ChrisTalbot.com

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree again. If you plan on running a traditional D&D game you will need at very least the big dictionary of bad guys more commonly known as the monstrous manual. While the original 3.0 player's manual did include a cut down monsters section with a few critters in it the purpose was simply to hold GMs over until WoTC could release the full product. Ditto the magic items section.

Now I'm sure you could argue that a GM could always introduce his own set of homebrew creatures and I'd imagine a good many do just that. But that was hardly the point I was trying to make. Without introducing homebrew rules you would need both monstrous manual and DMG to run your game. Because really, if you went up to one of the many of D&D players out there and asked them if they'd be interested in a D&D game that didn't have monsters or magic items how many of them do you really think would be interested?

You then mentioned that your first experience with Shadowrun was a convention setting. I’ve been to a few conventions where I decided to try a new game system that I’d never before played. To say that I walked out of there with anything more than the most basic understanding of the rules once the game was over would have been a lie. Convention games are most often timed, characters are pre-generated and the adventures are fast paced with little time left to explain the finer points of the rules. To compare that experience with a traditional gathering of your local game group hardly seems a fair assessment of the rule system.

I’ve introduced a few gamers to the D&D system (yes I do play it myself) who have had experience with other games but had never tried the D20 system. It still takes most of them 2-3 games before they get a good grasp on the rules and aren’t asking rules questions every other minute.

In similar experiences where I’ve taken players familiar with D20 or other game systems and introduced them to Shadowrun rules they’ve been up and running with little or no trouble in one game session or at worst midway through the second. While that’s hardly a quantitative measure of the system’s difficultly or complexity I can only speak from past experiences and in past experiences that’s what I’ve seen.

With regards to my little comment at the end of my first post if I recall correctly you’re the one who said:

“However, many fans of the game are likely to say that it's not too complicated once you know it”

That sounds like an open invitation to debate a topic if I’ve ever heard one.

And while I do realize that this is your website and I do expect to see your opinions posted here, the great thing about posting your thoughts on the internet is that people are able to tell you when they think your opinions aren’t even worth the electrons it took to display it on their computer monitor.
I’d say this is even more true when you post it in a format that invites commentary like blogging tends to. As such if you plan on keeping this up you might want to work on thickening up your skin there as you seem to be the only person who has taken this little discussion personally. I was simply posting my thoughts on the matter in a manner that I hoped you’d be able to understand.

But just to be an ass I offer the following:

If I have somehow caused offence please allow me to offer my apologies as clearly it wasn’t my place to disagree with you while treading on the most holy electrons of your divine web space.

: P

Later,

TBO
 

Sarcasm ... senses ... tingling. ;)
 

Annonymous gamer, are you kidding me?

I'm going to try and keep this short, because this comment thread is becoming a novel.

I've played one incarnation of D&D for the past 20-odd years, and in almost all versions, admittedly not 2nd edition, if the Dungeon Master was good enough players could jump in to the action right there and them.

Since I'm often the Dungeon Master, he's almost always good enough. Are the core three books needed? I will agree with you that a Dungeon Master will be stronger with all three, but I've never played in a Shadowrun game where a Game Master had only the core book either.

A week ago, my friend brought his girlfriend to our D&D game, she had no experience in role playing whatsoever(unlike those in your example) and had a smashingly good time. Did she know all the "complex" rules? No. Did she need to? Clearly, no.

If you think a game like Shadowrun is better because there are less rules you're short-sighted. Both systems are reasonably rules light, and people often chose to have as many rules as they do.

My experiences with Shadowrun have made me feel it is outrageously over-detailed and complicated. It took me a day to make a simple character (based on a fictional archtype, so it should be easier). I had to chose the manufacturer of my bullet-proof trenchcoat for Pete's sake, show me where that happens in even the most supplement-heavy D&D campaign? Then thanks to the "realistic" complexity of the rules my eight-hour Frankenstien's monster (which took a half-dozen books of equipment and supplements) was shot in the back of the head by a whelp with shotgun and died instantly. Sure a generic 1st-level wizard can die that way a lot, but only takes about 30 minutes to make him up (or less, if you use the archtype).

What I will say, is if you think D&D needs a lot of books and Shadowrun doesn't... you really should stick to Shadowrun, you don't seem have the mental tenacity to turn D&D in to the free and creative game it's meant to be. (BTW, I just said that to be an asshole, 'cause why should you and Talbot have all the fun. Oh yes, and 'cause I am.)
 

Ok Law let's take this point by point and we'll see where we end up:

1) I've played one incarnation of D&D for the past 20-odd years, and in almost all versions, admittedly not 2nd edition, if the Dungeon Master was good enough players could jump in to the action right there and then. Since I'm often the Dungeon Master, he's almost always good enough.

- I never stated that a person couldn’t “jump in” and get playing right away. I stated that it would take them a few games before they’d gotten a solid grasp of the rules. In a recent game of D&D we’ve had two players (both of whom are intelligent individuals and gainfully employed as teachers) who were previously unfamiliar with RPGs join the group and in each case my statement was accurate. Only after they’d each played between 3 and 5 games did they stop asking a constant stream of questions anytime anything rules related came up. I guess by your logic, our GM just sucks.

2) Are the core three books needed? I will agree with you that a Dungeon Master will be stronger with all three, but I've never played in a Shadowrun game where a Game Master had only the core book either.

- I have played a Shadowrun game where a Game Master had only the core book. It worked just fine. How many books the GM owns is irrelevant. I was simply stating that it can be played with no loss of functionality using only the base book and that comment remains accurate.

3) A week ago, my friend brought his girlfriend to our D&D game. She had no experience in role playing whatsoever (unlike those in your example) and had a smashingly good time. Did she know all the "complex" rules? No. Did she need to? Clearly, no.

- Again you avoid the issue that’s being discussed. At no point did I ever state that a person was unable to have a good time when learning the rules. All I ever stated that for a person to be able to function in the game without needing assistance from other players or the GM it will on average take them longer (from my experience) to learn the basics of the D&D system that it does the basics of the Shadowrun system.

4) If you think a game like Shadowrun is better because there are less rules you're short-sighted. Both systems are reasonably rules light, and people often chose to have as many rules as they do.

- Not less, simply more concise and to the point. I don’t see how my preference for a rule system that works just fine using a single book makes me short sighed when compared to a rule system that requires multiple books to cover what is arguably a simpler setting. If I wanted to take the Shadowrun system and trim it down to cover the same material that you’ll find in the three core D&D books I could knock off two sizable chapters and at least half of a third. And even after that I’d still have a game system that would work just fine.

5) My experiences with Shadowrun have made me feel it is outrageously over-detailed and complicated. It took me a day to make a simple character (based on a fictional archetype, so it should be easier). I had to chose the manufacturer of my bullet-proof trench coat for Pete's sake, show me where that happens in even the most supplement-heavy D&D campaign? Then thanks to the "realistic" complexity of the rules my eight-hour Frankenstein’s monster (which took a half-dozen books of equipment and supplements) was shot in the back of the head by a whelp with shotgun and died instantly. Sure a generic 1st-level wizard can die that way a lot, but only takes about 30 minutes to make him up (or less, if you use the archetype).

- I refer you back to your original argument. If the GM is good enough, any player can jump in and have a good time immediately. In this instance the problem doesn’t lie with the system but instead with the person running it. Also consider that the characters in Shadowrun are not equivalent to a basic D&D character. Characters in Shadowrun are considered larger than life at the beginning of their careers. Most have been in their chosen profession for years and are already grizzled veterans. A more accurate comparison would be to try and make up an 8th level D&D character along with all gear, magic items, feats and abilites.

As for choosing the brand name of your trench coat I need only refer you to the magic items section in the DMG. With the rules in the base book alone you could have literally hundreds of variants on a standard suit of chainmail. Given that Shadowrun doesn’t have magical armour the idea of having three choices for a type of armour doesn’t seem all that unreasonable. I find this is even more true when you consider the emphasis that the Shadowrun system places on an individual character’s style.

6) What I will say, is if you think D&D needs a lot of books and Shadowrun doesn't... you really should stick to Shadowrun, you don't seem have the mental tenacity to turn D&D in to the free and creative game it's meant to be. (BTW, I just said that to be an asshole, 'cause why should you and Talbot have all the fun. Oh yes, and 'cause I am.)

- Ah insults about my intelligence, always a classy way to end your argument. This one isn’t even worth a response.

TBO
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Removed the double-post of the last comment.