Quote from: SosthenesI've heard that a lot, but never had the problems, especially with the cleared up rules in 3.5. It's a modal interaction, as opposed to most other attacks, but in the end really not that complex, as the possible outcomes are rather limited. I'm not sure how one could reasonably reduce the complexity. SWS tried, but IMHO oversimplifies a bit.

What bugs the hell out of me is that "Grapple", "Trip", "Disarm", etc etc. all use different mechanics. There should be a common "special maneuver" mechanic, and that's it.  Possibly the stat/skill/whatever you roll might be different, but the way you resolve any of these things should all be the same.

And obviously, Attacks of Opportunity suck.  I say that not because its directly relevant to the topic at hand, but in the same sense that a Roman Senator might add "And Carthage must be destroyed" at the end of all his speeches.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CalithenaI know Forge games are verboten here, but an ex-Mormon friend was so into the idea of Dogs in the Vineyard that she tried it as her first RPG and now she's painting minis and playing in my 3.5 game next month.

So you have actually convert someone from DitV to D&D? That should carved into stone... that will teach them!

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat bugs the hell out of me is that "Grapple", "Trip", "Disarm", etc etc. all use different mechanics. There should be a common "special maneuver" mechanic, and that's it.  Possibly the stat/skill/whatever you roll might be different, but the way you resolve any of these things should all be the same.

Hell yes!

QuoteAnd obviously, Attacks of Opportunity suck.  I say that not because its directly relevant to the topic at hand, but in the same sense that a Roman Senator might add "And Carthage must be destroyed" at the end of all his speeches.

Hell no!

Quote from: mearlsCalithena: We definitely think about these things a lot. When I helped work on the current basic set, we came up with a lot of different approaches we could try. We ended up going with a format similar to the one that came before, but it's something we think about a lot.

There would have to be a serious shift in the market for a game like BD&D to come back and exist alongside an AD&D type game. From what I understand, the two lines competed with each other. BD&D was at its best when it served as a gateway to AD&D.

Yes, absolutely! Don't get me wrong, anyone who knows me knows that I adored RC D&D and still think its the best version of D&D ever made. But it was no longer "basic" by any definition of the word.  The rules weren't really "simple" anymore (with shitloads of mechanics have slowly added onto to system), the packaging was no longer "basic" (a hardbound book?), nothing about it made any sense for a "Basic" game and at that point it was obviously competing against AD&D and no longer serving in any useful way as a "gateway" into the former.

What you want is something like the Red Box/Blue Box sets, and that's it.

QuoteAnyway, we'd never simply decide to abandon simplicity or ease of use in design because we like complexity. I like to think of D&D's rules as two sub-sets, the foundational rules that everyone needs to learn to play (movement, attacks, saves), and the "depth" rules that are essentially optional. You can learn from 0% to 100% of those rules, depending on your personal motivation. For instance, you can play a fighter with zero understanding wizard and cleric spells. Looking at SAGA, I think the trend is to make those foundational rules as easy to learn, remember, and apply, while keeping the "depth" rules interesting and fun.

Having just been in a playtest of Saga (as a player at that!), I would say that its certainly a step in the right direction, but still a bit on the complex side as far as combat mechanics etc. are concerned.

RPGPundit

J Arcane: I agree with you that we do NOT need "Rules Lite" D&D.

Nor do we need to reissue the Rules Cyclopedia (even though it was really cool and no doubt many nostalgic old gamers would buy it if they did).

Neither of those would bring in new gamers.

What we DO need is a "Basic D&D", which is not a rules-lite D&D but a streamlined D&D, and which is packaged and marketed toward beginners (with a low price point and "introductory" attitude).
Its as much to do with marketing as it is with Rules.

RPGPundit

We've already had multiple attempts at the latter, and you can find copies of them in almost every Barnes and Noble and Waldenbooks and Borders across the entire US.

Nobody bought them.  Now they just sit on the shelves collecting dust.  

Beginners don't need to be pandered to.  Beginners don't LIKE being pandered to.  And no one wants to blow cash, no matter how cheap, and what they see as clearly an incomplete game designed only to sell them the real thing.  

Why should one waste their money on a crummy 3-level limit version of D&D, when they can just buy the real PHB with the same money?

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat bugs the hell out of me is that "Grapple", "Trip", "Disarm", etc etc. all use different mechanics. There should be a common "special maneuver" mechanic, and that's it.  Possibly the stat/skill/whatever you roll might be different, but the way you resolve any of these things should all be the same.

Hmm?
Grapple: touch to hit, opposed grapple rolls
Trip: touch to hit, opposed strength rolls
Disarm: opposed rolls

Rather similar, and the variations are rather obvious. Generalization would mostly be about organization, i.e. having a "combat maneuver" section with those as examples. Wouldn't necessarily be any shorter, lead to more maneuvers or be easier to find.  

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd obviously, Attacks of Opportunity suck.  I say that not because its directly relevant to the topic at hand, but in the same sense that a Roman Senator might add "And Carthage must be destroyed" at the end of all his speeches.

I almost never play them RAW, but I generally like mechanics that limit the mobility of the characters. And I'd rather combine this with the risk of being hit than it being impossible (or automatic). Zipping around on the battlefield all willy-nilly only works for me for more cinematic games done without a grid.

Quote from: mearls...I think the interesting side of the issue is that, IME, simpler games appeal to the most experienced gamers. I think that when people get into gaming, they have a lot of time and energy to put into it. As they grow older, and they have more responsibilities, then they start to want simpler, faster gamers. By the same token, an RPGer who wants to try lots of games or play lots of pick-up sessions probably wants simpler rules, too....

I think that this is quite true.  It's certainly true for me.  

But this observation raises the question: why ignore this part of the market?  

It seems that something like a 'basic' version of D&D that was nonetheless a 'real game' (not simply a feeder product) could appeal to both newcomers (just as the old Basic/Expert D&D sets did, even though players almost invariably moved on to AD&D eventually) and the busy old timers who want something fast and simple (and people who like to play 'one shot' or 'pick up' games, etc.).

I mean, so long as such a product expands the market, it seems like a good idea.  I completely understand why WotC would not want to push a 'basic' or 'light' D&D instead of something like 3.5 D&D, but as a supplementary product, I don't see how it could hurt.
:cool:

Quote from: J ArcaneWhy should one waste their money on a crummy 3-level limit version of D&D, when they can just buy the real PHB with the same money?

Clearly, there'd be NO good reason for that.  The 3-level limit version should be much, MUCH cheaper than a PHB.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditClearly, there'd be NO good reason for that.  The 3-level limit version should be much, MUCH cheaper than a PHB.

RPGPundit

You people do realize that just because Wizards are the top of the heap in the hobby, it doesn't mean they have unlimited capital, right?

You're talking about starting a whole new product line, and then basically giving it away for less than $30?  

And all to appeal to a fairly limited minority of vocal grognards, who're likely not gonna buy the damn thing anyway because they're too resistant to new editions of bloody anything?  

Especially after they've already tried, and failed, three times, to introduce an introductory product into the market?  

I don't have even the slightest bit of doubt about saying that's just flat never going to happen.  

The best you guys can hope for is that your influence ontinues past SAGA and you get a dumbed-down 4th Edition.  And even then, I'd like to think that the folks at Wizards are smart enough to realize that the "OMG D&D IS TOO COMPLICATED" crowd is too much of a minority to be allowed to direct the course of actual D&D.  

So yeah, maybe I am overreacting.  You guys are living in a damn fantasy world, and in retrospect I really don't think I have anything to worry about.  

And if you do get what you want, well, D&D 3 will still be free . . .

Quote from: J ArcaneThe best you guys can hope for is that your influence ontinues past SAGA and you get a dumbed-down 4th Edition.

What do you consider to be dumbed down about SAGA? Seriously, I'm honestly curious.

Quote from: mearlsWhat do you consider to be dumbed down about SAGA? Seriously, I'm honestly curious.

The impression I have gotten, based on the commentary online, and the nature of the praise it's been given, and from who.  

As I put it in another thread, it seems an awful lot like the people who spend the msot time praising SAGA are the same people who constantly gripe about how "overcomplicated" D&D is, and in fact, a lot of the commentary on SAGA seems to include swipes at D&D as a matter of course.

I have not read it, and have no interest in purchasing it, in part because I prefer D6 for Star Wars, and in part because the fan reaction has turned me off completely.

J Arcane would you shill out the cash for 3.5 to give to a 7 year old?  The box sets encouraged a number of very young people into playing D&D without needing parental guidance to help play it with friends.  Same with the Marvel and Star Frontier box sets and you could get them while buying your GoBots, Transformers, GI Joe, He-Man, Care Bears, and Cabbage Patch Kids.

Quote from: GunslingerJ Arcane would you shill out the cash for 3.5 to give to a 7 year old?  The box sets encouraged a number of very young people into playing D&D without needing parental guidance to help play it with friends.  Same with the Marvel and Star Frontier box sets and you could get them while buying your GoBots, Transformers, GI Joe, He-Man, Care Bears, and Cabbage Patch Kids.

I wouldn't shell out cash to give any gaming book to anyone under the age of at least 13.  

7 years old is more than a bit too young for roleplaying, and moreover, it's important for the child to have reached the age where the concept of fantasy vs. reality is more solidly entrenched.  

And a smart 13 year old would have no more trouble figuring out 3.5 than any of us.  Fuck, I was teaching myself The Guide to Adventure at 13.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou people do realize that just because Wizards are the top of the heap in the hobby, it doesn't mean they have unlimited capital, right?

You're talking about starting a whole new product line, and then basically giving it away for less than $30?  

And all to appeal to a fairly limited minority of vocal grognards, who're likely not gonna buy the damn thing anyway because they're too resistant to new editions of bloody anything?  

No, all to appeal to 15 year old boys who've never played D&D before, you stupid fuck.

QuoteEspecially after they've already tried, and failed, three times, to introduce an introductory product into the market?  

I'm not sure about whether their efforts were "failures" or not, I don't have figures on that. I do know that they did it the WRONG way three times now. Not one of those three previous tries were actually a BASIC GAME.

RPGPundit