Quote from: hedgehobbit;1091324I've done way more than that. It wasn't much work as I just didn't do them all at the same time. Like I said, unless you are publishing the game, you don't need to write-up all the classes before hand. And, even when writing them up, you don't need to write-up more than three levels until a player actually picks that class and starts to level up.

"Just in time game design" is what I call it. I started with the seven classes from B/X and started adding from there. First the goblin sneak, then the house pixie, then ogre pit fighter, then the vampire, etc, etc,

Maybe I am thinking more as a game designer than a GM due to my being in the mist of designing a game.

Quote from: Zalman;1091323For better or worse though, I have also found that generating interest from new players is much more difficult when they are essentially assigned a character to play. I think this approach works best with experienced players looking to take their creativity to the next level.

Actually, I find the opposite. Or rather, players who've been brought up on later editions of D&D where everyone gets to create their own special unique snowflake are initially bewildered by just rolling it up and going with it - but they soon get into it. This is because they actually have more creative freedom in a 1e game, even with those restrictions I suggested, than in a 3.5-5e game, where things are run like a computer game with Here Is The Quest and No You Can't Jump That Three Foot Wall. If the rules describe everything you can do in great and copious detail, then they also describe everything you can't do. "What skill do I roll to sit on a mummy's sarcophagus lid and drill a hole in it?"

In a recent Classic Traveller game session, one of the new players expressed surprise the players had spent most of the session on legal wrangling over who owned a ship. "I thought it'd be more space opera," he said. I explained: it's not space opera, it's not all fighting or all legal or whatever, it's whatever you choose it to be. If you choose to solve problems with combats, you will get combats. If you choose to take your characters to Admiralty Court, you will get legal wrangling. If you choose to sit around and drink booze, that'll happen, too. But there are events happening in the game world which will happen with or without you, it's up to you whether you get involved, and once you do get involved, things might change, and there will be consequences for you. The next session was a gigantic space battle - the crew chose to get involved. "You see?" I said - and now he gets it, and is thrilled.

There's a similar reaction once they realise their characters can actually die.

Modern roleplaying games have great creative freedom during character generation, but restrict creative freedom during play. Old school games restrict creative freedom during character generation (by random rolls), but grant great creative freedom during play. In modern games, your character is awesome because of numbers on your character sheet. In old school games, your character is awesome because of what you have them do in play.

Awesome numbers on a character sheet encourage players to see themselves and their character as a unique special snowflake, and not contribute to play unless they can be the star. It's like a team of soccer players where no-one will pass the ball, everyone wants to be the one to score the goal, even the goalie - who then lets a goal through, so the referee has to change the rules to allow the team to win despite their complete lack of teamwork. AKA Challenge Ratings.

By restricting choices during character generation, you bring the focus from the character sheet to play. We are here to play a game, not look at our character sheets.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091370Actually, I find the opposite. Or rather, players who've been brought up on later editions of D&D where everyone gets to create their own special unique snowflake are initially bewildered by just rolling it up and going with it - but they soon get into it.

That makes sense to me for players of later editions -- a very different group from truly new players. I tend to play more with the latter, which would explain our opposite experiences I think. Of course, a game that allows selection of abilities, race, and class can still be balanced to provide the desired game world (as noted my game runs about 80% human), and doesn't necessarily have to pander to the specialsnowflakeism of later edition D&D.

Quote from: Zalman;1091375That makes sense to me for players of later editions -- a very different group from truly new players. I tend to play more with the latter, which would explain our opposite experiences I think. Of course, a game that allows selection of abilities, race, and class can still be balanced to provide the desired game world (as noted my game runs about 80% human), and doesn't necessarily have to pander to the specialsnowflakeism of later edition D&D.

I mainly GM for children 8-12 to introduce them to the hobby, so after 2-3 (sometimes more) sessions they go away with a copy of the game (microlite74 3d6 edition translated by me) and a totally new group forms. I haven't found them to fail to engage. Which makes me think it's more about new players that do know a bit about the new games from popular culture, but I could be wrong.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1091376I mainly GM for children 8-12 to introduce them to the hobby, so after 2-3 (sometimes more) sessions they go away with a copy of the game (microlite74 3d6 edition translated by me) and a totally new group forms. I haven't found them to fail to engage. Which makes me think it's more about new players that do know a bit about the new games from popular culture, but I could be wrong.

Hm, not sure we're talking about the same thing. Engagement hasn't been an issue for me either way.

No, entirely new players are fine with it. There are few people who have no exposure whatsoever to any kind of game, even eight year olds have played Minecraft or something, and many of them have played games requiring you to make choices about your character's setup or actions.

One of the issues rpgs have always had is that most board games' rules can be laid down in a page or two, but rpgs like to be wordy. A game like chess has simple rules, and the complexity emerges in play; a game like GURPS or D&D3.5 puts the complexity there at the start. So, one game allows you to just jump in and start playing, and the other requires some heavy reading.

Obviously, those of us experienced in any particular version of D&D (or other rpgs) could write a one-page startup summary. But the newbie doesn't know which are the important parts and which not, so when the game actually offers one million options, they can't help but wonder if the DM's summary is stiffing them a bit. But if the game doesn't actually have those options then it's no big deal.

One of the brilliant aspects of AD&D1e is that - even with all the race/class options allowed - it's simple to start, and it's the level system adds complexity. So as your character levels up you get more options, and you're now experienced enough to know which options are right for you.

The most popular and long-lasting games are those which are simple to start but have emergent complexity. That's why AD&D1e is still played more than 40 years after it came out, but nobody plays D&D4e. That's why Classic Traveller is still played, but Traveller 5e is just a doorstop.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091370Actually, I find the opposite. Or rather, players who've been brought up on later editions of D&D where everyone gets to create their own special unique snowflake are initially bewildered by just rolling it up and going with it - but they soon get into it. This is because they actually have more creative freedom in a 1e game, even with those restrictions I suggested, than in a 3.5-5e game, where things are run like a computer game with Here Is The Quest and No You Can't Jump That Three Foot Wall. If the rules describe everything you can do in great and copious detail, then they also describe everything you can't do. "What skill do I roll to sit on a mummy's sarcophagus lid and drill a hole in it?"

The chances that the DM is going to let you drill a hole in a sarcophagus lid and pour in oil is pretty slim.

Quote from: Shasarak;1091419The chances that the DM is going to let you drill a hole in a sarcophagus lid and pour in oil is pretty slim.

Eh, I assume not all sarcophagi are going to be hard schist. I'd assume maybe alabaster or gypsum... or even just whacking off, shifting aside, a corner of the lid to get oil in there. I'd reward clever play in that case, even if it is imprecise. I understand the intent at least.

Getting players to look away from the char-sheet buttons and be in the moment of the game fiction is worth it for me.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1091426Eh, I assume not all sarcophagi are going to be hard schist. I'd assume maybe alabaster or gypsum... or even just whacking off, shifting aside, a corner of the lid to get oil in there. I'd reward clever play in that case, even if it is imprecise. I understand the intent at least.

Getting players to look away from the char-sheet buttons and be in the moment of the game fiction is worth it for me.

And the Mummy is just what, playing dead while the characters are discussing what they want to do and while they laboriously unpack their drill and start grinding away?

I mean sure if you have a soft DM then he is going to let you get away with this kind of stuff no problem.  But a normal DM?  Nah, it will be flame resistant Mummies all the way down and now you are caught without weapon holding a drill.

Dont get me wrong, it is a funny anecdote.

You missed the story earlier on. That was taken care of with a whole party sitting on one lid, and Hold Portal on another.

It's almost as if the players were creative and the DM rewarded them for it - in a fantasy roleplaying game, of all places! What is this madness?!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091391One of the brilliant aspects of AD&D1e is that - even with all the race/class options allowed - it's simple to start, and it's the level system adds complexity. So as your character levels up you get more options, and you're now experienced enough to know which options are right for you.

The most popular and long-lasting games are those which are simple to start but have emergent complexity. That's why AD&D1e is still played more than 40 years after it came out, but nobody plays D&D4e. That's why Classic Traveller is still played, but Traveller 5e is just a doorstop.

^^^^ This.

I think back to when I learned D&D, I didn't swallow the whole thing at once. I learned it in layers. If you know attack rolls, damage rolls, initiative, and saving throws, that's enough to start playing and having a lot of fun. As you play and try to do different things, it raises questions. And the rest of the rules provide answers, filling in the blanks. Like if I sneak up on my enemies, why should he have just as much chance at attacking first as me? Oh. Okay, I see the game has rules for surprise. Learning the additional rules becomes easier when you are mindful of the purpose because you have a specific problem to solve.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091391That's why AD&D1e is still played more than 40 years after it came out, but nobody plays D&D4e. That's why Classic Traveller is still played, but Traveller 5e is just a doorstop.

I think there is a big difference in who is playing those games that confounds a simple comparison of the games themselves. The games from 40 years ago have a lot of old (perhaps even elderly) players, and they stick with what they've known. The later games came during a glut of a wide range of games and to a generation that has a much shorter attention span. If 4e D&D had been released 40 years ago, there is a possibility that it would still be embraced by those that cut their teeth on it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091391But the newbie doesn't know which are the important parts and which not, so when the game actually offers one million options, they can't help but wonder if the DM's summary is stiffing them a bit. But if the game doesn't actually have those options then it's no big deal.

You're still conflating being able to select race and class with "a million options". Those are actually only two options, and a game can offer them as selections without any of the stuff about overwhelming options ever coming into play. It's a simple matter to allow race and class selection while still keeping the game utterly simple to start, and dispelling racial optimization, all at the same time.

Quote from: Zalman;1091480You're still conflating being able to select race and class with "a million options". Those are actually only two options, and a game can offer them as selections without any of the stuff about overwhelming options ever coming into play. It's a simple matter to allow race and class selection while still keeping the game utterly simple to start, and dispelling racial optimization, all at the same time.

Soooo humans in rubber suits.

I think the best way to remove racial optimisation is to remove the bonuses altogether (LFG does this).

Or allow players to simply add +2 to any one stat. Yes, most elves get a +2 bonus to Dex, but a PC can add their +2 to another stat if they wish.

Or make classes add the bonus to a stat, instead of race. Eg all Wizards gain +2 Int.