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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2718607" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>Actually, i think the criteria of "can be used as a entry level game" or " has been used easily as an entry level game" or "many people use it successfully as an entry level game even without actual training by more experienced players" to all be good indicators of a game being an actual in practice "entry level game". They make up a practical definitioon of what an "entry level game" is.I would be the designers would describe DND 3.0 as designed to be an entry level game. matter of fact, i seem to recall that as a design goal.So you keep saying, but, i gotta say, the fact that it is used as such, successfully, a lot, seems to keep flying in the face of your claim.Ok, so assuming you agree that people, maybe even quite a few people, do in practice successfully use DND 3.0 etc as an entry level game, which seems to be real world practical evidence that it is such, what evidence do you have to support your claim that it isn't?Actually, the fact that "your definition" isn't represented a lot in the industry might be an indication of a problem with your definition as opposed to a problem with the industry.and, frankly, DND does from what i have seen lend itself in design well to piecemeal presentation. At lower levels, much of the complexity is minimized. No PrCs, few feats, class abilities rather simple, class archtypes pretty obvious and locked in... etc. Sure, the various options such as sunder and grapple and such are all there but they appear more rarely, with the basic low level monsters being pretty straight forward bruisers.As you advance, the capabilities of your characters and your adversaries bring these other facets more into play. This is a steady progression of complexity, almost, but not quite, what i would call discrete.that appears to be intentional in design, not accidental, not coincidental.but this is clearly not something we will agree on.[/QUOTE]

Verification