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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2391327" data-attributes="member: 32164">Interesting analysis Mythmere.I actually will just comment that I basically transitioned from rules-light to rules-heavy right alongside the D&D game. As I grew up, basically the game grew up with me. There are a few things about its current incarnation that I'm not overly enamored of, but I don't think they merit throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Especially because, as I said earlier, C&C fixes some of what I see as "minor issues" with D&D while leaving glaring ones (like the magic and magic item systems) utterly and totally untouched.I can play a rules-light game like C&C with a certain amount of enjoyment. After a time, I find myself missing the complexity and customization available in 3e. What can I say? I like feats. I like skills, although I think they could stand to be simplified. But I don't think they should be made LESS important to the game, which it seems to me is what C&C does. Anyway, I digress and don't want to rehash my issues with C&C.The learning curve is a big deal. Obviously, an advanced gamer can teach a newbie a rules-light game relatively quickly. The issue (to me) is how quickly a new wannabe-GM can learn the game well enough to run it for his friends. It's odd to me that the rules-light game doesn't make that learning curve any faster; if anything, it slows the process down. Not everyone who plays D&D was introduced to it by playing in someone else's game. Some people learned it on their own through trial and error. IMO, anything that assists the new DM with that learning curve is a step in the right direction for the hobby as a whole (I think DMG 2 is such a product). And anything that goes against making the game more accessible to new gamers is a step backwards. Personally, I'd love to hear people's suggestions for dealing with this.As to Akrasia's comments, I'll let Mike Mearls speak for himself, if he so chooses. Mike's obviously guilty of some hyperbole, but who isn't? And besides, it's his blog, so he can make sweeping generalizations on his opinions about gaming if he wants to.For what it's worth, I think there's something to his assessment that most d20 publishers don't really "get" d20. As a result, they tinker around making new prestige classes, base classes, and/or feats that don't really add anything to the game. Much more creative things can actually be done with the OGL and d20, as C&C, for one, proved. Just creating new prestige classes, weapons, spells, and so forth is, to be honest, a pretty lame effort that adds very little to the game or the hobby. By contrast, I'd say making d20 setting material is smart, as is making classes and Prestige Classes to support your setting - if you can do them right. Publishing adventures is again smart - if you can make money  ton them. Making gaming aids (like Fiery Dragon's Battle Boxes) is another good idea, if you can come up with one that enhances people's gaming experience. Toolkits of well-thought-out added rules (books like Unearthed Arcana) are another good idea that probably adds to the game. Those are all some pretty big IFs...but that's probably why not everyone succeeds.The foregoing paragraph is obviously my opinion, not that of Mike Mearls, who I don't really know other than through his posts and blog entries. I just happen to think he may be on to something.</blockquote>

Verification