Quote from: DrewNot when you're playing Basic/Expert.

Or even BECMI.

Makers of more recent editions have all of that as source material to draw on, its a shame they haven't made more use of it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI think that's a fair observation. Except that you're talking about the only examples of play being in books. You're forgetting the informal apprenticeship system that exists in roleplaying, where experienced players bring new players into the group, and how that's where a person learns what roleplaying games are. People don't usually learn to play rpgs by reading a book.

I see the "informal apprenticeship" as a nice bonus, but it shouldn't be taken for granted at any point by designers. Plenty of people learn from reading the books. I know I did.

Of course things have changed immensely with the advent of online communication, but the point still stands. A good gamebook should enable an utter newbie to play successfully without having to rely on others. Otherwise there's a danger of creating a gated community wherein houserules are passed on as law.

Quote from: CabOr even BECMI.

Makers of more recent editions have all of that as source material to draw on, its a shame they haven't made more use of it.

Yep. The dungeon level was a simple and elegant method of threat assessment. I never understood why Moldvay/Mentzer didn't expand it to include wilderness hexes.

Quote from: DrewYep. The dungeon level was a simple and elegant method of threat assessment. I never understood why Moldvay/Mentzer didn't expand it to include wilderness hexes.

I think they felt that as 'wilderness' encounters were introduced in the Expert set, they didn't have to. By the time you've run a few adventures and used several different monsters it isn't hard any more. Basic taught you how to balance encounters, Expert taught you how to broaden the game out into a wilderness and campaign setting.

Quote from: CabI think they felt that as 'wilderness' encounters were introduced in the Expert set, they didn't have to. By the time you've run a few adventures and used several different monsters it isn't hard any more. Basic taught you how to balance encounters, Expert taught you how to broaden the game out into a wilderness and campaign setting.

I'm not so sure. One encounter with a band of Hill Giants could trash a 4th level party. The Number Appearing stat for low level critters often went into the hundreds. It may seem obvious to exercise DM judgement in such cases, but I always felt a leveling mechanic would lay a solid foundation for young gamers to be guided by.

I say this as someone who had to figure it all out from the Moldvay sets aged nine.

Quote from: DrewI see the "informal apprenticeship" as a nice bonus, but it shouldn't be taken for granted at any point by designers.

Why not?

That's like saying that people designing a ball game shouldn't assume that team mates or coaches will teach people how to play, they should get it all just from the written rules. Or like saying that the rules of Monopoly should tell me how to play. They don't, and shouldn't. The rules of Monopoly tell me the rules of the game. How I play it is up to me. Part of the fun of games is figuring out how you're going to play, choosing your own style and tactics.

Quote from: DrewA good gamebook should enable an utter newbie to play successfully without having to rely on others. Otherwise there's a danger of creating a gated community wherein houserules are passed on as law.

"danger"? "gated community"? What do you mean, like in the Green Zone in Baghdad? What are you talking about?

"houserules passed on as law"? Are you thinking that if a person doesn't read the rules to learn how to play, they'll never read the rules, and confuse the group's houserules with the "real" rules? Would that even matter? And what do you mean, "law"? Surely, if I'm the GM, then


Most gamers learn how to roleplay in two ways. Either they're shown by someone else - the "informal apprenticeship system" I mentioned - or else a bunch of kids sit down and figure it out together.

The rulebook isn't there to teach you how to roleplay. It's there to teach you the rules of that game. It might give you advice on fine-tuning things, sure - but you have to learn the basics from another player, or from just trying it out. An adventure module is not a guide to play. It's an adventure module.

Never mind Kyle. I was largely agreeing with you on the point of informal tutorials being a boon to the newbie, but that's irrelevant now. When this sort of response is all one can legitimately expect from you then it becomes pointless even bothering any more. At least I gave it another shot, foolish as that may have been.

So carry on doing what you do so well. :rolleyes:

Quote from: DrewI'm not so sure. One encounter with a band of Hill Giants could trash a 4th level party. The Number Appearing stat for low level critters often went into the hundreds. It may seem obvious to exercise DM judgement in such cases, but I always felt a leveling mechanic would lay a solid foundation for young gamers to be guided by.

I say this as someone who had to figure it all out from the Moldvay sets aged nine.

I agree, the Moldvay set made it relatively hard but did rather address that by coming with B2, which gave you a great worked example of how to use those monsters. Mentzer fixed that problem though, by better explaining number appearing; it is expalined there that the number of monsters of a type encountered depeds on dungeon level as well as number appearing stat, which balances things out quite well.

Note that a fourth level party isn't going to be delving down to the 8th level of a dungeon very often (where they'd run into big troops of hill giants), and they're probably not trawling off into the deep wilderness miles away from towns and trade routes where they'll be met by hill giants.

As hill giants came in the expert rules ayway, by that time the DM is meant to be something other than a complete novice.

Quote from: CabI agree, the Moldvay set made it relatively hard but did rather address that by coming with B2, which gave you a great worked example of how to use those monsters. Mentzer fixed that problem though, by better explaining number appearing; it is expalined there that the number of monsters of a type encountered depeds on dungeon level as well as number appearing stat, which balances things out quite well.

Note that a fourth level party isn't going to be delving down to the 8th level of a dungeon very often (where they'd run into big troops of hill giants), and they're probably not trawling off into the deep wilderness miles away from towns and trade routes where they'll be met by hill giants.

As hill giants came in the expert rules ayway, by that time the DM is meant to be something other than a complete novice.

Oh yeah, I can agree with all of this. It's just that I think giving regions levels would create a solid framework by which the DM (and more importantly the players) could chart their wanderings. Wilderlands of High Fantasy does exactly this with regions and individual hexes, leading to a quick and easy method of guaging what the party can expect. Spice it up with rumors, legends and direct evidence (hill giant leavings, for example) and you get an excellent foundation for play that won't result in unforeseen TPK's. Unless of course the DM wants the players to be well out of their depth...

Quote from: DrewOh yeah, I can agree with all of this. It's just that I think giving regions levels would create a solid framework by which the DM (and more importantly the players) could chart their wanderings. Wilderlands of High Fantasy does exactly this with regions and individual hexes, leading to a quick and easy method of guaging what the party can expect. Spice it up with rumors, legends and direct evidence (hill giant leavings, for example) and you get an excellent foundation for play that won't result in unforeseen TPK's. Unless of course the DM wants the players to be well out of their depth...

Theres also the issue in BECMI D&D of space. How many pages if you stick all of the rulebooks for all 36 levels together in 1 tome? Less than in any one single 3rd ed rulebook; even with the extra stuff on skills, magic item and spell research in the RC its still a piddling little tome in comparison, and yet it manages to tell you everything you need to know.

While you COULD come up with a way of offering more guidance on balancing wilderness encounters in the context of that game, the great beauty of classic D&D is that it doesn't tell you what you're meant to be learning for yourself. BECMI did that extremely well, phasing in wilderness encounters in Expert, dominions and huge campaign issues in Companion, multiplanar and beyond in Masters, and the vast expanse that is Immortality in the final set. By giving that info stepwise, by allowing DMs to move on to more complexity and greater challenge with each set, the whole gaming group would maintain a balance throughout. It didn't do everything right by any means, but to this day I believe it remains a model of how best to learn the game, from the bottom up, and how best to play the game, maintaining elegant simplicity while giving more options as play progresses. Its simple enough so it doesn't scare even a novice away from house ruling, yet complete enough so you don't have to.

I think its a shame that the developers of 3rd ed didn't seem to understand any of that. Its even more of a shame that 4th ed is going further away from that again.

Quote from: CabI think its a shame that the developers of 3rd ed didn't seem to understand any of that. Its even more of a shame that 4th ed is going further away from that again.

If they adopted the BECMI production model you'd hear the screams of "IT'S NOT A COMPLETE GAME!!!" from here to Lake Geneva....

Different times, different expectations.

Quote from: DrewIf they adopted the BECMI production model you'd hear the screams of "IT'S NOT A COMPLETE GAME!!!" from here to Lake Geneva....

Different times, different expectations.

Yeah, maybe. And the bitch of it is, there are few games more in need of a simplified but customisable introduction than modern D&D.

In some ways BECMI was a daft idea; why would you have two competing product lines? And it became a more difficult thing to handle as time went by. I think it largely succumbed to fragmentation in the D&D market brought about by the constant release of new settings (each splitting the market up even further) for AD&D. But at its heart was the gem of a concept that D&D can be elegant, easy, simple, learned in bite sized chunks, and modular.

A 'basic set' for 4th ed would be a great idea if done well. It needn't lead off into a different product line, but it should be playable and complete in itself while leading players who want more onto the main game. A 'rules lite' way of playing 4th ed would also be of great help to those players who just can't be doing with a thousand pages of core rules!