[quote="jkason"]All WOTC did was repackage a game and made it easier to learn (IMO) for all those that are "attention span challenged"."

I don't think its easier to learn at all.  Attacks of opportunity?  Bleh.

I prefer the abstract realistic version that I grew up on.  :D

3rd ed is easier to learn, has less inconsistancies and runs smoother, I have played them all and 3.0/3.5 rules  :twisted:

MrFilthyIke wrote:

beyerun wrote:I prefer the abstract realistic version that I grew up on.

I find the rules being abstract to represent more realism.

Each attack is several swings, feints, etc.  Read that someplace years and years ago, and that works for me.  Hits that bounce off and do no damage etc.

Sitting there for five minutes trying to figure out if I move one square this way instead of that in order to get an attack of opportunity doesn't add to the realism to me.

So it's abstract realism for me.  :wink:

Ralf Toth wrote:

LloydBrown wrote:
Glad you like it. Welcome.

I'm going to play a thief in an AD&D 2E Kalamar campaign soon. I think reading novels is a great way of getting a better understanding of the campaign world. Does anybody know, if there were any novels released for the Kalamar setting?

Dave (Kenzer) is willing to publish novels if he can review one that doesn't suck, er meets his high standards.  In keeping with the company's vision of a static timeline, they don't want novels that change the world, so it would most likely have to be something set in the past.

It is interesting to think that somebody might want to learn to play D&D, but not have any friends around to show them.

       At first I laughed at the idea of a "D&D For Dummies" book. Then it occurred to me that if nobody had shown me how to play when I was young, then I would probably have a hard time grasping the rather abstract concepts presented in the rule books. Didn't we all have somebody show us?

iattackthedarkness wrote:It is interesting to think that somebody might want to learn to play D&D, but not have any friends around to show them.
At first I laughed at the idea of a "D&D For Dummies" book. Then it occurred to me that if nobody had shown me how to play when I was young, then I would probably have a hard time grasping the rather abstract concepts presented in the rule books. Didn't we all have somebody show us?

*nods*. Certainly a valid point... And one that's very easy to be blasé about, from where we all stand now.

Yes; that's probably one reason why such a now-blindingly-obvious "good idea" as RPGs took so long to "invent" in their modern context.
*
Even Gary Gygax needed Dave Arneson to "show him", to some extent. (*g*. Sorry, Paul!)
As did Dave, Dave Wesley; and so on...

=
*chuckles*. I had to kinda work things out for myself (aged 8 (just about) and a long way away from any RPG group I knew about).
Wish I could remember more about those stabs-in-the-dark I must've made turning all those mechanics and ideas on paper into a framework for the "reinvention of the imagination" in a story-telling context (although I'm darned sure I wouldn't have used quite those words!!).

MrFilthyIke wrote:Then they bolted, and I bought Mr Mentzer's lil Red Box, taught myself, and it went downhill from there.

*LOL!*

MrFilthyIke wrote:I need that person to SHOW me how much fun it was, but this book would've been REAL handy.

Up to a point, yes. And would expect the book to say so, in the way Gary and others used to.
*
Would still put in my proviso/concern about the possible degree of prescriptiveness, though; unless that was more the manner of the book's presentation in salespeak.
...All that highly regimented "move up in the hierarchy to become a Dungeon Master"/"complex to learn" stuff which just goes against the grain a bit here; in terms of "how to become a rulesmeister" rather than "reinvention of the imagination" focus.
*shrugs*. Hey, if we "wanted" the former, wouldn't more of us still be playing "old school" (*g*) wargames rather than RPGs? (OK, still can't beat the 1-1 egostroking of the latter, methinks... ).

*looks at the clock*. Enough rambling, again! G'night, all!

harami2000 wrote:

MrFilthyIke wrote:Then they bolted, and I bought Mr Mentzer's lil Red Box, taught myself, and it went downhill from there.

*LOL!*

But it goes to show how important a simple D&D was. AD&D was kinda tough to understand when I read the book, but Mentzer was a breeze, and very fun.

iattackthedarkness wrote:Oh, yes - the Mentzer box! I thought that was D&D for dummies . I really did like it quite a bit. Friends of mine bring it up from time to time and we all get a chuckle.

Well, I wasn't a "dummy" as a kid, but RP was very foreign to the people around me, so Mentzer helped ease me into it.