Is D&D an entry level game?

[Umbra]

I voted no.

Three experienced players introduced the game to four novices who made it clear that without the experienced players showing how the game worked, the novices would not have persisted in playing/learning the game. It's easier to play poker or a computer game or watch a dvd or go to the pub, etc.

One initial reaction - 'I have to read that!' (in regards to the PHB)

'No. Just these few pages to start with.'

You can't just pick up the book(s) and start to play within a couple of hours without an experienced RPG'er involved (and preferably an experienced 3.5'er). Thus the issues of drawing new blood into RPG's and growing the hobby.

If they buy a new board game, someone can sit with the rules and paraphernalia for a short while and have a reasonable understanding of how to play. If they are shown how to play, they can often be up and running within minutes (even if it takes longer to get a firm grip on the nuances).

So, no. 3.5 is not an entry level game by itself. With experienced people involved it does become the entry point for many people.

We need a "My First RPG" game
Publishers - an acknowledgement in the credits will be enough!

 

[Ranger REG]

I'd say no.

If it was, we wouldn't need a dummies book and a basic boxed set.

If you're a good teacher, you can teach someone to play D&D certainly but I don't see a game with so many complexities in terms of number of stats and number of options bein entry level.

Gee, you make "entry-level" sounds like a shameful term, akin to an adult not willing to let go of, say a baby bottle or a teddy bear.

It's not. Granted, the current incarnation is rules-heavy can overwhelm anyone who has never been open to D&D (you know, getting past the Jay Leno jokes), but it is easy to get into.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Gee, you make "entry-level" sounds like a shameful term, akin to an adult not willing to let go of, say a baby bottle or a teddy bear.

It's not. Granted, the current incarnation is rules-heavy can overwhelm anyone who has never been open to D&D (you know, getting past the Jay Leno jokes), but it is easy to get into.

So you think if five people who'd never played before sat down with the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual sat down to play, they could do so? I'd take money on that bet.

Now if they sat down with those books and Orc's Fest, an adventure by Fast Forward Games, I'd say those chances went up quite well.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree with JoeG. To be entry level you'll want to include an adventure. Like the boxed set or B1.

Right now I imagine there are 8-year-olds out there looking to learn the game from their 13-year-old brothers who are playing. But unfortunately, can't make it through the books and the older kids are not always willing to teach 'em.

There are plenty of stories of folks our age picking up the red box and DMing themselves at the way back at the age of 10 & 11. (albeit poorly) I'm not sure this is possible now.

 

[JoeBlank]

I'm on the fence. I think RPGs are a difficult concept, so it is hard to have a "starter" game for them. I don't think it is an indictment of 3.5 to say that it is hard for a pre-teen to pick up and play right out of the box.

Of course, kids these days play Magic and Yu-gi-oh, both of which looked too complicated to me when I read thru the rules.

I like the idea of "quick start" rules being provided. The Basic Game does a good job of this.

Wonder if WotC has done marketing research on this subject. I can see one of those in-the-mall deals where they ask you a few questions about various subjects. If you answer that you have not experience with RPGs then they could ask if you have a couple of hours to participate in a study with a group (probably pay a few bucks). Get a group of 4-5 together, give them the Basic Game and tell them to play. Observe.

 

[Thia Halmades]

Wait... what do we mean when we say 'entry level game?' That it's accessible for new people? Absolutely it is. A lot of us can cite the depth of the system, the complexity of design, etc. etc. But straight up:

- All things are determined by a d20, and the math is persistant. Add things to the roll, compare it to another number to determine success or failure.

- Specific actions garner specific rewards (creatures give Xp, treasure makes you more powerful, etc.)

- You pick a race, a class, and roll six stats. You allocate some number (saves, skills, HP) and calculate your AC. Compared to, say, Shadowrun or HERO, it's remarkably straight forward; the heavy lifting has been done.

That's entry level, IMO. I'm not saying the system doesn't have depth; I'm saying that if I wanted to teach someone about RPGs, this is a great one because so much is already in there. Here are some templates, stack one (a race) on another (a class), do some basic math and assign some points, and you're off to the races.

Can you get bogged down in feat selection, combos, and spell choices? Oh, yes, entirely. But as a new player you don't learn all that at first blush; you get 'a sword.' You get "a couple of spells." Then you gain a level, and someone walks you through the next build phase. By the time you're 10th level, you'll have a pretty decent grasp on the mechanics, the equipment, how those things affect you and what you can do.

So I say yes.

 

[Omegaz]

I would vote "no". It's not an entry level system. An entry level system would have only a fraction of the rules that 3.5 has.

3.5 (and 3.0 for that matter) were written with the experienced player in mind. Without prior experience of other systems, or another player to teach them, I think most individuals would give up in frustration. The rules are far too complex, too convoluted, and too detailed for an entry level system. If you read through the rules it's amazing how many concepts that are being introduced require reference to other rules and concepts that haven't yet been introduced. Also, many explanations seem to be spread across different sections of the rules, and sometimes split between different manuals. If you already understand the concepts its relatively easy. If you don't, you're pretty much lost at sea.

Sean

 

[ThirdWizard]

If I could pick up the PHB, MM, and DMG for 1ED AD&D and learn to play with a group, none of which had ever gamed before, then it is definately possible under 3E. It really isn't that hard.

If we go by entry level = popular then you're absolutely right.

I think that's important. To much of the populace at large RPG = D&D. If someone wants to play RPGs, they are far more likely to go pick up D&D than another game, even if that game is specifically designed to be entry level. If more people are starting on D&D than any other game, no matter the target audiences of both, then D&D is functioning more as an entry level game.

Of course, no one in this thread has any statistics to back their claims up. We're all just going off gut instinct here. I've known so many people that started on D&D (any edition). *shrug*

 

[LostSoul]

Wait... what do we mean when we say 'entry level game?' That it's accessible for new people? Absolutely it is. A lot of us can cite the depth of the system, the complexity of design, etc. etc. But straight up:

Add Attacks of Opportunity, sneak attack, stacking and non-stacking bonus types, flat-footed armour class, reach, how the various spells work, grapples, trips, disarms, attacking an object, when to make spot & listen checks, encounter distance, adventure creation, balancing encounters, etc.

Things get complex very fast.

 

[LostSoul]

I think RPGs are a difficult concept, so it is hard to have a "starter" game for them.

I think they are an easy concept:

"You're looking for your lost brother, who was taken into this dungeon! There's a door on your left and one on your right. Which way do you go?"

"I go left!"

"You see a horrible snarling orc! He raises his axe towards you!"

"I kill him!"

"Roll!"

Role-playing.