Sure, but it still makes no sense.

"I prefer system A, whose rules I don't know, to system B, whose rules I don't know."

It's sort of like a woman closing her eyes as she walks into a party, and then saying that the guy on her left is better-looking than the guy on her right. How would she know?

Okay, so a player wants to have an uniformed opinion, fair enough. But why would they expect that the GM should respect that opinion?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSure, but it still makes no sense.

"I prefer system A, whose rules I don't know, to system B, whose rules I don't know."

It's sort of like a woman closing her eyes as she walks into a party, and then saying that the guy on her left is better-looking than the guy on her right. How would she know?

Okay, so a player wants to have an uniformed opinion, fair enough. But why would they expect that the GM should respect that opinion?

Overall, your right, of course.  You should check out your options before you decide.   My point is that in order to do so requires a much greater time commitment for an RPG than glancing at the guy next to you at a party.  And that's the rub.   The time commitment... plus the other points.   But the time commitment to learning new systems is big.   And there's the Player reaction as well, which I think is also a big factor.   Well, anyway, that's just my take on it.

Quote from: VBWyrdeBut were I to encounter the full blown e3 today as a first time potential GM ... I tend to think I would have balked because I'm not really *that* geeky.   I'm just geeky enough to have loved e1, and even then, mostly because it pointed the way for me to do my own thing.  :cool:

I believe that if 3rd ed hadn't been called D&D, it would have died an early death. Three 'core' rulebooks of 300 or more pages each? Ain't a good introduction to gaming. Or to D&D.

Huh, somehow my reply was lost.

Quote from: XantherGreat post this, as well as your prior one.  

So how are you coming out on this in your Basic D&D game?

Thanks, and it's coming out okay. It helps that we have a common enthusiasm for a given set of motifs/tropes going in--basically, Lieberesque S&S with a dollop of EC comics two-fistedness-cum-horror. The GMs (it's a rotating GM game, highly episodic, currently on 2nd episode) have generally ratified or rolled dice for whatever we come up with. The main issue has been the use of d20 vs. characteristic checks--something I'd not seen in original or Advanced D&D before, but apparently part of Basic. Given that you tend to have around a 50% chance or better this way, it makes first-level thief skills look even gimpier as "empowering tools".

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe main issue has been the use of d20 vs. characteristic checks--something I'd not seen in original or Advanced D&D before, but apparently part of Basic. Given that you tend to have around a 50% chance or better this way, it makes first-level thief skills look even gimpier as "empowering tools".

That sort of appeared in basic, in that basic acquired a skill system that was then incorporated into the Rules Cyclopedia. Roll d20, get under the attribute associated with that skill. That wasn't ever the standard way of handling thief skills however; that system was more of a way of adding background, fleshing out a character, it didn't handle core class based abilities.

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn fact, could we roll back time and reset TSR to "Simplify Mode" rather than "Complicate Mode" we might today have a very much larger market share overall for RPGs than we do today.  After all, though D&D is the king of the hill, in the grand scheme of things, the hill itself remains quite small.   Who knows how many more people might have adopted the game had they done so?   My guess is very many more millions.

But of course, someone could make the argument that D&D is only king of the hill because of the way its rules were designed. Perhaps if TSR went into "Simplify Mode" back in the late 70's/early 80's it would have lost ground to the growing number of RPGs that were competing for the new and growing gaming market. If there were no Advanced D&D, then I would have easily moved from Basic straight to something with more meat on it, like Traveller, Champions, Aftermath or Rolemaster.

Of course, we are both just imposing our own preferences on the rest of the world... the perfect internet forum conceit and we are both guilty of it.

However, I will say that I think the fact that we are over 30 years into this experiment lends at least a tiny bit of credence to my opinion. If there were truly "many more millions" of gamers waiting for the right game, then someone would have found them already. If the RPG industry was already "stifled" by the giant AD&D machine, then Milton Bradley or Parker Brothers would have certainly picked up the slack.

In any case, always nice to discuss these issues with you,

Quote from: VBWyrdeThis is great for the game maker.   But is it great for the game?   Personally, I've never thought so.   In fact, could we roll back time and reset TSR to "Simplify Mode" rather than "Complicate Mode" we might today have a very much larger market share overall for RPGs than we do today.  After all, though D&D is the king of the hill, in the grand scheme of things, the hill itself remains quite small.   Who knows how many more people might have adopted the game had they done so?   My guess is very many more millions.  My feeling is that what they gained in sustainability they lost in expansion because the gravitational force of the complex rules is simultaneously a pretty major barrier for those who might otherwise pick the game up.  

I don't blame WotC. All geek hobbies are vulnerable to the tyranny of the hardcores. As soon as market starts to slide for whatever reason, the hardcores become a bigger part of that smaller pie. With their enthusiasm and committment, they dominate the fan community, the design community, and all the online forums. So the product becomes tailored towards the hardcores. This drives even more casuals and potential new players away, making the hardcores an even larger portion of the remaining market. And so on. You end up with really small niche hobbies dominated by the tastes of a small cadre of hardcore fanboys.

As OG and others explained several times, rules got more complicated and settings more intricate because that is what people wanted,
 to TSR's initial surprise.

Gygax and co. thought people would use those rules as a baseline for making shit up. But instead, people wanted to read made-up shit. So, supply was created.

Re. attitude to rules, I could get used to the invisible-rules attitude. Even to the extent Cali suggested here a while back, where you describe your actions and the GM does the combat rolls based on that.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs OG and others explained several times, rules got more complicated and settings more intricate because that is what people wanted,
 to TSR's initial surprise.

Gygax and co. thought people would use those rules as a baseline for making shit up. But instead, people wanted to read made-up shit. So, supply was created.

Re. attitude to rules, I could get used to the invisible-rules attitude. Even to the extent Cali suggested here a while back, where you describe your actions and the GM does the combat rolls based on that.

Oh my.  That's how I always GM'd it.  My rational is that I didn't want Players focusing on the numbers (this is going back to 1978 when I started GMing), but on their Characters instead.   So I hardly showed numbers, but rely on scene descriptions.  Odd, though... my Players seemed to be very comfortable with that.   I would occassionally let the Player roll the dice, but even then I don't usually give them a breakdown of math involved.   It all seems so much smoother and easier this way ... did I miss something in GM Training School?  :raise:

Quote from: VBWyrdeSo I hardly showed numbers, but rely on scene descriptions.  Odd, though... my Players seemed to be very comfortable with that.   I would occassionally let the Player roll the dice, but even then I don't usually give them a breakdown of math involved.   It all seems so much smoother and easier this way ... did I miss something in GM Training School?  :raise:

That's exactly the way we've always played. My players, with one or two exceptions, can't be arsed with the numbers and rules crunch. They simply tell me what their PCs do, and I handle the rest. Of course, they can roll their own d20 to hit and d6 for damage, but all the system numbers are invisible to them.