Is D&D an entry level game?

[survivesurvivor]

Started with MURPG

Well, for me, 1st taste of RPGs was the Marvel Universe RPG. Reading it in INQuest (they provided almost the entire rulebook, like the OGL, in 1 particular issur) piqued my interest, and the system was really, really easy to learn, though for a complete newbie, it took me about 3 or so reads before fully grasping it (by myself).

I thought i could handle DnD, so popped for the 3 core rulebooks a month back, and frankly, after 10 pages of the PhB, i almost dropped dead. There's no intro or stuff. It's straightaway BANG! Da rules! Everything! Don't forget, nobody was around to teach me DnD, and i intend to just teach it to and play with my younger bro.

Then, surfing Wiz boards, i came across the Idiot's Guide, which in turn led to the Basic Game boxed set. After the 2 products, I finally 'Got IT", but it was pretty tough, and only because i was really really dedicated to learning DnD (and move on after MURPG died on me) did i survive till now. =s If i had a more casual approach to it, i swear i would have given up already.

So, basically, a good GATEWAY product to rpgs may be simple systems like MURPG, and a good INTRO to DnD would be the Idiot's Guide (i was appalled by the drastic rules trimming in the Basic Game, but that was after reading the Idiots actually). Oh, and character creation in DnD was EXTREMELY tough, with lots of stuff to look up etc. In comparison, Marvel Universe's creation was real quick and painless.

 

[Rasyr]

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.

Which makes it a Gateway game, not an entry level game (according to the definitions that I am using).

 

[Sidekick]

I'm both a yes and no.

Playing: - 3.5 D&D is an entry level game. A player can start their role-playing in D&D with the 3.5 PHB. If the people invest the time its not that hard. Hell everyone in my group learnt form the group, they were lent the PHB to read and familiarise themselves with. So long as they can tell a d20 from a d6 and know what their character class is by the end of the second session, they're doing okay. Problem is it can be confusing, but thats why you need a teacher. Which brings me to my next point.

DMing: Is 3.5 an entry level DMs game? HELL NO!!!! In my opinion, you cannot just pick up 3 books, read them a few times and then say "yes, now I can run a game". Thats an accident waiting to happen, not only that but it'll likely put you and the people you play with off D&D for a very long time.

IMO you need at least 2-5 years playing experience to become a decent DM (given 1 game/month). I learnt 2nd ed from my best friend and his big brother (our DM) who had been playing for 3 years before he taught us.

To me, D&D is like an apprenticiship. You learn to play witha group, thus introducing the rules and the core concepts of role-playing to you. You have fun. Then you get more xp with the mechanics behind the game till you very rarely need to look at the books (only for low-occurance stuff such as over-runs/disarms - it depends on the group). Then and only then are you ready to start looking at DMing.

I know all this sounds a little eliteist, but its not meant to be. I'm not saying that people need to me inducted into the secret cluba dn taught the handshake. D&D, no matter what the edition is a tad large and well also expensive. The best way to learn is from playing with a group that has at least an experienced DM (xp'ed in playing) and 1 player who knows the game. That way you can ask questions, learn the rules and eventually start teaching your own group the ins and outs of cracking orc skulls and giving Demon's the wrathful smiting of goodness!!

after that you do evil!!! Cattle were raped and women and children were stampeded!!!


as always, it's just my opinion, and I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread (damn I'm lazy)...

 

[WizarDru]

I'd say "Yes", but a better question is, entry-level to WHO?

I think many people are underestimating the ability of pre-teens and teens to absorb the rules. The lump sum of my D&D play prior to 3.0 was in middle and high school with AD&D. 3.5 represents a much lower barrier to entry than AD&D did, IMHO. Games like Yu-Gi-Oh, Neopets, Pokemon, Duel Masters and M:tG all have a large amount of rules over time and many, many cards...and yet young players master them handily. The same applies for many other kinds of games and systems.

If the question is: "Can a motivated group of people who've never played an RPG before teach themselves to play and enjoy D&D?" I think the answer is a resounding "Yes". More than any previous edition, the current version has lots of specific language on how to play and run the game. The current DMG is, IMHO, the single best one yet, with plenty of practical tips on how to run a game.

Further, with the support of some modules, running a game is much easier. The original adventure path is still useful, but the current Eberron adventure path is perfect for getting a group started at playing.

If the question is: "Can some casual players who are unfamiliar with RPGs simply pick up and play D&D?" then the answer is probably "No." But I would maintain that said players probably weren't that motivated to play D&D or RPGs, regardless. I think the core of the issue is the base assumption that RPGs in their current form, would be widely accepted if we <i>just marketed them right</i>. I'm not sure that's true. I'd like it to be, but I think that if that were the case, we'd have kept a larger number of players from the 1980s....instead 3.0 recaptured many lost players (myself included).

 

[DragonLancer]

While the rules may not seem like it, yes, D&D is an entry level game. Its the one which in my experience first time roleplayers go to. This comes from a couple things... its a namebrand product that people have heard of even if they are not (yet) gamers, and its one of the best, if not the best, fantasy RPG on the market.

Its easy to learn the basics of the game then slowly expand your knowledge and gaming skill with the core books alone.

 

[diaglo]

I'd say "Yes", but a better question is, entry-level to WHO?

the better question is "To WHom?"

 

[WizarDru]

the better question is "To WHom?"

Ah, grammar. My old Nemesis....we meet again. But this time, the advantage is MINE! !

 

[DonTadow]

It just seems like a moot question and I"m suprised at the answers.

YES to "master" all of the introcities of game is not for beginners. Mastering any game from Monopoly to Settlers of Cataan to Shadowrun is difficult. No, you will not learn A of O, Sneak attack and rage all within one setting but the game is inviting enough that you can start playing it fairly quickly.

I started playing with 3.0. How did I start. Someone handed me a book and said "here we're playing this in an hour, you'll like it its fun". I bought the book, flipped through the bard pages and I was set to go. I felt comfortable that first night.

The rules are no more intracate than ANY complex board game (Settlers, Clue, Age of Mythology) - and in some cases those games take longer to understand.

Again, I think its more difficult (as it sounds like it) for those whom were exposed to earlier editions and other systems to understand. It's easier to teach a child English than it is to teach an adult. And from waht I"m hearing from the answer you're taking your experiences learning english as an adult and applying it to a child.

"Well if me and adult can't get everything right, surely a child can't". When the opposite has proven to be true.

 

[Thia Halmades]

I stand by what I said originally, even having read most of the thread. I see what LostSoul was saying earlier, but... maybe it's me. I did pick up a book and teach myself to run the game; I started with MURPG, that dropped off the map, some guys were all "Hey, let's play Shadowrun!" and... I started DMing. There were a lot of ninjas in those early games. Who came out of nowhere, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Anyway.

During that period 2nd Ed. was out and I picked it up and... learned it almost instantly. THAC0 was a nightmare, but the basics were there. Not a ton of rules lawyering, and not a lot of options. Good enough. Then there was 3.5, and it was simpler to me than anything that had come before it. Persistant math, a simple skill system, etc. & so forth. No problem.

Leafing through the SRD or my badly battered PHB, I can see, in that "step away and be a newbie" sort of way how the book with all its rules can be intimidating, but the game itself is simple. Pick a pair of templates, toss some dice, good to go. I've taught absolute rooks to play the game and the only thing they ever ask is "What's initiative again?" because the concept is new; not because rolling a d20 and adding '2' was any great difficultly.

But that's my experience. YMMV.

 

[buzzard]

I'm one of the "It's entry level because most entered through it" camp.

D&D is by far the most common and well known RPG. It is present at all conventions, and gaming stores very often host games.

Now do I think it's simple enough for you to just buy the books and have an easy time from a cold start? Probably not. However that's fairly irrelevant IMHO since you need a group, and people join the hobby generally by joining an established group of veteran players.

While I admit that 3.x is in some ways more complicated than, say 1st Ed or Basic, in some ways it is not. The complexity is all in options (combat options, feats, etc.). However the core machanic is superior in simplicity and consistency.

Two very basic and core aspects of the game are much simpler in 3rd Ed. Task resolution always being a d20 roll against a fixed number, and stat bonuses being a fixed value across stats is a large jump in simplicity. Heck, the experience tables are so much simpler now as to boggle the mind. Sure, there's AOOs, and they are a bit rough to get used to, but beyond that the game really isn't very complicated.

buzzard