Rasyr said:
I think what we have here is a disagreement on the definitions of terms.
In part, certainly.
Rasyr said:
By "entry level game", I mean a game that is very easy to teach to new gamers (not new players who have played other games, but new to RPGing altogether).
Indeed, so do I. My last DND game included a "new to rpgs at all" player, whon had never gamed before, either RPGs or minis.
She caught on just fine.
Two of the other players, had not gamed in decades. They caught on just fine too.
Two of the others, had experience with gaming but not with DnD 3.0 or D20. They were hunky dorey.
The last was somewhat experienced at DND 3.0
he was fine too.
A friend taught his kids, ages 9-13 to play using dnd 3.0
etc...
In practice, I have myself seen it and used it and found it easy to teach to people new to gaming.
hence, by MY definition, and the one you state above, it *is* an entry level game.
Rasyr said:
However, please note that I did say that D&D was a "gateway game". It is more accessible, and has the largest and most well known reputation among rpgs. This means that it is most often the first game a new gamer plays.
To be perfectly clear, I am saying, that by my definitions (listed above), D&D is a gateway game, it is not an entry level game.
yet by that same definition given above, it is both to me. They are not exclusive.
Rasyr said:
Your definition of "entry level game" seems to match my definition of "gateway game", but not my definition of "entry level game".
nope. it isn both. they aren't exclusive terms, even by your definition.
Rasyr said:
Heck, all the rules in just the core 3 books can seem confusing and daunting. By your own statement, many of those rules are ignored in early stages. That alone prevents D&D from being an "entry level game" by MY definition. If a person has to ignore core rules and add them to their game as they learn the rules, then it fails the "entry level game" test.
ahhhh!!! eureka!!!!
so now we have the additional requirement.
A game has to be taught all at once in a lump sum in order to be entry level.
gotcha.
thats where our definitions part company.
see, having taught this and that not related to gaming over the years including tutoring in college and teaching professionally OFTEN to "newbies" in whatever field, I can tell you that practically nothing is taught that way in practice. If that requirement, learn it all in one lump, were mandated for "entry level training" then there would be no "entry level training" anywhere because thats just not how things are taught or learned in practice.
You start with simplified examples covering small core and critical elements and then over time add the exceptional elements and the rare cases.
this is most especially the case in entry level training, where you do not expect a familiarity to begin with.
So, yeah, once you add that requirement, DND doesn't meet your new damands But by adding that requirement, you have practically eliminated most every game and if you apply it beyond 'net discussion of dnd, you have eliminated practically every "entry level training" class taught. Its taken "entry level game" to a point so rare and vacant as to be meaningless.
your additional requirement might be fine in your theory, but it just ain't gonna be that useful in practice.
but, we do now see where our definitions cross.