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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 3301441" data-attributes="member: 3586">Although I like the old Moldvay Basic set a lot, I rather don't think that it's the way to go. Character creation was removed between the Black Dragon and Blue Dragon Basic Box sets. I'm sure that this wasn't because the designers just thought it should go - I'm sure that it was because of their research into how the Basic Game was received by new players.Although I think the full D&D could be streamlined slightly, I don't think a simplified version (without feats & skills) is a good idea. D&D is the way it is because of two factors:1) People like complexity in RPGs2) People buy books that add onto the game.Feats, Skills and Prestige Classes have a great advantage as being areas you can expand on without too much trouble, and thus sell more books.If you don't have those areas to use, then balancing is much, much more difficult - you get the unholy mess that was 2e.I'm sure that 4e will fix a lot of things that have become overcomplicated in 3e (NPC creations probably is the big one), but the basic forms of skills & feats are here to stay.Gygax was terrible at writing rules explanations. The AD&D DMG is a perfect example of how not to do it. It's good at inspirational text, but horrible at rules.Moldvay was good at it. His "dumbed down" Basic set is was taught me the game, not Gygaxian prose. Gygax was good at inspiring you, but read the combat chapter in the DMG and try to figure out how it works... not good.Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification