Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2723662" data-attributes="member: 151">I'd say &quot;Yes&quot;, 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.&nbsp; The lump sum of my D&amp;D play prior to 3.0 was in middle and high school with AD&amp;D.&nbsp; 3.5 represents a much lower barrier to entry than AD&amp;D did, IMHO.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The same applies for many other kinds of games and systems.If the question is: &quot;Can a motivated group of people who've never played an RPG before teach themselves to play and enjoy D&amp;D?&quot;&nbsp; I think the answer is a resounding &quot;Yes&quot;.&nbsp; More than any previous edition, the current version has lots of specific language on how to play and run the game.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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: &quot;Can some casual players who are unfamiliar with RPGs simply pick up and play D&amp;D?&quot; then the answer is probably &quot;No.&quot;&nbsp; But I would maintain that said players probably weren't that motivated to play D&amp;D or RPGs, regardless.&nbsp; I think the core of the issue is the base assumption that RPGs in their current form, would be widely accepted if we &lt;i&gt;just marketed them right&lt;/i&gt;.&nbsp; I'm not sure that's true.&nbsp; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 2723662, member: 151"] 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 just marketed them right. 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification