Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WSmith" data-source="post: 178425" data-attributes="member: 106">Monte said:  While I disagree with a lot of what Monte says, I agree that this statement is more powerful than one can gather from just glancing at it. I think 3e is simple for us, the experienced gamer. I think it is a little taxing for the newcomer, and takes some getting used to. Why?*The word "level" for use of both spells and character levels, when the two don't correspond in a linnar fashon (What do you mean I can cast a 3rd level spell until I am a 5th level wizard?) *The use of the word "actions." (partial, standard, move only, ME, full) I love the way Spycraft just call them half and full actions. That would clear up mucho for a neophyte. *Character generation can be a little longer than it should be for a new player, without the assistance of a playing friend.However, with those aside, the simplicity that makes D&D as big as it is, goes back to the boxed Basic sets. Here is my theory:Although numbers are nigh to be found, I would venture to say many (at least half) of D&D players started with the Basic D&D game. Because of the nature of the BD&D game, character creation was so simple and fast, you could be playing in just a few minutes. Plus, while there were restrictions, there were no restrictions. Yes, if you were a magic-user you could not wear armor. However, you didn't need game mechanics to develop the background of what we now call skills and feats. The player could come up with whatever BG he wanted, and was not funnelled by the CharGen picks beyond class. He had a small amount of restrictions to create an archtype, and the rest was let to the imagination. Imagination and interaction is what hooks people on RPGs. Not Rules. Your character could fit on one side of one piece of paper, and still have plenty of white space. Place the BD&D sheet next to the 3e sheet. The 3e sheet looks a little daunting. Again, this is conductive to bring in a new player. The character's role was CLEARLY defined, (both a strength and weakness, but more on that in a minute.) The fighter's job was to fight. The MU was to cast spells, the thief was to do all the sneaky stuff, the cleric to heal.  Judging on what the player wanted the character to do, you would pick the class and get your set bene's. There were no decisions to be made beyond that, except maybe spells and equipment.  Even then, the choices were kept to a minimum for simplicity's sake. DMs had to improvise and create a lot of rules on their own. This may be good or bad for the players depending on the impartiality of the DM, but it did make the game seem even more like the DMs, with his ad hoc resolution systems. So, you get to play and have fun with friends from level 1-3, where a lot of the issues that many of us have about AC, HP, DR, etc. don't even matter. Everything seems to work. But you eventually want more options. So, you either get the PHB, DMG, MM, or the ED&D boxed set, and you are now hooked like a junkie! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Fast forward to 2000.  The sacred cows are kept. Why? We all know to "keep the old school happy" reason, but do we know why they kept the Vancian, AC, HP, classes, and levels? Not because of us old timers getting disoriented without them, but because of what they meant and how simple they were to the new players many of us were in the late 70's and early 80's.  Realistic or not, they do work.</blockquote>

Verification