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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 3589863" data-attributes="member: 16586">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.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.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. 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification