Campbell said:
I am not particularly familiar with the Basic Set. I haven't actually ever met any one who used. Maybe the circles I travel in are remarkably different than most people, but I almost everyone I know has been able to start with the Player's Handbook. Sure, they may not immediately grok the game in its entirety, but a complete and exhaustive understanding of the rules isn't really required to start. Additionally, I've found that most people do not really want to start with a simpler game and than move on to a more complex one. People tend to play games with a level of complexity that they're comfortable with. I think the general split that existed between AD&D players and players of the Basic Game is evidence of this phenomenon.
Evidence of what phenomenon? That some people prefer simpler and some more complex. I actually think basic D&D and AD&D would have done better if there had been a sort of "bridge book" between the two.
What exactly is the "level of complexity" that they're comfortable at? Isn't this an individual thing? In my experience people like games that allow for a minimal amount of rules that can be used in tactical ways during gameplay( I use tactical here in the sense of any, no just combat, options the players use to solve problems). More rules doesn't necessarily mean a more tactical or enjoyable play experience. An example are the grappling rules. Do they give the players more tactical options, yes...however the rules are such a pain that most of my players never use them anyway, they don't add to our fun or tactical options because they're unnecessarily complex.
AD&D and D&D aren't an example of what I'm talking about anyway. I am talking about a modular base game which can be built upon, not two seperate games. They're the same game, but and "advanced options" book allows you to play it with the complexity and tactical nature that some want...while others get to play a game that is quick and streamlined.
Campbell said:
I'm not quite sure what sort of business model you see such a game having. I paid a combined cost of around $60 for my 3rd Edition Core Set, which I bought retail. I paid about $60 for the revised set on Amazon, and it would have been less if I hadn't waited so long to get into the revision. That's amazingly cheap for about 950 pages of play tested material with strong production values and good indexes. Spreading out that material inevitably raises costs, since you're paying for the costs of binding several books.
Uhm...I'm thinking a "core basic book" at about $40( about 400pgs...think d20 modern.), then an Unearthed Arcana type book, maybe call it advanced options or something for maybe $20 to $30(similar in size to a PHB, w/more spells,monsters, feats, rules for PrC's etc. So even those with the Basic Game will have an incentive to purchase it). So full retail of about $70 and on Amazon comparable or less than what you spent, not seeing the problem here. WotC makes $40 core books for their game lines that are nowhere near as popular as D&D and make a profit, so I don't see this as a problem if they charge those rates.
Campbell said:
By spreading out material, hunting down rules references becomes a chore. You need to hunt down Book D for a rule that's referenced in Book A, instead of flipping pages. Additionally, rules in advanced supplements may very well conflict with rules in the core books, which can lead to all sorts of confusion. Added to this concern is the general prevalence of supplementary material not being treated with the same care and attention that core material is, which means this approach might require further work to smooth out rough edges..
Okay...what are you talking about, I'm suggesting a two book model with everything you need to play the "complex" version or a one boook model for the "streamlined" version...right now there's at least 3 books you have to refrence so how does this model make it worse?
Your rules comment is basically not a problem with the model I'm suggesting, but with game design. If you feel WoTC is like this with their games and material you shouldn't buy from them, but my model in no way predisposses them to shoddy work.
Campbell said:
One concrete example of my bad experience with this sort of model is the Player's Option series from AD&D 2e, which often conflicted with the rules in the core books. There were radically different combat rules. Weapon specialization varied dramatically. Additionally, most supplements were 'balanced' for the core game and required work to fit into a Player's Option campaign..
Again...game design. With the modular and base mechanic of 3.5 these same issues shouldn't pop up. Again I cite the basic set as an example. In that game you cannot cast a spell if you are within melee range of an opponent, ( not necessarily saying this is how it should be done, but it serves as an example of modular complexity), however in the 3.5 PHB you can w/an attk of opportunity...how do these conflict? A DM states upfront whether he's playing w/AoO or not...and there's a set of rules to go by either way. Otherwise the DM has to rip AoO out, and there's always the chance he missed something or didn't account for certain situations.
One thing I will say is that in my oppinion the basic set is a little deceptive. It lays out a much simpler game than D&D core...but only allows you to play up to 2nd level before requiring the 3.5 PHB. Many people who try it are going to believe D&D is alot simpler than what it truly is.
Campbell said:
More than anything else, my point is that if you're going to have radically different games they should be separate games. Compromise in this area usually only makes both parties miserable. I understand that you want a game that works for you out of the box. I also want the exact same thing. The issue is that we're never going to be able to find a game that serves both of our needs appropriately, and I don't think we should try.
I'm not talking about different games, one game modular...where you add in the level of rules and complexity you want. Hey wait doesn't that sound familiar. I mean does everyone in the world play with swift actions? Does everyone play with psionics or skill tricks? Does everyone play with or exclude the numerous Unearthed Arcana options? Did this cause the breakdown you keep citing?
