Roleplaying since the 80s and I'm really tired!

[Nellisir]

Everyone needs to listen to this guy!
Smartest. Man. Ever!

My wife grew up in Bangkok, I grew up in New Hampshire with a mother of Irish & Swedish descent. My wife thinks potatoes are yucky and kind of gross; all I knew about rice was that it came in an Uncle Ben's box.

We have Thai or Chinese take-out pretty often, but can I get a decent lamb chop? Noooo.....

(we went to a swanky "pan-Asian" restaurant tonight; she got prawn in some super-spicy sauce, I paid $22 and got some indian dish that was basically ground lamb meatballs in a bland sauce. Like eating spaghetti & meatballs without the sphagetti. <sigh> )

 

[Bedrockgames]

Follow-up question: Do you think you could have a complete game system contained in a single book that is less than 100 pages? (Ok, rhetoric. Obviously, you can!)
.

Yes. But not everyone will consider it complete. Lots of rules light games are pretty short. My first three games are 100-118 pages, and I feel pretty complete. But it would be hard to get 3E-level details inside that space.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Yes. But not everyone will consider it complete. Lots of rules light games are pretty short. My first three games are 100-118 pages, and I feel pretty complete. But it would be hard to get 3E-level details inside that space.

If you consider anything less than 20 levels of play to be incomplete, then I might agree.

You must also consider that nearly one-third of the PHB details nothing but spells; a feature that is usable only by a portion of the available classes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you consider anything less than 20 levels of play to be incomplete, then I might agree.

You must also consider that nearly one-third of the PHB details nothing but spells; a feature that is usable only by a portion of the available classes.

I was thinking of non-D&D games. Dungeons and Dragons would be hard to do under 100 pages because of things like spells, monsters, etc.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I was thinking of non-D&D games. Dungeons and Dragons would be hard to do under 100 pages because of things like spells, monsters, etc.

Let's take a step back. How about the Basic Edition (or BECMI series) of DnD?

From an entry-level, or new player perspective, you had everything you need to play in one box. A single booklet contained enough rules, monsters, and guides for both players and DMs to enjoy the first few levels of play. There was even an adventure module to get you started. Do we really need all 20-30 levels of play right from the start? I'd argue that you don't. Long term campaigns are hard to maintain. Many groups barely make it past a certain point. And most people may not care to play past a certain point. They want something more casual. So why make them buy more than they can use? It should be enough to get people interested, try it out, and decide for themselves if they want more. If you give players a good, solid and complete game before reaching its "end game" level, then let them decide for themselves if they want to invest in the "next" stage (or tier) of the game.

The 4th edition approach really failed in this regard. I wasn't even interested enough to look until PHB2 came out a year after its release. Why? Because the game felt like it was only half done. Where was the half-orc and the gnome? Where was the bard, the barbarian, and the druid? How could this be a current DnD game with those iconic pieces missing from the start? And why do I need everything to get my campaign to level 30 (or even 20!) right away? New game means I should be taking some time with the basics, which starts at the lowest level tier. Get me to level 10 for now and let me enjoy it. By the time my group is ready to move beyond (i.e. decide if we want more from the game), then we should see the next book coming out to take us into the next stage of the game.

It may be hard for some people to believe, but not every campaign or group needs to reach the maximum level of play to be enjoyable. There *should* be allowance for casual gamers to enjoy the same game, and many stay away from it because it is specifically catered to the more dedicated and hardcore crowd. You want new players in the hobby? Lighten the load for them. Just because the game system is capable of carrying a group for months and years in the same storyline doesn't mean that should be the expectations of all.

Wizards/Hasbro has this idea that many people don't play the game because they haven't marketed it more towards them. Marketing has nothing (well, almost nothing) to do with it. People look at it and see dozens of books around a game table and think to themselves "Do I really need to buy all this just to play a game?" And gamers can argue or explain that all they really is one or three Core books all you like behind your stack of "optional" material. You know they're thinking to themselves, "So why don't any of you have just those books??"

 

[SkidAce]

I am fifty five and have been playing for a long time. I sometimes feel this way not about new supplements I enjoy new supplements but the constant tweaking and changing of the rule system gets to me. At least with 3E you could tweak your Ad&D worlds and characters to fit but when 4E came out that was impossible it totally wiped out 30 something years of the game. That was just one of the many issues I had with it. It is why I am looking at Next with a jaundiced eye and really have we will see after it comes out.

It was not just WOTC who did this Shadowrun 4E was were I drew the line and said no more because it also suffered from the lets wipe out everything that came before and change the nature and feel of the game.

My biggest reason for disliking a lot of the rule changes is that when they go to the point of making it impossible to continue a game with a few tweaks I get annoyed at having to completely redo my game and characters especially if I was not really having major issues with the rule set.

This...

 

[Aeolius]

The 4th edition approach really failed in this regard. I wasn't even interested enough to look until PHB2 came out a year after its release. Why? Because the game felt like it was only half done. Where was the half-orc and the gnome? Where was the bard, the barbarian, and the druid? How could this be a current DnD game with those iconic pieces missing from the start?

On the nosey. As I do with every edition of D&D, I bought the 4e DMG, PH, and MM. I thought I would learn the new ruleset by fleshing out a campaign concept of mine, "Nature of the Beast", an all-animal sylvan adventure. Alas, 4e had no druids, greenhags, or Awaken spell to start. It also helped that none of my players had any interest whatsoever in converting my 3.5e game over to 4e. In my prior game I had converted the game from 1e to 3e without a hitch.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

You got the punchline wrong. It's "and boy are my arms tired."

 

[Derren]

She is a mage and so she rarely has enough Karma to what she truly wants mages being karma black holes. Our GM is really good at not giving out to much karma or to little.

I actually meant the total karma, including the spend one.
Anyway, 5E is out soon, maybe you this will bring the mage back in line.

 

[n00bdragon]

Has the OP seriously played nothing but D&D for thirty years without even looking at the myriad other tabletop RPGs out there? Seriously?