Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="schnee" data-source="post: 7205713" data-attributes="member: 16728">It's not the same, though. Maybe it is the same for a veteran grognard. For new players, the first scenario is much accessible - and often makes the difference between playing or not.If you start with a small and simple core, people who get curious or bored can easily 'add on' to customize. The stuff that's being added on is clearly not necessary. The game worked perfectly fine without it. If you don't like it, then you can pull it off again and know the game will work.But, if you take a complex game and then ask a new player to start pulling out parts, it's awful. First, the complexity is daunting, even just to play. Then, when house-ruling, you have no idea if it what you are changing will break, because you don't know if the game functions without it. You don't know what to put in it's place, because you don't know what a functional, simpler alternative even looks like. You could be barely affecting one class and ruining another. You're forced to burn a lot of analysis and time to make it.Simple + build up is objectively better for new players, and is also perfectly fine for experienced ones. It's just a better way to do things.They don't affect the gaming experience of veterans.For new players the difference is huge.I know, because half my table are new to D&D. Several of them tried Pathfinder and found it overwhelming and turned up their nose. In comparison, they all really like 5E. --If 5E had embraced the ethos of 'be complicated and let them pull out what they don't wan't' then our gaming group probably would have never gotten off the ground, and a bunch of them would still be playing Dungeon World.</blockquote>

Verification