Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6126777" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I don't think newbies are quite as incompetent as we often seem to assume around here, nor do I think that &quot;gaming&quot; is some sort of super-skill that takes decades to master.&nbsp; Furthermore, I don't think it'd be any great trauma to have a &quot;to build a Samurai&quot; section somewhere. I really don't have a problem with that, and in fact happily play games with even simpler/less math than that, and I even play it with my &quot;newbie&quot; kids. The critical part is making sure that you present players with the ability and good advice on creating the fluff, or supply them with the fluff, if you want fluff-regulation.IME: Creating/supplying &quot;fluff&quot; is not a problem newbies typically have. The problems newbies have usually center around the math or procedural end of mechanics. Having dealt with newbies playing both FATE and D&amp;D, I can tell you that its the procedural/numerical end of D&amp;D that causes the problems, because there's where you need to get it &quot;correct&quot;. Often, when introducing people to D&amp;D, I find that I'm having to constrain their fluff to meet the mechanics. Throughout this conversation, with all the wacky examples, I keep thinking &quot;This is just so much easier in FATE&quot; because the mechanics are simple and straightforward.&nbsp; Now, if people want to re-work D&amp;D so that it has something like FATE's aspects (which Backgrounds seem to be recently orbiting) and ditch all these feats and subclasses and make it a rules-light(er) game....I'm all behind that. I don't think that's a very popular notion, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6126777, member: 6688937"] I don't think newbies are quite as incompetent as we often seem to assume around here, nor do I think that "gaming" is some sort of super-skill that takes decades to master. Furthermore, I don't think it'd be any great trauma to have a "to build a Samurai" section somewhere. I really don't have a problem with that, and in fact happily play games with even simpler/less math than that, and I even play it with my "newbie" kids. The critical part is making sure that you present players with the ability and good advice on creating the fluff, or supply them with the fluff, if you want fluff-regulation. IME: Creating/supplying "fluff" is not a problem newbies typically have. The problems newbies have usually center around the math or procedural end of mechanics. Having dealt with newbies playing both FATE and D&D, I can tell you that its the procedural/numerical end of D&D that causes the problems, because there's where you need to get it "correct". Often, when introducing people to D&D, I find that I'm having to constrain their fluff to meet the mechanics. Throughout this conversation, with all the wacky examples, I keep thinking "This is just so much easier in FATE" because the mechanics are simple and straightforward. Now, if people want to re-work D&D so that it has something like FATE's aspects (which Backgrounds seem to be recently orbiting) and ditch all these feats and subclasses and make it a rules-light(er) game....I'm all behind that. I don't think that's a very popular notion, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification