as far as I can tell.
* more accurately, "as much as your mind can come up with"
The core books could easily have more scope for powers and choices built into the system but it doesn't.
It's a weird issue but by giving classes powers and roles, choices are somewhat impeded or directed. I'd say 4e gives better meaningful options but it still limits options more than it should.
On the subject as a whole, no, there doesn't need to be multiple editions. There just needs to be a solid modular design for D&D. Then you wouldn't need various versions of D&D, you'd just have groups opting in and out of certain features. This way D&D could cater for multiple audiences.
It's like you guys refuse to see the basic nature of the game no matter how hard I try to point it out to you, because it's all there in type. At first level give them a weapon feat, at second level give your defender toughness and your striker something like Impending Victory.
If your players want more than that, pick out a few feats that would help them if they so choose, but still gives them a few options. You are the absolute master of what your give people access to. If they want more, they can go and get it. If they don't, they come to you and you walk them through a pretty easy process.
I really don't understand what the problem is.
Perhaps where PC's are more like adventurers then cinamatic heroes?
I would prefer one that had more of a Gygaxian feel to it, with more emphasis placed on fun rather then rules.
Perhaps where PC's are more like adventurers then cinamatic heroes?
Interestingly enough, I think they have those. They would happen to be past editions.
I prefer the cinematic heroes angle, myself. Oh, and I think that rules breed fun, not take it away.
I would prefer one that had more of a Gygaxian feel to it, with more emphasis placed on fun rather then rules.
Perhaps where PC's are more like adventurers then cinamatic heroes?
Interestingly enough, I think they have those. They would happen to be past editions.
I prefer the cinematic heroes angle, myself. Oh, and I think that rules breed fun, not take it away.
Ha, I know that there are certainly some people that have fun from rules (lawyers?) but I find that I have more of a Neutral bent then Lawful.
Imagine a game of chess where the pawns could attack a piece that had slipped behind them? Rules say no, but the fun says hell yeah.
I would prefer one that had more of a Gygaxian feel to it, with more emphasis placed on fun rather then rules.
Perhaps where PC's are more like adventurers then cinamatic heroes?
Interestingly enough, I think they have those. They would happen to be past editions.
I prefer the cinematic heroes angle, myself. Oh, and I think that rules breed fun, not take it away.
Ha, I know that there are certainly some people that have fun from rules (lawyers?) but I find that I have more of a Neutral bent then Lawful.
Imagine a game of chess where the pawns could attack a piece that had slipped behind them? Rules say no, but the fun says hell yeah.
Which then means instituting a rule that allows pawns to attack behind?
Different sides of the coin here, methinks, one person seeing rules as limiters, the other seeing rules as things to be added to and such to promote fun. I think 4th ed has enough room for both, but nary any room for people who need to be "better" than another simply for the sake of their own fun versus others, which is the common complaint from players of older editions.
Also, 4th was my first edition because I was not interested in Gygax's ideas. Should they return to this or another version, I will steer clear. ;)
Imagine a game of chess where the pawns could attack a piece that had slipped behind them? Rules say no, but the fun says hell yeah.
Which then means instituting a rule that allows pawns to attack behind?
Mmm, if you need to have a rule.
Different sides of the coin here, methinks, one person seeing rules as limiters, the other seeing rules as things to be added to and such to promote fun. I think 4th ed has enough room for both, but nary any room for people who need to be "better" than another simply for the sake of their own fun versus others, which is the common complaint from players of older editions.
Yes I could imagine that rule. "You must have fun but you can not have more then 1/x fun (where x is the number of people playing). If you have more fun then this, then the next session you suffer a -1 penalty to fun until your second milestone"
Lol
Also, 4th was my first edition because I was not interested in Gygax's ideas. Should they return to this or another version, I will steer clear. ;)
You are not interested in Gygax's ideas and yet you are interested in DnD?
An oxymoron?
EDIT: Oh I get it, the problem is that thecasualoblivion basically wants a D&D that can be played for a very long time in isolation without the need to update, uses only 3 or less books, and is easy to learn and is fully compatible with a secondary D&D that has a myriad of additional options... and yet 4E supposedly doesn't have that, because it lacks, err, "depth".
If I've been following along this thread correctly, 4e doesn't qualify for what thecasualoblivion suggests because it does have too much depth (for what he's talking about).
You guys do realize you get to choose what pieces and parts your players have available. It's not that hard. Heck, pick feats for your players, give them pregen characters so they don't have to wade through the 'depth.'
It's like you guys refuse to see the basic nature of the game no matter how hard I try to point it out to you, because it's all there in type. At first level give them a weapon feat, at second level give your defender toughness and your striker something like Impending Victory.
If your players want more than that, pick out a few feats that would help them if they so choose, but still gives them a few options. You are the absolute master of what your give people access to. If they want more, they can go and get it. If they don't, they come to you and you walk them through a pretty easy process.
I really don't understand what the problem is.
I believe he's talking about a game where NO ONE has to wade through the depth.
(And just in case that can be misinterpreted, no, I don't mean no one has to DM. Yes, the DM probably has to wade through more stuff than the players will. The DM shouldn't need to wade though the "depth of player options" on top of what s/he's already doing.)
(And just in case that can be misinterpreted, no, I don't mean no one has to DM. Yes, the DM probably has to wade through more stuff than the players will. The DM shouldn't need to wade though the "depth of player options" on top of what s/he's already doing.)
So in that case they just open the first few books and we can move on with our lives.
Imagine a game of chess where the pawns could attack a piece that had slipped behind them? Rules say no, but the fun says hell yeah.
Which then means instituting a rule that allows pawns to attack behind?
Mmm, if you need to have a rule.Different sides of the coin here, methinks, one person seeing rules as limiters, the other seeing rules as things to be added to and such to promote fun. I think 4th ed has enough room for both, but nary any room for people who need to be "better" than another simply for the sake of their own fun versus others, which is the common complaint from players of older editions.
Yes I could imagine that rule. "You must have fun but you can not have more then 1/x fun (where x is the number of people playing). If you have more fun then this, then the next session you suffer a -1 penalty to fun until your second milestone"
LolAlso, 4th was my first edition because I was not interested in Gygax's ideas. Should they return to this or another version, I will steer clear. ;)
You are not interested in Gygax's ideas and yet you are interested in DnD?
An oxymoron?
Dude,. Gygax created D&D, we thank him.
But actyally, he had... questionable, half baked ideas. The design skills evolved over decades. Also, he was known to say one thing, and perhaps thinking another - like his actual rule lawyering bent, DM as boss, tolkienisms, etc...
he created D&D in the *70s.*
DECADES passed. It,s time to move also into future.
Also, Gygax is not an holy being, a sacred thing. We should be able to point at his bad choices, his folly, etc...
AND also, what is Gygax's... and what belong actually to the OTHER, never sung created, Arneson?
The more and more time passes, the more and more I believe there needs to be two D&Ds. One that you can simply pick up and play and is more or less complete right out of the box, and one that is very deep, has a billion supplements, and caters to the hardcore crowd. The key is that I think the two should be clearly and completely separate from each other.
Like AD&D 2e with it's zillion settings & suplements and the all-in-one Rules Cyclopedia in the 90s? Or like Basic D&D and AD&D in the 80s?
So, the more time passes, the more you want things to be like they were. Common problem.
Imagine a game of chess where the pawns could attack a piece that had slipped behind them? Rules say no, but the fun says hell yeah.
Which then means instituting a rule that allows pawns to attack behind?
Mmm, if you need to have a rule.Different sides of the coin here, methinks, one person seeing rules as limiters, the other seeing rules as things to be added to and such to promote fun. I think 4th ed has enough room for both, but nary any room for people who need to be "better" than another simply for the sake of their own fun versus others, which is the common complaint from players of older editions.
Yes I could imagine that rule. "You must have fun but you can not have more then 1/x fun (where x is the number of people playing). If you have more fun then this, then the next session you suffer a -1 penalty to fun until your second milestone"
LolAlso, 4th was my first edition because I was not interested in Gygax's ideas. Should they return to this or another version, I will steer clear. ;)
You are not interested in Gygax's ideas and yet you are interested in DnD?
An oxymoron?
Dude,. Gygax created D&D, we thank him.
But actyally, he had... questionable, half baked ideas. The design skills evolved over decades. Also, he was known to say one thing, and perhaps thinking another - like his actual rule lawyering bent, DM as boss, tolkienisms, etc...
he created D&D in the *70s.*
DECADES passed. It,s time to move also into future.
Also, Gygax is not an holy being, a sacred thing. We should be able to point at his bad choices, his folly, etc...
AND also, what is Gygax's... and what belong actually to the OTHER, never sung created, Arneson?
Yeah, basically I like the idea of D&D the 4th edition, I like the idea of a system that allows more freedom of choice than a video game and has a fantasy bent.
I'm a kid mainly of the 80s and 90s, the video game era, and am the grandchild of a Lutheran pastor to boot. Guess how much D&D factored into my upbringing before high school? None. And after that only occasionally in video games (With varying degrees of quality; thanks, Atari). I do not care about Gygax for any other reason than that the man had a hand in creating the original system. His likes are not mine, his game choices are not mine, I do not feel otherwise indebted or beholden to the man or his original concepts for D&D. For me, 4th ed is D&D, beyond any enjoyment I have gotten from the 5-7ish video games I have played with the D&D label on them (all at or beyond the time of the original Baldur's Gate PC game). What little I have read of the original rules or the iterations afterward were largely esoteric and made no sense to me, from a game or fun standpoint, and seemed to be missing large chunks of rules.
So yeah, Gygax? I thank him for initiating the game, but what he thought was fun and what I think is fun are very disparate.
Edit: I forgot. We also had (and still have) a copy of the boardgame called "The Classic Dungeon" a reissue of Dungeon by TSR. We played it often with my younger cousins, who were the ones to gift it to my younger brother some time in the late 80s, early 90s.
tolkienisms
I heard he wasn't such a Tolkien fan (actually found Gandalf trite), was more of a Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard, and Fritz Lieber fan.
Dude,. Gygax created D&D, we thank him.
I do not know about you, but usually when I thank someone, I do not go on to abuse them - it makes you look like a hypocrite.
But actyally, he had... questionable, half baked ideas. The design skills evolved over decades. Also, he was known to say one thing, and perhaps thinking another - like his actual rule lawyering bent, DM as boss, tolkienisms, etc...
I think everyone has had questionable ideas. I am sure employing Lorraine Williams probably ranks up there.
Gary was actually well known as being very anti-rules lawyering so I am not sure that any of your other examples holds any weight.
he created D&D in the *70s.*
DECADES passed. It,s time to move also into future.
Exactly, which is why we need another edition that holds its self up to the ideals expounded by Gygax while at the same time using some of the newer ideas. Even Heinsoo had one or two good ideas that could be used.
Also, Gygax is not an holy being, a sacred thing. We should be able to point at his bad choices, his folly, etc...
Of course he is not a holy being. But he is a good deal better at what he did then some of the arm chair designers that you see around the boards. Certainly some of the later "official" designers are no where as good as he was in the infancy of RPG design.
And I think a lot of people forget the great things that he did in creating a whole genre of games in their rush to hate on him. But you know that haters got to hate, right?
AND also, what is Gygax's... and what belong actually to the OTHER, never sung created, Arneson?
Yes, what about Arneson?
I don't really agree with the objective. Like the OP I love the depth of complexity of 4e. I much prefer that players who like simplicity make a simple character, such as building a pure Essentials character, and join me at the table. The great thing is that they don't need to know how to build a crazy counterintuitive hybrid monstrocity in order to play at the same table with mine.
Go BEYOND the old man.
And, as shown by the last time someone tried to have two lines of D&D, not all "newbies"want to be identified as such; especially young gamers who want to be seen as mature and worthy of the "real" version of the game. BECMI attracted a different audience than intended, and thus did a poor job of fulfilling the needs of its users.
Instead, I think we need a rules heavy version of D&D and rules lite, a combat heavy version and a story heavy version.
I'm going to join in wondering how Gamma World 4e fails to meet the OP's request. Is it just the apolocapytic future setting? If you took the GW ruleset and refluffed it (with perhaps a few related mechanical changes) to a classic D&D fantasy flavor would that be approximately what you're looking for?
I don't really agree with the objective. Like the OP I love the depth of complexity of 4e. I much prefer that players who like simplicity make a simple character, such as building a pure Essentials character, and join me at the table. The great thing is that they don't need to know how to build a crazy counterintuitive hybrid monstrocity in order to play at the same table with mine.
It was the refluff and the whole random booster pack idea to expand your character. Let's keep Magic: the Gathering and D&D seperate.
If Boddhidharma told us that we can 'swipe ourselves with the Sutra', and 'kill the Buddha if we see him'....
Go BEYOND the old man.
And Gygax was supposed to have half baked ideas?
I think we need a rules heavy version of D&D and rules lite, a combat heavy version and a story heavy version.
Isn't what that p.42, skill checks and maybe basic attacks does?
It was the refluff and the whole random booster pack idea to expand your character.
So give the players a box of blank cards and tell them to write up their own, with GM consultation.
Let's keep Magic: the Gathering and D&D seperate.
Never!
community.wizards.com/alter_boy/blog/?pr...
Let's keep Magic: the Gathering and D&D seperate.
Never!
community.wizards.com/alter_boy/blog/?pr...
Heh Zendikar makes a great setting too.