Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cor_Malek" data-source="post: 5346291" data-attributes="member: 91608">Dammit. Thing is - I agree with your post, and still disagree with OP. Sadly, my pressure on adding pejorative load to the word "simplistic" derailed the point I was trying to make. And then, Delericho wrote what I meant in much more clear way:First off, I want to clarify something - it's not visible in my post, but I didn't want to either edit it after being quoted, nor post just for this: there definitely is a need for introductory sets. As you see in mine, as well as most (all?) posts in this thread - it's what Dice4Hire said - that it's a lot different when you're being taught, than when you have to figure it out yourself.It's like with Linux - it's a breeze when there's someone to bounce trivial questions off, but can be discouraging if you have to figure it out yourself (well, past tense there - new distributions are as easy to use as it can be).Of course, with the simplest but elegant rules you can create anything just by adding complexity - any music ever created is just 9 things - 8 sounds and silence (Heavy Metal has 10th - rebellion ;-) ).The thing is - the more levels you want, the more complex it de facto will be, because you not only need rules for the image - but also for act of scaling itself. GURPS is great for such scaling, and it is simple - but it carries overwhelming complexity with it.What strikes me, is that while I was reading the paragraph before the quoted one, I was thinking "huh, so like Basic/Advanced model?". But! As I was reading through the quoted part - what was going through my head was "huh, sounds like 4e-Essentials". Seems to me, that WotC planned on what you describe here - but with only 3 layers - Introduction-Essential-Core. As development prerogative they are meant to work modularly with each other. Of course all I have for it is what I fish out of threads and articles about it - I take keen interest in 4e development, but I lack actual play experience, so I'll take your word for whether this goal was successfully attained by Wizards.It seems that bulk of what seems like disagreement between our stances is semantic differences on lines of: simple, complex and easy. In d20 systems you basically roll d20, add stuff for being good at something and compare it against number expressing how hard the thing you tried is. You roll various other polyhedrons to determine effects of what you just did with your d20. What you can do with your d20 can be limited by what is called as "class".Which is why I consider 3.X as simple - but complex, so not very easy. 4e went a step forward here, as there are basically only 4 classes, although each has multiple variants - again, simple with complexity. Which is why the idea of making this basic premise easier - strikes me as something that deserves at least slightly pejorative description.So both systems in theory comply with the premise: simple core - additional modules. And yet, a lot of people call one easy and the other too complex. Funny thing - they can't seem to agree as to which is the simple one ;-) IMO it's because they both are. But people choose to focus on all the possible layers as if they had to incorporate them all at once (vide- archive panic).Take the archive panic away, by hiding it. Would you say that Penny-Arcade is an epic tale of gaming industry? I mean, there's a lot of panels and articles. What they did, is if you hear that there's a cool comic there - when you visit it, you immediately see the most recent one. Nobody expects you to start reading with the first one or the one where present design was introduced. If you choose to - you can click on the archive button.This is what I was trying to say - there's absolutely no need to simplify either of systems as OP suggested. They are not too hard to grasp. There's an illusion of such state, because we see them in complex form (buffed by huge fonts, lots of pictures, thick pages and often unjustified hardback form, and lots of empty space). Take that illusion away by producing an intro set where outlay is focused on minimalistic and non-threatening form and presto!For a time, I argued in PF section, that this function could and should be taken care of by introductory part of rulebook to quick startup. Guide of most crucial parts of book, and everything other you can learn as you go. Beauty of discussion, I was convinced by others that it's more than that - there needs to be a product that accounts for the fact that user is self-taught. Because it adds volume, other parts need to be discarded or else you get a behemoth of a book.Besides, someone who doesn't know the ropes, needs some basic tools - like various dices and tokens/minis, a map. It's easiest to learn through experience so an adventure should be included.And this is what IMO such introduction set should include - tools that take into account that recipient doesn't have a guide to the game. You don't want to make it obsolete if/when she buys the Core Rulebook, so it's good to throw in some unique content - adventures, maps, minis, that kind of stuff. It has to be affordable, so it cannot contain all that on top of normal content. But it's only the complexity you need to strip - you really don't need to simplify it. I consider less complex rules in introduction as rather unfortunate cost of adding aforementioned content, rather than desirable design.Whoever heard of a kid that wished that his Lego set had less pieces?Dammit. I could've written the above and call it a day. Oh, well.And as for technicalities...I'd be afraid that this backfires as multiple versions of Vista did. It creates archive panic for someone who is supposedly oblivious of the entire RPG thingie. Of course when executed well, it can work: as with XP. It can be even craved - like with Linux. But it is dicey.Ah! One more point I wanted to address:I blame editors. Sure, folks with steady job have far less time to sit down and learn a book-worth of rules, but they most probably already have the skills to look at entire problem, prioritize and find only what they need. I don't remember exact number, but when I counted actual number of pages needed to start playing Pathfinder game (entire sections based on table of contents - no crossing off paragraphs) - it's less than "Little Train that Could". But I've read some awfully edited rulebooks, where tidbits of information needed to start the game are hidden across the book, forcing one to read most of it at first go ("damn you, Vampire:tM! I already know what character I want, I don't give a damn about all that other stuff! How do I make malkavian with paragnomic tendencies nao!?").PS.: Goddamit. I have this nagging feeling that clarification, shouldn't be twice as long as the clarified text. Oh, well.For anyone that actually chewed through that whole post - I'm sorry I wasn't able to express it in more... compact way, and I thank you for attention you've given it.</blockquote>

Verification