Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TikkchikFenTikktikk" data-source="post: 5441702" data-attributes="member: 67494">To answer the authors question: yes, teaching chess to kids is saner than teaching D&D to kids. I've done both, I speak from experience.In chess the pieces and board are very much finite. While the finer points of tactics and strategy are complex, moving your pieces around and capturing opposing pieces is easy (except for the $#@%ing knight; but even the knight takes at most five lessons to teach, IME).D&D is by its nature and its multiple creator's intention damn near infinite. Each "piece" has almost infinite variety. There is no fixed board. The rules come down to "try something and the 'referee' will decide whether it works or not dependent on politics rather that almost concrete rules evolved over years.Let me take a few points one-by-one:"One of the least fun aspects of playing with kids is character creation. ... It’s not that kids can’t comprehend those rules. It’s just that they’re far too eager to start killing monsters and gaining superpowers to concentrate on dry mechanics." You're doing it wrong.I think the author is a rules lawyer, and rules lawyers are the worst and least fun thing that can happen to D&D.What else can I say? If you think kids don't know how to create imaginary characters into which they pour their spirit and create drama and adventure, you are not observing and interacting with kids properly.Honestly, this one paragraph published by the official vendor of D&D depressed the hell out of me.This one paragraph exemplifies everything that I find the "wrong way" to play D&D. I really try very hard to accomidate multiple play styles (I hate sandboxes and love playing in a narrative/railroad, but do not begrudge sandboxers) but this just strikes me as very, very, very wrong. Play a boardgame.Sorry, moving on. I did read the whole thing.The Arabic Cthulhu was awesome. Why wouldn't you give 9-repeating to every score once you were told higher numbers for attributes are better? Why wouldn't every kid want to play Orcus? That's not a problem. That is not a problem! My daughter is playing a dwarf wizard with a wolf animal companion. That is not a problem. She just might encounter the djinni from Disney's Alladin while exploring the Ghost Tower with my Sareth. That is not a problem.Has this writer read the 4E DMG? Consider "yes." His coverage of racial traits is well done.Skills and feats should not be brought up with kids younger than high school. Not because they are hard to understand but because the benefits are so marginal. I am not a fan of either in D&D, feats especially. He wisely skips feats. Skills get a marginal pass from me, but only because they usually only reflect a character's highest attributes anyway. Just say a character gets +5 to attribute checks using their two highest attributes if you have to say anything, clarify what kind of checks use which attributes, and be done with it. But usually skills only come up when a DM asks for them. Instead of the DM asking "what skill do you use" or "roll a <skill> check" the DM should ask 'what do you do' and then convert that to a skill and ask for a check.He handles equipment well enough. (I'd just say here's your weapon, armor, and miscellany given the background you or I just worked through.)"Disappearing XP"XP **does** disappear as you go. Once you gain a level, all XP you've previously gained is worthless. Once you have the 1,000 XP you needed to hit level 2 it is worthless. You only need worry about the next XP you need to hit level 3. This isn't an example of the kid's innocence, it's an example of "adults" depravity. Attack PowersUffda. Ask the kids how they want to confront the threat or problem facing them. Explain that given their class they can try what they want and likely fail, or try something else that is closer to what fits their class and will likely succeed. Why, the f***, are you trying to run kids as a tiefling warlock through their first D&D game?The first gamers to play D&D were ridiculously smart wargamer geeks. But the first versions of the rules for almost a decade restricted options to fighting man, wizard, cleric, or thief and human, tall thin smart human, short thick tough human, or shortish thickish fun human. Not because the players were stupid or ignorant but because those roles have universal appeal to humans given our evolution. Go with that."Dungeons & Dragons is a roleplaying game. Storytelling and moral choices have equal, if not greater, importance to killing monsters and gaining levels."OK. Sounds good."Explain that class is not really a job or a personality, but rather a set of game abilities."Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!No! No! No! No!Wait. The rest of this section makes sense except for that sentence. And the prologue should be true to its name and go first. Why would you develop a character concept after you've developed the character. That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't you imagine a character you want to play and then make the number and rules work towards that?A dry erase board a necessity? I barely use even paper at all when teaching chess or D&D.This strikes me as one of the most wrong articles about D&D I've ever read. It's all the more upsetting because it's targeted at children. While I agree with many of his suggestions, on the most important ones I disagree vehemently.The most instructive thing about this article, IMHO, is it demonstrates that WotC hasn't seriously considered the best way to teach new customers to play D&D and it is happy to outsource such a critical customer acquisition touch point to amateur volunteers.</blockquote>

Verification