Tell me that D&D 3.0/3.5 isn't really like this

[Crothian]

I do wonder, though, how many potential new players are put off by the sheer density of the rules. With three large core rulebooks, all filled with small text, that's a lot of reading and comprehension.

New players only have to worry about the PHB. And they don't need to know it all, only the class, feats, skills, equipment, they have plus the idea that one rolls a d20 and adds a number to it.

 

[BryonD]

The rules really are not that complex. I've taught a nine year old to play and adults. I seems to me that some people are just to lazy to learn the rules and then they complain the rules are to complex.

Quoted for truth.

My 7 year old daughter loves to play.

Admittedly, I started with it really basic (over a year ago) but she keeps asking for more.

 

[BryonD]

I'm sorry, but this is painfully unclear. It is both illogical, and a fine example of poor rhetoric. What precisely is your point?

D&D has always been the predominant game in the RPG industry. That has never changed, and is certainly true now.

I fail to see how that fact is incompatible with the fact that the rules of 3e pose a barrier to many new players (not all, of course, but many).

Nothing in your reply has shown why my original point is untrue or incorrect.

It is interesting to note that the old 'D&D Basic Set' sold a full one-million copies in its final year of publication (1989). It sold an average of 1 million copies every year throughout the 1980s. During its run, that basic set provided a very easy 'entry way' to new players. Nothing comparable exists now (the 3e Basic Set is not a full game).

I'd say the first problem is you are (intentionally I think) dropping the context of the statement I replied to.

Zero evidence that minis actually present a barrier to entry has been presented. Your erroneous replacement of personal biased perception has been substitued as this fact, but that does nothing to elevate it to true fact.

There are many other games that do not rely on minis. If minis were the obstacle for D&D people would gravitate to those games. But as those games show no better growth (and almost universally far less growth) than D&D then the minis aspect is ruled out as the cause.

The highly questionable argument that people play D&D simply because people play D&D shows both a failure to grasp basic logic and basic economics in one sentence.

People play D&D because they like it. Did you consider that one? It seems not.

I know that I for one had left gaming in general and was brought back by the elegance and robustness of 3E. But I don't confuse my personal preference with the market as a whole. Thats just me.

 

[BryonD]

New players only have to worry about the PHB. And they don't need to know it all, only the class, feats, skills, equipment, they have plus the idea that one rolls a d20 and adds a number to it.

Crothian is on a TRUTH roll!!!!!!

Heck, before I ever crack a book I ALWAYS say "Roll D20". 75% of the time the question becomes moot right there.

 

[ecliptic]

Youknow trolls aren't too common here but I could swear this entire thread was made to do nothing but troll.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Is it really? Here's a hammer, go saw those 4x4s in half with it.

Almost a non sequitor, but consider: you're talking about using the wrong tool for the job at hand. If you don't succeed at cutting those boards with a hammer, do you blame the hammer, or one's foolishness in picking the wrong tool for the job? If one knows one likes more rules-light games, and picks up a game that has three substantial books as its core, blaming the game because one's gaming experience isn't much fun seems wrong-headed to me. The point being: pick a game to play that suits what you like. In this case, one can easily pick up one of the core books, riffle through it, and say: "damn, that's a lot of rules." If this reaction is negative, then one can put the book down and look for a game that is less imposing.

 

[Akrasia]

I'd say the first problem is you are (intentionally I think) dropping the context of the statement I replied to. ...

Your reply to the earlier poster was 'unfair' because it failed to appreciate adequately the point that was being made, viz. that the complexity of the combat system (and not the use of minis per se) is an entry-barrier for many people.

...
Zero evidence that minis actually present a barrier to entry has been presented. Your erroneous replacement of personal biased perception has been substitued as this fact, but that does nothing to elevate it to true fact. ...

I made the point that many people (not everyone, and probably not even most people) find the complexity of the system to be a deterrent. I fail to see how this constitutes a 'personal biased perception', as I am merely reporting what other people have told me, both in person and on various message boards. I never made a claim to 'know' how many such people exist worldwide -- though I suspect that there are many such people.

...
There are many other games that do not rely on minis. If minis were the obstacle for D&D people would gravitate to those games. But as those games show no better growth (and almost universally far less growth) than D&D then the minis aspect is ruled out as the cause....

Sorry, but his is pretty bad reasoning. (Also, I question the 'almost universally far less growth' claim. In relative terms, some games are growing far more rapidly than D&D. If you're referring to absolute numbers, though, then D&D's dominant position in the market would make it almost certainly the 'largest grower' -- but that's not a very interesting point.)

As I already pointed out, D&D is the main 'entry game' for people -- indeed, for most people, the term 'D&D' is synonymous with 'RPGs'.

Consequently, most people who are 'turned off' by D&D never even find out about these other RPGs.

Moreover, D&D, as the largest RPG, has with it certain network benefits that smaller games don't have (independent of product visibility and availability benefits) -- viz. it is often far easier for people to find other D&D players than it is to find players familiar with their preferred game. Indeed, it is not uncommon (at least in my experience, and that of many others) to find groups who play D&D simply because it is a commonly known game -- even though everyone at the table would prefer to be playing something else.

...
The highly questionable argument that people play D&D simply because people play D&D shows both a failure to grasp basic logic and basic economics in one sentence.

People play D&D because they like it. Did you consider that one? It seems not...

I never claimed that 'people play D&D simply because people play D&D'. Please try to read the words that I actually write.

Even though it's not my preferred game, I would rather play 3e with a good group than nothing at all. I like it that much.

And, no offense, but to assert that simply because a product is dominant within the market that there is no barrier to entry (alternatively, that there is nothing that could make that product more accessible/appealing to people) is to demonstrate a striking failure to 'grasp basic economics'.

...
I know that I for one had left gaming in general and was brought back by the elegance and robustness of 3E. But I don't confuse my personal preference with the market as a whole. Thats just me.

I was brought back to D&D (though not gaming) by 3e. After two campaigns, I've learned that I don't like DMing it, but I'm still happy to play it with a good DM. You seem to assume that I'm uniformly anti-3e. That's simply not the case.

 

[Crothian]

I made the point that many people (not everyone, and probably not even most people) find the complexity of the system to be a deterrent.

Many? I can agree that some do, but many implies more then half and we really do not have that data. The people teaching the new people the game has a far bigger effect on if they stay as gamers then any system ever does.

 

[BryonD]

Many? I can agree that some do, but many implies more then half and we really do not have that data. The people teaching the new people the game has a far bigger effect on if they stay as gamers then any system ever does.

It's interesting.

I've invited many people to play over the years and been turned down a lot.
Many don't even give it a try.
But others have taken a look and basically told me, if not in so many words, that it is more complicated than they want to deal with. But that has never once happened in any association with minis. And it happened when I was playing 2E, GURPS, and to a limited extent WoD as well as since 3E.
RPGs, any RPGs, are vastly more complex than Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit or whatever else the average non-gamer thinks of as a "game". And a whole lot of people don't want to go to the effort of putting themselves into a persona and being part of an open-ended game. It just isn't appealing to them.
But anyone who has ever gotten beyond that hurdle has never ceased to play because a given game was to complex. Prefering one game over another? Of course. But dumping gaming altogether because a game was to complex? Not once.

 

[Squire James]

Sure, but that's not the example being discussed. The question asked in the article is how Obi-wan removes three limbs with what appears to be one attack, when the RAW state (apparently) that you can only take one per attack. The answer comments that in addition to getting his readied action, Obi-wan also made two attacks of opportunity, one for each leg, and that the GM just narrated it as a single swipe of the blade. Shame that the rules disagree with that interpretation.

Besides, the rules don't cover everything, no matter how hard the game tries. There's just too wide a variation of possible circumstances and actions.

Anyway, I'm done with my thread-jacking here. Expect me to return to the topic at hand... soon...

Obi-Wan has a feat created by George Lucas called "Great Limb Cleave"...