Basic D&D rides again!

[WizarDru]

True, but that doesn't mean I'd go back to it now.

Nor me, but there are moments, when I sit down and make the lengthy preparations for my Epic-level game, when I lament the complexity of the current rules. Usually I sit down and the moment passes. A quick examination of BD&D's limits certainly helps.

No, because--contrary to popular opinion--the game as it stands isn't too hard to learn. New players need to know only a very small subset of the rules before they can participate in gameplay, specifically only those rules that directly pertain to their character. The v3.5 PHB makes this point very clear early on, and too many people either forget or ignore it. Only the DM needs to know all of the rules, and even he can pick up most of them as he learns how to run the game. Thus, a Basic D&D is not necessary.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, then. To me, modern D&D looks pretty complex...and I'm an experienced role-player (like you). To a 10 year-old complete novice, it would be far more intimidating...especially since you need to make a DM before you can make a game, so to speak. Making that task easier, and more importantly (IMHO) less expensive is a good thing (tm). Stripping D&D down to the bare-bones worked wonders before, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't again. Getting Toys 'R' Us, Target and Walmart to carry it, and prominently, would be a Good Thing.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I totally agree WizarDru. When people tell me how much simpler 3.xE is than prior games I scratch my head because it seems contrary to what I've experienced.

I don't know if this is a good move by Wizards, but I like it. I'd still go with C&C for a 3.xE lite game.

 

[Corinth]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, then. To me, modern D&D looks pretty complex...and I'm an experienced role-player (like you). To a 10 year-old complete novice, it would be far more intimidating...especially since you need to make a DM before you can make a game, so to speak. Making that task easier, and more importantly (IMHO) less expensive is a good thing (tm). Stripping D&D down to the bare-bones worked wonders before, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't again. Getting Toys 'R' Us, Target and Walmart to carry it, and prominently, would be a Good Thing.

It's not complex. That is an illusion.

A player needs to know how to make an attack roll, a saving throw and a skill check. He needs to know the basics of combat actions and manuevering. He also needs to know how to use his character's special abilities. The first three fit nicely on a 3x5 index card; the rest need nothing more than some page numbers for easy referencing and either a brief explanation or a brief reading of the cited pages.

A DM needs to know those same basic rules, have a basic familiarity with those special abilities and a similiar familiarity with the combat rules. He can wait for the XP and treasure rules until he needs to deal with them. However, what he needs most is the understanding--one shared by the players--that he is new to the game and as such he ought to take it slow and keep it simple until he gets the basics. This ought not to take more than a session or two, especially if he reads the PHB & DMG as he ought to do.

I did this over 20 years ago with AD&D1e, when I was younger than that 10 yr. old novice, and today's novice is certainly able to do this with today's superior rules manuals. It doesn't take a lot of time--a couple of hours will do; even less if you're not the DM--to read and assimilate the rules these days. Keeping that first session or two down to the basics of D&D gameplay will allow all involved to concentrate on playing the game and learning the rules; they can get creative after that's accomplished. Again, this won't take a lot of time--about 10 hours at most--and you can break it down into easy-to-digest pieces to make this an easier task.

Nevermind that we're talking about children playing an adult's game--and D&D is an adult's game, as Dancey make clear back in 2000--so the fact that a child plays at all is a good thing. Most hobbyists enter in college, as adults, and they certainly have both the time and the money then to spend on learning how to play. All of this means that there is no need for a Basic D&D set anymore; that one is on its way doesn't change that fact.

 

[Voadam]

Challenge!!!

Close...

Clerics had 8 spells per level.

Elves and "Magic Users" had 12 spells per level.

Some spells were marked with an asterisk, to denote they could be reversed (e.g., Light and Darkness were one spell, "Light").

The advent of Druids (Companion Set) added 3 spells per level for neutral clerics (total of 11).

The "higher level spells" for each set (e.g., levels 5 and 6 for Expert, 8 and 9 for Companion) did not have the full "complement" of 8 or 12 spells presented. They had 4 to 8 options, and the remainder of the spells were introduced in full in the next set.

--The Sigil (who didn't have to look to remember and who once knew every D&D Basic Spell by level by heart)

EDIT: More options - classes AND spells - were introduced later in the Gazetteer series, but this is what we had in the "Boxed Sets" of 1981-1983.

OK 25 xp if you can list the basic red book magic user and elf spell lists without looking them up.

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't know if this is a good move by Wizards, but I like it. I'd still go with C&C for a 3.xE lite game.

C&C will not be as compatible with 3.xE as it will be with AD&D 1e. It will not be a lite version of 3.0/3.5 at all. That's about as much as I think the NDA let's me say.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

C&C will not be as compatible with 3.xE as it will be with AD&D 1e. It will not be a lite version of 3.0/3.5 at all. That's about as much as I think the NDA let's me say.

That sounds very good to me! I dropped 3.xE about a month before the C&C announcement reached my ears. Now I'm playing 1e and having fun again. C&C may cause me to change systems once again. My players may want to kill me....

 

[Henry]

A DM needs to know those same basic rules, have a basic familiarity with those special abilities and a similiar familiarity with the combat rules. He can wait for the XP and treasure rules until he needs to deal with them. However, what he needs most is the understanding--one shared by the players--that he is new to the game and as such he ought to take it slow and keep it simple until he gets the basics. This ought not to take more than a session or two, especially if he reads the PHB & DMG as he ought to do.

Here's the problem with the position as I see it: That's putting a LOT on that first-time DM; if the game is to grow, not only does it need introduction via existing groups, it also needs a way to introduce players by itself. It needs a self-contained introduction, because only the most dedicated person could take all three rulebooks and learn the game without any outside influence whatsoever.

Also, you have perception, which can be more powerful than reality. Gamers who like the idea of D&D, but who are put off by the confluence of rules, may be more disposed to try a D&D with the same core concepts, but fewer options, strange though that might sound. WotC may have realized a need to want to tap into a still sizeable market out there who play older editions of AD&D, and as such have no reason to buy new products. A new Basic might be used to woo players who are put off by those things which most d20 players find attractive - namely, the options. (I've learned a lot schlepping around Dragonsfoot.org. )

This is the very market that smaller companies are still dying to capture, and it's possible that WotC releasing this about the proposed time of Castles and Crusades is not an accident, as someone pointed out. Any small company could give their right arms to have a force of up to 30 to 50 thousand fans (as an estimate) who return to buying current D&D material by way of their game. If it's good enough, and it captures the imagination enough, a small publisher's product could grab many players who prefer a DM's adjudication to large numbers of optional rules.

(My estimate, by the way, comes from the 25,000 to 30,000 sales figures for the Hackmaster Player's handbook, and the fact that there are a lot of people I've corresponded with either bought HM because they were looking for a d20 alternative, or who didn't buy Hackmaster because it didn't capture the feel they are looking for. It's an arbitrary figure, to be sure, but one I feel is justifiable.)

So, does WotC need a Basic set? Maybe not, but their desire to grow the game outside of the traditional channel is worthwhile. The 3.5 Rulebooks are definitely not attractive for brand-new gamers without exposure to the "Gamer Network."

 

[jasamcarl]

I totally agree WizarDru. When people tell me how much simpler 3.xE is than prior games I scratch my head because it seems contrary to what I've experienced.

I don't know if this is a good move by Wizards, but I like it. I'd still go with C&C for a 3.xE lite game.

The core of 3e is much more simple than 1e/2e. The illusion that those games were simple came from the fact that they were so arbitrary; nothing much more simple than being completly nonsensical. Because of the consistency 3e has interms of the way resolution mechanics scale as well as their basic aesthetics, they intuitivly make you THINK about the rules as oppossed to forcing you to go to the rulebook or just pull something out of your ass. Some people simply don't want math on their mind i suspect (probably because they think its a mood killer when they are trying to immerse themselves in something which is probably still cliche), even though in reality they could just use the rules on a case by case basis as they did in earlier editions; the mechanics are just so good and crunchy they can't help themselves...

 

[Douane]

I agree This made my day BTW. Is that sad ?

Whew!

I almost thought I was the only one to fondly remember the "cute introductionary cleric".


Folkert

 

[MerricB]

A DM needs to know those same basic rules, have a basic familiarity with those special abilities and a similiar familiarity with the combat rules. He can wait for the XP and treasure rules until he needs to deal with them. However, what he needs most is the understanding--one shared by the players--that he is new to the game and as such he ought to take it slow and keep it simple until he gets the basics. This ought not to take more than a session or two, especially if he reads the PHB & DMG as he ought to do.

There is one thing I have to say to that: nice idea, try again.

The chief problem with 3.5E is Information Overload. A beginning DM really has too many things presented to him. If you were a ten year old, presented with the 3.5E books, would you be intimidated?

I was ten when I started playing D&D, and I learnt primarily from a DM's perspective. I doubt I am alone. Although the best way to learn has always been at the feet of an experienced player, such is not possible for many people.

Although I don't think that most of the concepts and rules in the 3.5E books are beyond an intelligent 10-14 year old, I do think that the presentation absolutely sucks for the complete newbie.

One thing I mourn is the loss of the 10 minute turn structure of pre-3E D&D. It allowed the DM to break up movement, searching, combat, etc. into managable sections.

Cheers!