Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6087231" data-attributes="member: 6689464">I politely disagree, Basic has to provide enough means of differentiation to run entire campaigns, the one Basic I know and rememeber (the one in RC) had skills, and I never found them as too complex or fiddly (in fact they always felt more straightforward than THAC0 or to-hit tables), if the basic game doesn't provide the option to choose which kind of checks you want to be good at, it will have fundamentally failed to provide incentives to stay with it, charming swordsman, cunning swashbuckler, though soldier, al of those are as valid character concepts, specially for people who is new to D&D and hasn't been expossed to the "dumb fighter" truism-D&Dism-onewayism, but if designers are hardcodding (and stereotyping) that much, it would made little difference if they just included pregens and call it a day. In order for a basic game to be a full game (and not D&D gimped or D&D preview, or D&D for noobs) it has to provide incentives not only to run a ful campaign, but to replay as well. If all fighters are going to be fundamentally the same, that is just not possible. And I know "you just make them different through propper rolepalying" and stuff, but it is a fallacy, just because you can roleplay with almost anything or with no system, it doesn't change the fact that not all people roleplay equally -I don't think I'm the only one whose ability to roleplay is hampered by gameplay dissonance or futility- and that new people just getting into the game don't necessarilly know how to roleplay yet, and basic has to lend itself to work for different playstyles.</blockquote>

Verification