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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 3297609" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi Wolv0rine! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />When they (meaning new or casual gamers) go into a shop and can't have the game demonstrated within a few minutes of their time.Or when someone new to the game finds that theres a recommended 960 pages just to get you started.Someone could have an interest in Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and never be turned on to Dungeons & Dragons simply because you really need to be indoctrinated into D&D. I'd guesstimate maybe 1 in 10 players started without joining an existing group or someone who already knew how to play.Thats not what I am saying at all. I'm more interested in boiling the rpg experience down to the fundamentals, rather than imposing a lot of the minutiae and paperwork. I think that will make it a lot more accessible.I think you are going off on a tangent. Its not about the complexity of the individual components, rather that there are too many components wasting time with minutiae and paperwork.Its like why have 100 moving parts when you can build something which does the same job with 25 parts. Occam's Razor and all that. There are too many moving parts to make D&D time economical.I think the current rules Re: Skills are far too time consuming, self-referential and the minutia of it is bordering on the banal.Personally I would design something much, much simpler. Ability Score Checks + class level (if its a skill relevant to that class) against the DC.Heh heh! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Okay, I was shooting in the dark there, but I am sure someone out there probably has done market research along those lines.I think I am comparing it to previous editions. Is 3rd Edition more 'fun' that 1st Edition - I think they are probably about the same (when you are playing that is). But in terms of minutiae that just gets in the way, 3rd Edition is far more complex in terms of the number of 'moving parts'. Which means that when you or I go to construct our own PCs, NPCs, Monsters (etc.) it takes much, much longer.I think thats just a minor excuse, but the real issue is the time consumption of minutiae, versus the time spent actually 'playing'. Skills, feats, potential laundry lists of items, spells.I mean even looking at spells for a moment. Why not just have the same spell allocation table for every class? (Bard progression 2/3, Paladin 1/2 etc).I'm not saying 3.5 should just go away, but simply that a 4th Edition in the vein of 3.5 won't be anywhere near as successful as 3/3.5. Yes, semantics.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The game already revolves around minis and a board (or at least the acknowledgement of a grid/squares). Go take a look at the Combat chapter in the PHB.I am in favour of online versions (a number of my friends have been raving about X-box live), and I think software utilities could certainly prove useful.But how is an online version any different (in terms of strategy) to the boardgame approach. Both are moving away from the hardback supplement business model, which is something I don't see working again with another Edition.I think if the next Edition of D&D continues with the same approach the audience will continue to dwindle.I think that point is right now. Simply because I don't see a pen & paper based 4th Edition selling retreads of all the 3rd Edition books. Which means what the heck are you going to do after the PHB, DMG and MM. Are WotC going to try and sell me another Manual of the Planes or Forgotten Realms campaign setting? How are those things going to be markedly different enough to interest people this time around?If I were WotC I would continue to support 3.5 but I would also attack the mass market with the simpler more visceral, collectible approach of the boardgame, as well as try to make strides into the online sector. I just don't see a 4th Edition being a great business model if it just duplicates what we have already had with 3rd Edition. People might buy the 'big three' but I can't see 20% of the people who bought supplemental books buying them again with the new crunch bits integrated.The way ahead has to be something different. The boardgame approach is that something, as is the online approach.</blockquote>

Verification