Ryan Dancy speaks, designers take note.
tussock
Ryan Dancy's doing a column at ENWorld, the lastest is true to my heart
of recent years.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/306026-4-hours-w-rsd-lets-have-
flamewar.html
"I happened to pick up a copy of the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Compendium
at the bookstore out of curiosity. This is a 320 page book. It is aimed at
new players. For comparison, I got out my copy of the Dungeons & Dragons
blue book from the old beginner boxed set. 48 pages. Has the game really
been improved in the past 30 years by adding 272 pages of content to the
material we expect a new player to use?"
No, Ryan, it has not appreciably improved, and much of the rules therein
do indeed allow characters to specialise themselves into a terribly awkward
hole, just in the four hours of not actually playing it takes to make them.
The funny thing being the rule compendium doesn't even tell you how to
build your character, that's a whole 'nother several hundred pages, or just
$9.99 per month if you call now.
--
tussock
James D Andrews
Bravo! If it's for beginners, it shouldn't be a Compendium, and 320
pages of extra rules is more than a bit much.
--
-There are some who call me...
Jim
"Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's
troublesome."
- Isaac Asimov
Keith Davies
> tussock banged his head on his keyboard to write :
>> Ryan Dancy's doing a column at ENWorld, the lastest is true to my heart
>> of recent years.
>>
>> http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/306026-4-hours-w-rsd-lets-have-
>> flamewar.html
>>
>> "I happened to pick up a copy of the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Compendium
>> at the bookstore out of curiosity. This is a 320 page book. It is aimed at
>> new players. For comparison, I got out my copy of the Dungeons & Dragons
>> blue book from the old beginner boxed set. 48 pages. Has the game really
>> been improved in the past 30 years by adding 272 pages of content to the
>> material we expect a new player to use?"
>>
>> No, Ryan, it has not appreciably improved, and much of the rules therein
>> do indeed allow characters to specialise themselves into a terribly awkward
>> hole, just in the four hours of not actually playing it takes to make them.
>>
>> The funny thing being the rule compendium doesn't even tell you how to
>> build your character, that's a whole 'nother several hundred pages, or just
>> $9.99 per month if you call now.
>
> Bravo! If it's for beginners, it shouldn't be a Compendium, and 320
> pages of extra rules is more than a bit much.
The core of Echelon will probably be pretty simple. The complexity is
likely to lie more in the combination of talents selected for the game
being played.
There aren't that many core variables or scores (hell, *ability scores*
aren't built into the system, though there is allowance for them), and
their interactions will probably be pretty straightforward. I intend to
use talents that are coupled as loosely as possible in order to minimize
complexity due to interaction, but there's nothing stopping someone from
using talents that cause cascading changes to characters. In fact, I'll
even write some to show how it's done (and because they are needed to
model certain modes of play).
So. Core should be pretty simple and straightforward. Once talents are
selected, character design and play will be about as complex as the
interactions between the talents chosen for inclusion and use. The
entire talent repository might get kind of biggish, and selection of the
talents to be available for a particular game might be a little tricky,
but I'm hoping that with reasonable classification of the talents this
shouldn't be too bad.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "I also have this psychological
keith....@kjdavies.org condition where I have a seizure
keith....@gmail.com when I hear stupid people speak"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org ... I think I might have this *gkkk*
Justisaur
First, I agree. Holmes was enough for me to start playing.
Secondly I disagree, the Rules Compendium is *not* intended for new
players. It is a compilation and update of rules as found in all the
books so far.
The new red box is for new players, or one of the other essentials
products. However I find both to be complete failures as compared to
any of the basic sets from days of old.
- Justisaur
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Ryan Dancy's doing a column at ENWorld, the lastest is true to my heart
>> of recent years.
>>
>> http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/306026-4-hours-w-rsd-lets-have-
>> flamewar.html
<snip>
> First, I agree. Holmes was enough for me to start playing.
I'm a Mentzer boy, which is, what, 64 including a solo adventure and a
whole lot more how-to, +48 with all the monsters and a (very challenging)
1st adventure.
> Secondly I disagree, the Rules Compendium is *not* intended for new
> players. It is a compilation and update of rules as found in all the
> books so far.
Fair call, the Rules Cyclopedia for the full Mentzer game is, uh, 320.
Though that includes all classes, spells, monsters, and everything else you
need for 1-36 (more like 1-24 in AD&D terms, or 0 to 50 in 4e).
Holmes only covered up to 5th, while Moldvay + Cook/Marsh was ... 75 +
75 for the two books covering everything up to 14th level (sort of).
Also, 4e's page count is bloated with white space and large fonts for
the 60+ age group. A 320 page 4e book would fit in 200 or so in any of the
old formats, which isn't too out of line.
> The new red box is for new players, or one of the other essentials
> products. However I find both to be complete failures as compared to
> any of the basic sets from days of old.
None of the old sets are great works or anything, but the basic games
have been universally crap since they put out the RC and went to those big
intro boxes. 20 years, no wonder there's less young groups.
... for three or more players, ages 10 and up.
Hmm, haven't Paizo got a basic set out? No, not 'till October. <sigh>
Still nothing I can buy my nephews.
--
tussock
Justisaur
> Justisaur wrote:
> > tussock wrote:
> >> Ryan Dancy's doing a column at ENWorld, the lastest is true to my heart
> >> of recent years.
>
> >>http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/306026-4-hours-w-rsd-lets-have-
> >> flamewar.html
>
> <snip>
>
> > First, I agree. Holmes was enough for me to start playing.
>
> I'm a Mentzer boy, which is, what, 64 including a solo adventure and a
> whole lot more how-to, +48 with all the monsters and a (very challenging)
> 1st adventure.
>
> > Secondly I disagree, the Rules Compendium is *not* intended for new
> > players. It is a compilation and update of rules as found in all the
> > books so far.
>
> Fair call, the Rules Cyclopedia for the full Mentzer game is, uh, 320.
> Though that includes all classes, spells, monsters, and everything else you
> need for 1-36 (more like 1-24 in AD&D terms, or 0 to 50 in 4e).
>
> Holmes only covered up to 5th, while Moldvay + Cook/Marsh was ... 75 +
> 75 for the two books covering everything up to 14th level (sort of).
Holmes only covered to 3rd.
> Also, 4e's page count is bloated with white space and large fonts for
> the 60+ age group. A 320 page 4e book would fit in 200 or so in any of the
> old formats, which isn't too out of line.
>
It's digest sized too, that's a lot less area to fill on a page, same
with essentials.
I am in the 40+ group, and I admit I'm starting to have trouble
reading some of the previous edition books. Those 1e books are in
what 8 point font? I have little (but occassional) trouble reading
those, it was the screwy backgrounds they had in 3.x which really made
reading difficult.
> None of the old sets are great works or anything, but the basic games
> have been universally crap since they put out the RC and went to those big
> intro boxes. 20 years, no wonder there's less young groups.
I saw a lot of youngens playing encounters when I ran it, I doubt
there was more than one person at my table over 25.
> Hmm, haven't Paizo got a basic set out? No, not 'till October. <sigh>
> Still nothing I can buy my nephews.
You can always get an old red box, or a print of one of the clones
usually from Lulu.
- Justisaur
tussock
<snip>
> Holmes only covered to 3rd.
Right you are. It's the newer 3rd party ones are going for 5th.
>> Also, 4e's page count is bloated with white space and large fonts for
>> the 60+ age group. A 320 page 4e book would fit in 200 or so in any of
>> the old formats, which isn't too out of line.
>
> It's digest sized too, that's a lot less area to fill on a page, same
> with essentials.
They don't seem to be able to figure that one out, do they. 3.0 used B&W
softcover supplements, 3.5 went to all hardbacks like 1st edition, 4.0 is
huge art books, 4.5 shrunk the page but kept all the white space.
> I am in the 40+ group, and I admit I'm starting to have trouble
> reading some of the previous edition books. Those 1e books are in
> what 8 point font? I have little (but occassional) trouble reading
> those, it was the screwy backgrounds they had in 3.x which really made
> reading difficult.
It's not just the text size that gets me with 4e, they've still got
those huge wasted margins, text that stops well short of the page bottom to
keep various things intact, and too few lines per page anyway.
At least they've stopped wrapping text around the pictures or over the
background art (which didn't stop the pirates anyway).
Also, get yourself some reading glasses already. Bit of a pain if you're
already short-sighted, but makes life better otherwise, so I'm told.
>> None of the old sets are great works or anything, but the basic games
>> have been universally crap since they put out the RC and went to those
>> big intro boxes. 20 years, no wonder there's less young groups.
>
> I saw a lot of youngens playing encounters when I ran it, I doubt
> there was more than one person at my table over 25.
No shops here any more to run it, last one died not too long after the
3.5 jump left them with too much 3.0 stock they couldn't shift all of a
sudden. None of the regular book stores will touch it, and the big chains
nearly went under this week as it is (more staff than customers, eh, NZ
bookshops don't have seats and coffee yet).
>> Hmm, haven't Paizo got a basic set out? No, not 'till October. <sigh>
>> Still nothing I can buy my nephews.
>
> You can always get an old red box, or a print of one of the clones
> usually from Lulu.
Yeh, be nice if one of the local book or hobby shops would carry
something though.
--
tussock
SS
> "I happened to pick up a copy of the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Compendium
> at the bookstore out of curiosity. This is a 320 page book. It is aimed at
> new players. For comparison, I got out my copy of the Dungeons & Dragons
> blue book from the old beginner boxed set. 48 pages. Has the game really
> been improved in the past 30 years by adding 272 pages of content to the
> material we expect a new player to use?"
Seems like this guy is rather biased against 4e. The Essentials-series
is aimed at new players, but the Rules Compendium is NOT a starter
book. The "Heroes of..." books are where players start making their
characters. The Rules Compendium is meant to be a convenient place
where all the rules are gathered for easy access.
> No, Ryan, it has not appreciably improved, and much of the rules therein
> do indeed allow characters to specialise themselves into a terribly awkward
> hole, just in the four hours of not actually playing it takes to make them.
> The funny thing being the rule compendium doesn't even tell you how to
> build your character, that's a whole 'nother several hundred pages, or just
> $9.99 per month if you call now.
...and apparently you don't like 4e either... That's fine by me. You do
your thing and I'll do mine.
Just a view from "that other camp": I have just started a 4e group.
First time DM'ing etc, and the Rules Compendium is in use a lot because
it's so damn handy. If people wonder how a skill like Stealth works
(yes, you're invisible, sort of, but in game-terms what happens?) or
what the difference is between Athletics and Acrobatics is, they just
grab it and look it up. No need to ask what book the rule might be in
or involve the other players.
I used to dislike the Essentials-line, but I've grown to like it a lot.
Even though I don't have any other Essentials books than the RC, I see
that these books give a very easy way into the game. The classes in
Essentials don't have the Paragon path options found in the regular 4e
books so there's less to worry about (remember that many people don't
get into the advanced character customization until they have
roleplayed for a while). When people "graduate" to the level of play
where they want more options there are a lot of (yes, I agree there are
WAY many) books to expand the universe if you want to go with the
vanilla world.
The DM I play AD&D 2e with hates 4e with a vengance but most of it
stems from trying to look at 4e using the 2e way of playing (which is
annoying since he's NEVER even tried playing 4e himself). There's also
a lot of (in my opinion, WAY too much) romanticizing and nostalgia
involved too, but I don't see the need to confront him with it. I let
him enjoy DM'ing 2e and I hope he'll let me enjoy DM'ing 4e. After all,
it's not a popularity contest.
SS
Keith Davies
> On 2011-05-26 17:48:08 +0200, tussock said:
>
>> "I happened to pick up a copy of the Dungeons & Dragons Rules
>> Compendium at the bookstore out of curiosity. This is a 320 page
>> book. It is aimed at new players. For comparison, I got out my copy
>> of the Dungeons & Dragons blue book from the old beginner boxed set.
>> 48 pages. Has the game really been improved in the past 30 years by
>> adding 272 pages of content to the material we expect a new player to
>> use?"
>
> Seems like this guy is rather biased against 4e. The Essentials-series
> is aimed at new players, but the Rules Compendium is NOT a starter
> book. The "Heroes of..." books are where players start making their
> characters. The Rules Compendium is meant to be a convenient place
> where all the rules are gathered for easy access.
This sounds more like a dislike of the packaging than of the game
itself.
I can agree that 'Rules Compendium' sounds like a resource than a
teaching manual, so it's not really fair to hold its lack of utility for
new players against it. That's not what it's for.
>> No, Ryan, it has not appreciably improved, and much of the rules
>> therein do indeed allow characters to specialise themselves into a
>> terribly awkward hole, just in the four hours of not actually playing
>> it takes to make them.
>
>> The funny thing being the rule compendium doesn't even tell you how
>> to build your character, that's a whole 'nother several hundred
>> pages, or just $9.99 per month if you call now.
>
> ...and apparently you don't like 4e either... That's fine by me. You do
> your thing and I'll do mine.
Similarly, this is more about the marketing than the game. I really
don't like what WotC did with the marketing for 4e, to the point where I
don't have *any* of the books. I don't have any of the books, but I am
pulling some of the mechanics that I've heard described into Echelon.
That tussock figures it hasn't improved enough to warrant a lot more
space isn't an indictment against the game so much as how it's packaged.
"Hasn't gotten better" doesn't means it's worse.
His specific comments on what he figures worse may or may not be true,
but if they match his experience they certainly indicate things I
wouldn't like either.
SS
> That tussock figures it hasn't improved enough to warrant a lot more
> space isn't an indictment against the game so much as how it's packaged.
> "Hasn't gotten better" doesn't means it's worse.
Thanks Keith. You are right, I guess tussoc isn't saying that 4e is
outright bad, just not enough of an improvement for him to invest in it.
SS
Keith Davies
I think so, yes -- at least, given that he's got something he's
satisfied with. FWIW I feel about the same.
I think there is some good stuff in there, but not enough to warrant the
cost of buying in for me.
SS
> I think there is some good stuff in there, but not enough to warrant the
> cost of buying in for me.
I started with 4e, so for me it was easy: Buy 4e or buy something
else.. I had to make an investment no matter what.
SS
Justisaur
Not really, with all the free classic clones like OSRIC.
- Justisaur
tussock
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> That tussock figures it hasn't improved enough to warrant a lot more
>> space isn't an indictment against the game so much as how it's packaged.
>> "Hasn't gotten better" doesn't means it's worse.
>
> Thanks Keith. You are right, I guess tussoc isn't saying that 4e is
> outright bad, just not enough of an improvement for him to invest in it.
It's only outright bad in ways that 3e and splatbook-2e are too, and I
played both as written for longer than they deserved. I don't like the
character creation mini-game, and I don't like the 4e solution of telling
DMs to not use it (in that it still breaks things).
It's not much different to late-era 3e stuff like Bo9S, MM4, or MM5,
which I didn't appreciate for many of the same reasons.
But 4e's not a bad game for kicking in abstract doors and it's scope
isn't any more limited than the games we played most often with earlier
editions (with apologies to those who did more on any sort of regular
basis).
When they chucked out the magic system it removed a lot of the game's
old flaws (...), and a lot of people clearly like having all the combat
tricks written up as various class-limited "powers" (as previous editions
also do to some extent).
Sure, the skill challenge system's a running joke, but so are various
sub-systems in older editions. The encounter-building guide makes for
boring-ass games, but people play it anyway.
The format's an expensive one (~700 words/p excluding art rather than
the old standard 1100), the PHB could've been 196 pages and $5-10 less with
better ink and binding. That's not good for attracting a younger audience.
And this thing, where they treat the rules as a living document (which
is a fine idea for a competitive game like Bloodbowl or WoW-PvP), they're
just using that to suck money out of their addicts for a service that would
be provided free by the fans if they were allowed, and that shit crosses me
something chronic.
Ever so many nerds love D&D, we would all have proper free digital tools
if the suits would just allow them to be made.
They've not even got the sack to call 4.5 a revision, despite them
"revising" all previous material to be compatible (which is to say, crap
unless you buy into the revision, haw haw).
--
tussock
Oops, ranting, asking me about 4e does that. Sorry.