Quote from: dragoner;778293Too bad the WotC forums are blah, here is nice though. I don't care if anyone likes 5e or not, at some point it is always pointless caring about what other people care about. Like it, don't like it, blah. Whatever.

Pretty much. Nobody can either make or stop a person from playing however or whatever they want in some form at least.

I like 5E a whole lot better than 3.x/4E. I'm not sure if my group will like it enough to leave 2E or HackMaster. But, we are going to give it a go.

Quote from: Mostlyjoe;778223Oh GOD were they. I remember picking up my first copy of AD&D PHB and it was like reading stereo instructions. If it wasn't for table experience (and the fact I can follow stereo instructions...I'm weird.) I wouldn't have gotten anywhere. And it STILL took me close to 5 years? to run the game right. I kept ignoring rules or ruling weirdly on stuff. Even when I got big into 2E I was house ruling stuff I didn't understand.

Well of course. Without any prior experience you picked up ADVANCED D&D.

I had no problems with AD&D not because I'm all that clever, but because I played B/X for three years first. Moldvay basic provided a sound foundation for running games in just 64 pages. It's STILL the best D&D set for quick start play made to date.

Same here. I believe I played basic for a while then acquired the 3 add books.

And I played with people that already knew dnd.

I can see add being a bit much for a younger/brand new player.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;778250Whoosh! go the goal posts!

We were talking about teaching people to play, not the ways in which people may learn to play.

......

So call it your preference if you like, but don't presume to speak for 'most gamers.'

No goal post shifting at all.  OG seemed to imply that the complexity of the rules doesn't matter with new player learning the game because the DM should just tell them what to do when it comes up.  And for the vast majority of gamers, that's either outright flawed, or very shortsighted.  I think we all can agree that the way he learned the game (from the creator directly before it was an actual distributed game) is a unique circumstance that you can't apply to most gamers.

When I teach new players (like the past two Wednesdays) I too don't have them learn the rules before playing, but do like what OG said.  However, that's only as good as that session.  Do you know what gamers do then if they had fun?  They go out and get the rules and read them.  I know I did after my first session in 1981, and so did pretty much everyone I know.  So did these new groups from the past 2 weeks.

"Hey!  After our session, I downloaded the basic rules and went over them."

THAT'S why complexity and presentation are important, and why I said players want to know rules.  Because they do.  And when you're comparing something like 5e's rules to OD&D or AD&D, it is much easier to read and comprehend than the other two.

Quote from: Old Geezer;778258No.  But I have a version of D&D that I'm entirely happy with.  The burden of proof is on a newer edition to prove to me that it will make me happier than the one I have, and 5E has not.

I thought this was a thread about opinions about 5e.  I have mine, other people have theirs.

Opinions are like assholes.  Everybody's got one, and they're all full of shit except your own.

Opinions are fine.  No one here is saying you can't have one.  Your very first sentence in this quote is perfectly fine.  However, if you say something that is either objectively incorrect or that someone disagrees with, they too are allowed to have an opinion.

This whole, "I should be able to say whatever I want without anyone disagreeing with me or you're not allowing me to say my opinion" needs to end.  Free speech is not freedom from accountability of speech.

In this specific case, I disagree strongly with your claim that it's ridiculous to call OD&D more complex than 5e.  I believe this because:

*In 5e, the same rule applies for combat, skill checks, saving throws, ability checks, etc.  In OD&D, there is a different rule for each of those.  More pages =/= more rules or more complex rules.  More rules = more complexity because that's more that a player has to remember/look up as opposed to a single basic mechanic for most everything.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778262Since there's no subtraction involved in a chart, your logical fallacy of appeal to authority isn't going to fly.

.

Speaking of logical fallacy...

If your argument that a to hit chart is less complex because there's not math involved, you're ignoring the obvious: that there is a chart that needs to be referenced in the first place.  That is a step in the resolution process and can't be ignored.  Even more time consuming if the player doesn't have access to the chart and relies on the DM to look up the result on the appropriate table.  There's a reason why attack matrix's stopped being used quickly.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778301No Banning, but the rest of the shit sure applies lately. :banghead:

It sure does.  Like horrible strawmen argument like this

Quote from: CRKrueger;778264You forgot the part about where yours weren't allowed.  Didn't you get the memo?  You're getting in the way of the new program, Geezer, you must be silenced and shouted down doncha know?

See my above comment about free speech.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;778393OG seemed to imply that the complexity of the rules doesn't matter with new player learning the game because the DM should just tell them what to do when it comes up.  And for the vast majority of gamers, that's either outright flawed, or very shortsighted.  I think we all can agree that the way he learned the game (from the creator directly before it was an actual distributed game) is a unique circumstance that you can't apply to most gamers.

And I think that's complete bullshit, because that's exactly how I teach new gamers right now.

Of the four players who've played in my Flashing Blades campaign, frex, only one even owns the book - for everyone else, I tell them to just tell me what they want their characters want to do, and we'll work out what rules we need from there.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Sacrosanct, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Quote from: Old Geezer;778258No.  But I have a version of D&D that I'm entirely happy with.  The burden of proof is on a newer edition to prove to me that it will make me happier than the one I have, and 5E has not.

Oh absolutely. I'm totally with you on this stance for anything one is invested in, not just games. If it ain't broke, etc. etc.

But having said that - what would 5e (or any other edition) have to do in order to be subjectively better than your current favorite?

Quote from: Old Geezer;778258I thought this was a thread about opinions about 5e.  I have mine, other people have theirs.

Heh I'm not challenging your opinion, I'm just asking based on your opinion (which I do value). I don't think there's anything wrong with your take at all. My wife doesn't like chocolate. That's far more crazy than someone not liking a particular edition of Dijon D.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;778398And I think that's complete bullshit, because that's exactly how I teach new gamers right now.

Of the four players who've played in my Flashing Blades campaign, frex, only one even owns the book - for everyone else, I tell them to just tell me what they want their characters want to do, and we'll work out what rules we need from there.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Sacrosanct, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I do not think I'm being unreasonable when I make the claim that when teaching someone an RPG and they enjoy it, they go look up information themselves once the session is done.  Nearly everyone I have ever played with has done so.  I can point to as recently as last week, when every one of my players from the first session told me they downloaded the rules and read over them.  Which is also why I referenced OG's experience being unique.  I can't very well just keep all the rules to myself and prevent new players from looking at them like Gary did to OG (apparently) because the rules are out there and available to anyone who wants them.  Not the cast in 1974.

While I know we each can only speak anecdotally, I am confident in saying that new players looking up stuff on their own after the game sessions is a lot more common than just my personal experience as you keep trying to say it is.

Also, the irony in your last statement is not lost on me.  I hope it's not lost on you.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778301No Banning, but the rest of the shit sure applies lately. :banghead:

Would you like a purple hanky?

Quote from: CRKrueger;778302That we do. :hatsoff:  
You used to live in Sacramento?  I'm sorry.  It's an ok town, really, but it ain't L.A.

What's ok about sacto? Old town is about best, and that is just a pitstop to get some oysters and bloody maries on the road to the Sierras. Though nothing beats getting hog fat on your windshield by Fresno on 99 from the rendering plant, the whole central valley is meth-death negativeland.

Quote from: Marleycat;778358Pretty much. Nobody can either make or stop a person from playing however or whatever they want in some form at least.

People are complaining that they had multiple tpk's from this goblin ambush; which when I saw it, it was pretty plainly an ambush; so we flanked it. No damage, but what were the rest doing? See the goblins and head on charge? Then it is a dice rolling contest, and I'm not happy with a game that has to satisfy that mindset.

Quote from: dragoner;778420People are complaining that they had multiple tpk's from this goblin ambush; which when I saw it, it was pretty plainly an ambush; so we flanked it. No damage, but what were the rest doing? See the goblins and head on charge? Then it is a dice rolling contest, and I'm not happy with a game that has to satisfy that mindset.

Like I said you can't stop people from playing the way the want to. I can think it's wrong all day long but it doesn't change anything. So it amuses me when people go mental about games they likely will never play on a regular basis. For example I would get into discussions about 4e when I actually played it or had an interest in playing it but once I decided the game wasn't my cup of tea I don't discuss the game because I don't care about it. Similar to 1e/2e where there are better alternatives that fit my preferences. So I try not to badmouth OD&D---->1e even if I think they have been done far better by other games or versions of Dnd because I don't play those games so why should I care?

More or less just play and quit shitting on other people's idea of fun. But for that situation it seems to me it was a playstyle difference not a game difference. And it may be better to just move on.

Quote from: Marleycat;778425I can think it's wrong all day long but it doesn't change anything.

I hope not, because if they did get their way, it would be a game for idiots.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778302That we do. :hatsoff:  
You used to live in Sacramento?  I'm sorry.  It's an ok town, really, but it ain't L.A.

Hell no! I did work there for a bit though. It's an armpit in my opinion. Mainly I lived/worked in the Bay Area proper though.

QuoteI hope not, because if they did get their way, it would be a game for idiots.

I don't disagree about that.

The 5E design team has said repeatedly that their ambition is to break out of the hardcore gamer market and appeal to the much broader casual gamer market. The same people who have fueled the explosion in popularity of boardgames. Mearls has come right out and said it's a problem D&D isn't appealing to those gamers.

If players need to read the rules to play D&D 5E, it will fail at this goal. Most hobbyist boardgamers do not read the rules to the games they play. Groups typically have one, or maybe two, lead members who buy the games, read the rules, and teach them. The rest of the members of the group simply show up and  play. This is true even for the most complex hobby games, like Twilight Imperium. Go to boardgamegeek and you will find all kinds of threads with tips on how to introduce and teach TI3 to a group of new players. While everyone says it would be nice if the players read the rules, they concede that it's unlikely to be the case, even for a game that takes an 8-12 hour time commitment. That's just reality. So they have to be taught at the table.

If WotC are serious about broadening the appeal of D&D, they need to provide some very succinct and compact play aids summarizing the rules. Even boardgames with only 12 pages of rules will often come with a summary card, or players will publish rules summaries them independently. Why these sorts of summaries are not standard in RPGs is baffling. I suspect RPG companies are afraid that freely available rules summaries will make the game itself an unnecessary purchase (which is one of the reasons most GM screens are terrible). However, in the case of Basic 5E, there's no reason WotC shouldn't publish a two-page rules summary in point form. With tight layout, you could cover the core systems, standard actions, and conditions on one double-sided page. If you wanted to get fancy, you could print class-specific summaries on two double-sided pages.