Is D&D an entry level game?

[Ace]

as written. no. HELL NO would be more like it for my answer.

but it has a mallable enough learning curve.

so if you "learn" the game you may not be playing it "officially correct" but you can still play it. it will just take you time to learn all the "official" stuff.

Just Ditto

 

[Jupp]

I would say no, if there was not the Basic Set. I think that one is a very good entry point for people to start playing D&D. If there would be no Basic Set I'd say it would be much harder to get into the game. Having a rule book with 200+ pages plus an adventure and the MM is a tad too much pages to read for an entry-level RPG. People want to go to the action as fast as possible and reading big rule books doesnt help alot there.

I was introduced to RPGs with Heroquest some 13+ years ago, then we went to play 2e since we did not have access to the D&D Basic game or similar stuff. I think that's a good way of introducing someone to RPGs. You have to keep the rules light and fast, so players can enjoy the game instead of having to read through a ton of stats, tables, and whatnot. You can still introduce them to all those rules once you have the players on the hook about RPGs. Then you can assimilate them slowly, one rule at a time

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I voted "Yes", but then I'm a jerk: I believe games should be hard to learn. It never stopped me in the past.

I also don't think it's that hard to learn to play D&D at a rudimentary level. It takes a lot of effort to understand and properly apply the system as a whole, but it's pretty simple to play at the level of "I want to sneak past him, what do I do?"

 

[Vigilance]

I say yes because its easy to generate a first level character.

Compared generating your first character in D&D, even 3.5 compared to, say Hero and GURPs.

Here's the difference between D&D and the other systems I mentioned: Hero and GURPs are front-loaded. You need to know much more about the game to make a character than you do to PLAY the game.

In D&D, generating a low level character is very easy, as is running him through some simple encounters.

The game BECOMES complex, but the early learning curve is not that steep.

Chuck

 

[MonsterMash]

I voted no as I'd say the sheer volume of rules and excess of options makes it less suitable for beginners. If I was going to introduce newcomers then I'd use Castles & Crusades as it uses the strong iconic fantasy types - mighty warrior; stocky, tough dwarf; intelligent, but weak magician; light in the loafers elf; bestial orc. The rules also give the simpler mechanics which would be easier for a newbie to pick up.

 

[Whisper72]

I voted 'definately NO'.

Sure, it is possible to introduce new ppl to the game, but as an entry level game I count only such games that someone / some group of (younger) ppl who has /have not had any prior experience with the whole type of games sit down with the rulesets and in short order understand the concept and can begin play in about 10 minutes.

I am not even beginning about the whole plethora of books out there which will make some people afraid to even start playing (sure, WE know you don't need all that stuff and understand why, but someone new to the game may not understand this).

Secondly, the game is too complex for ppl where both players AND DM have never played anything similar before.

The intro box is OK as an intro game I guess, but IMHO the addition of the plastic mini's was a mistake. It adds a form of perceived complexity to it that is comepletely unnecessary to explain the concept of a roleplaying game. Also, the intro box is TOO simple to truly intro ppl to the wider game, the jump from the box to the books is too large for newbs...

I felt that the seperation in branding between Basic DnD and Advanced DnD was a smart move. PPl who start with the basic stuff do not feel compelled to go to advanced right away, the similarities are more then enough that the switch is easy, and the basic stuff allowed for plenty fun before a switch was felt 'necessary' by the players and DM. It had its own support in terms of modules and accessories, which could easily be carried over to the advanced games...

All naturally compeletely IMHO...

 

[Rasyr]

So, D&D is an entry point into RPGs, but not an entry level game?

By the definitions that I gave in my post, which are the definitions that I am using here, yes. D&D is a gateway game, but not an entry level game.

The Basic set and the Dummies book (which are subsets of the core books) might be within the definition of entry level game, but the core books by themselves are not.

 

[diaglo]

The Basic set and the Dummies book (which are subsets of the core books) might be within the definition of entry level game, but the core books by themselves are not.

which is the question posed in the poll.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

3.5 is in no way "entry level". I think the success of C&C proves that there is a market for a simpler system (i.e. the 1st Ed. Basic/Expert sets). I would love to see WOTC expand on the current Basic set-this is how you are going to grow the hobby and entice more kids into it. $100 of hardcover books is just WAY too much of a deterrant. I had to beg for the better part of a year to get my players to switch to 3.5 because of the book costs, so I know some 10 year old kid isn't going to make the leap if he has never played before.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It is an entry level game. I just wish it would read and play like an entry level game.

Interesting. I've not come to praise Ceaser but to bury him or something along those lines? If it doesn't read like an entry game and play like an entry game, the only thing that makes it an entry game under those possibilities would be it's ease of access to the mass media.