Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Texicles" data-source="post: 6227636" data-attributes="member: 6694608">Going to toss in an excerpt from a post I made <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?337751-Skills-Should-Be-Core/page6&amp;p=6148699#post6148699" target="_blank">here</a>:&quot;...playing basic and then standard or advanced should feel like you're still playing the same game, just with added rules/complexity. Otherwise, you're just going to have a bogus, introductory incarnation of the game, skipped by many and insufficiently preparing those who use it prior to playing the &quot;real&quot; game.&quot;What I hope is the case is that the &quot;basic&quot; game is both available in a &quot;red box&quot; and standalone configuration and that the &quot;basic&quot; book will cover the fundamental rules of the game, while the &quot;red box&quot; configuration adds a nice introductory adventure, some dice and a box... that's red. The &quot;standard&quot; book should (IMO) have the same content as &quot;basic&quot; with the addition of more rules (that add to) and options (that can be opted for), but none of those rules should override the &quot;basic&quot; rules by default. &quot;Advanced&quot; would be additional rules and options beyond those of &quot;standard&quot; and sans the basic content.I'm not sure how similar this is to BECMI, I wasn't born then, and as cool as it would be to claim you were dungeon crawling before physically crawling, I cannot <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush&nbsp; &nbsp; :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" />As for timing under the above model, I would say: <ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">&quot;Basic&quot; and &quot;standard&quot; come out at the same time (at or sufficiently prior to GenCon, depending on the projection you subscribe to)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Separate Monster Manual concurrent with &quot;basic&quot; and &quot;standard&quot; rulebooks</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">&quot;Red box&quot; in time for the holidays (November-ish)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">&quot;Advanced&quot; 9 months to a year after &quot;basic&quot; and &quot;standard&quot;</li>
</ol>The way this model would shake out in practice is that new players get &quot;basic&quot; (or &quot;red box&quot; for the holidays). They can play this forever if they like, as it will be real D&amp;D. Experienced players probably get &quot;standard&quot; and ignore &quot;basic,&quot; not because &quot;basic&quot; is watered down or irrelevant, but because they're accustomed to more options. DMs will want to also pick up the MM. Even if you break from the &quot;trinity,&quot; there should always be too dang many monsters to fit all of them in the same book as your rules. After everyone has had a chance to settle in, &quot;standard&quot; players who are seeking more options pick up &quot;advanced.&quot; The only real downside I see to this model is upgrading from &quot;basic&quot; to &quot;standard&quot; means buying some redundant content. That's a bummer man. I don't like it, but that's the only egg I can see that needs to be broken to make this omelette.ETA: One BECMI-esque thing I don't wish to see is a limit on levels across &quot;basic,&quot; &quot;standard&quot; and &quot;advanced&quot;. When I referred to &quot;basic&quot; above, I intend that to mean a complete set of rules that will serve both as an introduction to RPGs, as well as a streamlined ruleset that would appeal to the &quot;four-core,&quot; rules-light, old school crowd.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Texicles, post: 6227636, member: 6694608"] Going to toss in an excerpt from a post I made [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?337751-Skills-Should-Be-Core/page6&p=6148699#post6148699"]here[/URL]: [COLOR=#000000] "...[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]playing [/COLOR]basic and then standard or advanced should feel like you're still playing the same game, just with added rules/complexity. Otherwise, you're just going to have a bogus, introductory incarnation of the game, skipped by many and insufficiently preparing those who use it prior to playing the "real" game." What I [I]hope[/I] is the case is that the "basic" game is both available in a "red box" and standalone configuration and that the "basic" book will cover the fundamental rules of the game, while the "red box" configuration adds a nice introductory adventure, some dice and a box... that's red. The "standard" book should (IMO) have the same content as "basic" with the addition of more rules (that [I]add[/I] to) and options (that can be [I]opted[/I] for), but none of those rules should override the "basic" rules by default. "Advanced" would be additional rules and options beyond those of "standard" and sans the basic content. I'm not sure how similar this is to BECMI, I wasn't born then, and as cool as it would be to claim you were [I]dungeon[/I] crawling before [I]physically[/I] crawling, I cannot :blush: As for timing under the above model, I would say: [LIST=1] [*]"Basic" and "standard" come out at the same time (at or sufficiently prior to GenCon, depending on the projection you subscribe to) [*]Separate Monster Manual concurrent with "basic" and "standard" rulebooks [*]"Red box" in time for the holidays (November-ish) [*]"Advanced" 9 months to a year after "basic" and "standard" [/LIST] The way this model would shake out in practice is that new players get "basic" (or "red box" for the holidays). They can play this forever if they like, as it will be real D&D. Experienced players probably get "standard" and ignore "basic," not because "basic" is watered down or irrelevant, but because they're accustomed to more options. DMs will want to also pick up the MM. Even if you break from the "trinity," there should always be too dang many monsters to fit all of them in the same book as your rules. After everyone has had a chance to settle in, "standard" players who are seeking more options pick up "advanced." The only real downside I see to this model is upgrading from "basic" to "standard" means buying some redundant content. That's a bummer man. I don't like it, but that's the only egg I can see that needs to be broken to make this omelette. ETA: One BECMI-esque thing I don't wish to see is a limit on levels across "basic," "standard" and "advanced". When I referred to "basic" above, I intend that to mean a complete set of rules that will serve both as an introduction to RPGs, as well as a streamlined ruleset that would appeal to the "four-core," rules-light, old school crowd. [/QUOTE]

Verification