Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3755096" data-attributes="member: 18280">Seriously, for a second.....I imagine that the reason 1e succeeded so well (and D&amp;D before it) was that it was easy to start, easy to play, and easy to make a new character if you died.&nbsp; Five minutes after the fatal sword thrust, you were right back in the game.From 2e on, the time required to make a character has only increased.&nbsp; As a result, dying became less and less of a &quot;fun&quot; part of the game.&nbsp; Sure, in 1e, we would groan when we died, but it was par for the course at low levels.&nbsp; In a lot of ways, our &quot;dying stories&quot; stayed with us and got retold, if we managed to die in interesting fashions.I tend to think that, without a real risk of death (as well as lesser risks, such as loss of equipment, etc.), D&amp;D simply isn't rivetting enough (or at least not consistently).&nbsp; 2e convinced me to pull punches, because that was the DMing advice given, and it ruined the game.&nbsp; Now I don't pull punches, and the game is great.&nbsp; This is not a manifesto for unfair DMing, and I feel the same as a player.....I want a game that advocates letting the dice fall where they may.In order to regain anything like the popularity of 1e, 4e would have to be easy to learn for newcomers, and quick to make characters for old hands, with a lot of added complexity that allows you to tweak the system the way you want, but can be ignored if you prefer to ignore it.&nbsp; You also need flavourful text that pulls you into trying the mechanics, and allows you to visualize it in your head.Ultimately, if you want a broadly appealing game, you need to aim for easy play, fast play, and real risks/rewards.All IMHO, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3755096, member: 18280"] Seriously, for a second..... I imagine that the reason 1e succeeded so well (and D&D before it) was that it was easy to start, easy to play, and easy to make a new character if you died. Five minutes after the fatal sword thrust, you were right back in the game. From 2e on, the time required to make a character has only increased. As a result, dying became less and less of a "fun" part of the game. Sure, in 1e, we would groan when we died, but it was par for the course at low levels. In a lot of ways, our "dying stories" stayed with us and got retold, if we managed to die in interesting fashions. I tend to think that, without a real risk of death (as well as lesser risks, such as loss of equipment, etc.), D&D simply isn't rivetting enough (or at least not consistently). 2e convinced me to pull punches, because that was the DMing advice given, and it ruined the game. Now I don't pull punches, and the game is great. This is not a manifesto for unfair DMing, and I feel the same as a player.....I want a game that advocates letting the dice fall where they may. In order to regain anything like the popularity of 1e, 4e would have to be easy to learn for newcomers, and quick to make characters for old hands, with a lot of added complexity that allows you to tweak the system the way you want, but can be ignored if you prefer to ignore it. You also need flavourful text that pulls you into trying the mechanics, and allows you to visualize it in your head. Ultimately, if you want a broadly appealing game, you need to aim for easy play, fast play, and real risks/rewards. All IMHO, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification