Would D&D be easier if...

[sniffles]

As someone who writes legal contracts for a living, I'd say that what is needed to make D&D more accessible to beginners is a book that makes it really easy to find what you need to know to play the game. The PHB is reasonably well organized, but one does need to do a little too much cross-referencing - for example, having to flip to the spells section to find the spells, then search through the spell list, then flip to the spell description.

I'd suggest making a separate spells book, and possibly a combat supplement also. That way the core rules could focus on classes, races, skills, feats, equipment, and a few basic spells and combat actions. I'd lose the Description chapter, and place the alignment information with character creation. Some pregenerated characters and monsters would be good too.

 

[Odhanan]

I think D&D would be easier to learn if Wizards made a book that was actually designed for beginners...

What Crothian said. A D&D book for beginners sufficient to play games in and by itself for months if not years and products that support it.

 

[Remathilis]

Hasn't D&D for Dummies and the Basic Game filled this role? If not, why not?

 

[Ranger REG]

"See Allen. See Allen with three dice. See dice with six sides each. See Allen roll three dice. See Allen roll three dice for his character's ability scores. There's Strength, Dexterity,...."
-- excerpt of the new Doof's User Manual to Playing Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Odhanan]

Hasn't D&D for Dummies and the Basic Game filled this role? If not, why not?

Because IMO both D&DfDummies and Basic Game are marketing placebos. Specifically, they are designed to push people to invest into the three core rulebooks ASAP instead of being light versions of the game sufficient for and by themselves. D&D for Dummies explains stuff but isn't a gamebook itself. Not for 10-years-old kids anyway. D&D Basic Game has a bit more than a dozen minis, 4 carboard map tiles and just one/two character levels playable before being forced to invest into the three core rulebooks and/or D&D miniatures. Sure, this makes for a good short term solution on a marketing standpoint. I'm not so sure for the long term.

 

[WayneLigon]

Okay, I'll bite - Having more options open to the spellcaster, the AU spell system is quite clearly more complex than the standard D&D system. How, then, would this make D&D easier?

Yeah, I need to clarify that

I think you can still have options with less complexity.

I like the idea of one metamagic ability rather than five or six metamagic feats.

I like the idea of making some spells simple, some complex, and some exotic.

I like having one spell list for all the classes, but preserving that idea that some classes are better at using spells than others through the simple/complex/exotic system and the spell descriptor - much simpler than having a number of different spell lists.

I like the 'weaving' of spell levels and slots. It adds options without a large amount of verbage needed to explain the concept; I don't think it's appreciably more complex than the current system even though it gives you more options.

If I was doing a new edition, though, and wanted to toss Vancian magic, I'd go with the Blue Rose/True20 Arcana. Even less complex and more expandable, and takes up far less room. In fact, take the Blue Rose book, par down the setting to add a little more verbage on creatures and npc stats, add some select magic items and 'how to run the game' stuff, price it at about $20 and you'd just about have your perfect 4E right there.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

Well, I think if you were going to make a simpler version of the rule set, it should still be reasonably similar to the core rules, as the goal of making a simple rule set is to get people used to the basics, so they can "graduate" to the "advanced" system.

So, I think an easier version would include just 4 core classes, no PRC, maybe fewer races (just human, elf, and dwarf), only the necessary spells and feats, and less optional rules.

 

[S'mon]

I do think lots of different flavourful classes is a much more accessible approach than a few bland classes plus loads of feats - eg comparing Castles & Crusades to Grim Tales, the former seemed far more accessible to me and far more suitable for new players.

 

[S'mon]

Newbs want something that is easy-to-play without being intimidated by the rules and Veterans want everything (to resolve almost any situation, no matter how unique, rare, and anomalous it could be, by RAW).

I've been playing 20 years or so & I definitely prefer an easy, non-intimidating system. IME it is very very rarely the veteran players who want a rule for every situation.

 

[Remathilis]

Because IMO both D&DfDummies and Basic Game are marketing placebos. Specifically, they are designed to push people to invest into the three core rulebooks ASAP instead of being light versions of the game sufficient for and by themselves. D&D for Dummies explains stuff but isn't a gamebook itself. Not for 10-years-old kids anyway. D&D Basic Game has a bit more than a dozen minis, 4 carboard map tiles and just one/two character levels playable before being forced to invest into the three core rulebooks and/or D&D miniatures. Sure, this makes for a good short term solution on a marketing standpoint. I'm not so sure for the long term.

OH! You don't want an intro product that will allow younger players to eventually upgrade into the full-fledge game, you want a simpler version of D&D that harkens back to the Basic/Advanced/Expert/Companion/Cyclopedia era of D&D...

They have one of those too...

I get it now.