Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="imbiginjapan" data-source="post: 3573735" data-attributes="member: 5460">I don't really agree here, as I think D&amp;D can be pretty daunting out of the gate. It seems more playable because people around here are used to it. For example I'd argue that a truly &quot;playable&quot; game shouldn't require its users to reference charts in three separate books to find a particular result.I don't really think it's a leap, considering that for many people D&amp;D is the only RPG that they are aware of. If it were such a big financial leap D&amp;D wouldn't be selling such vast quantities in comparison to every other RPG out there. Now, one could say, &quot;well obviously the three book model is the correct given the sales figures&quot; but I think it's more likely that people are willing to spend a 100 dollars on a ubiquitous certainty than 40 dollars on a gamble (whether the perception of a particular RPG being a gamble is correct or not, I can't comment).&nbsp; I think the BRP Call of Cthulhu book is close to the best example. In fact the monster list could probably be trimmed and it would still be fine. It offers enough flavor for just about anyone to get a clear idea of the setting, and my 5.5 edition even includes an actual Lovecraft story. For D&amp;D, where the rules are much heavier and the setting is quasi-generic, it obviously would be difficult to add that degree of background and keep the volume relatively slim. That is why I agree with the folks suggesting a level-based modular design. A new player does not need access to seventh level spells and CR 15 monsters. As an example I got a ton of mileage out of the old Red Box D&amp;D set (levels 1-3!) when I was just getting into role-playing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="imbiginjapan, post: 3573735, member: 5460"] I don't really agree here, as I think D&D can be pretty daunting out of the gate. It seems more playable because people around here are used to it. For example I'd argue that a truly "playable" game shouldn't require its users to reference charts in three separate books to find a particular result. I don't really think it's a leap, considering that for many people D&D is the only RPG that they are aware of. If it were such a big financial leap D&D wouldn't be selling such vast quantities in comparison to every other RPG out there. Now, one could say, "well obviously the three book model is the correct given the sales figures" but I think it's more likely that people are willing to spend a 100 dollars on a ubiquitous certainty than 40 dollars on a gamble (whether the perception of a particular RPG being a gamble is correct or not, I can't comment). I think the BRP Call of Cthulhu book is close to the best example. In fact the monster list could probably be trimmed and it would still be fine. It offers enough flavor for just about anyone to get a clear idea of the setting, and my 5.5 edition even includes an actual Lovecraft story. For D&D, where the rules are much heavier and the setting is quasi-generic, it obviously would be difficult to add that degree of background and keep the volume relatively slim. That is why I agree with the folks suggesting a level-based modular design. A new player does not need access to seventh level spells and CR 15 monsters. As an example I got a ton of mileage out of the old Red Box D&D set (levels 1-3!) when I was just getting into role-playing. [/QUOTE]

Verification