What Was Gygax Thinking?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Not to mention the tendency to take an analogy and run with it way beyond the boundaries of applicability or common sense.
What you're saying is basically like answering the question by asking how many rust-monsters can dance on the head of a pin? And if that pin is made of ferrous material, how long before accidental contact with their antennae disintegrates the pin? Except someone is going to add that it isn't a pin, pins aren't that big; it's a knitting kneedle. And knitting needles are sometimes, but not always, covered in a plasticised coating to prevent wear and tear.

So, what we're actually talking about is the likelihood that all these dancing rust monsters, which we have more of now because the point of knitting needle is wider than a pin (No, no it isn't! Oh yes it is!), will score the plastic coating, leading to exposure to their antennae. So really what we need to talk about is the sharpness of a rust monster's claws versus the hardness of a coated knitting needle and how long before the application of both claw and antennae destroys the pin that's being danced upon.

Ah but they aren't antennae, says someone else, they're more like antler fronds. They supply a picture of a rust monster.

But that isn't even a real rust monster, says another. Here's a fully labelled diagram of a rust monster showing where you're wrong.

That's all well and good, says one of the first someones. But no one is taking into account the tail. All you're worrying about are the claws, and the fronds (Antennae! Antlers! Deedley-Boppers says a drive-by troll! Rust Monsters don't have claws, shouts someone new to the whole process!) but really we need to be cognizant of the tail, how it's affecting the balance of those rust monsters, and whether or not the presence of the tail is actually limiting the number of rust monsters on the end of your pin. (NEEDLE!) Pffft adds a new combatant. Rust Monster tails are purely aesthetic. The rules have never mentioned them.

The asker of the original question, who was wondering how much basic bite damage for medium-sized creatures in d20 based roleplaying games is, hasn't read the thread for weeks. Four of the posters haven't fed their cats for 72 hours. The cats are slinking closer to their owners, sticking to the shadows, ancient hunger guiding silent steps. The starving felines launch themselves through the air.

d8. The answer was d8.
 
Definitely. But WotC wouldn't listen to that idea...not that it would matter much.
Best we can do is to give simpler systems to new GMs ourselves:grin:!
WotC is operating on the paradigm that the market is of a fixed size and won't expand much or they wouldn't be trying to maximize what they get out of each player.
 
If I were t divide gaming into "Ages" like comics, I'd go -

up to 73 - Prehistory
1974 - 1980 - The Stone Age
1981 - 1990- The Golden Age
1991 - 1999 - The Silver Age
To me it’s more like;

1970-77 - Stone Age (rpgs are invented and codified)
1978-85 - Golden Age (rpgs become popular and professional)
1986-93 - Silver Age (rpgs become bloated and decadent)
1994-2000 - Copper Age (rpgs fade into near-irrelevance in the face of CCGs and computer games; a lot of legacy publishers fold)
2001-08 - Bronze Age (rpgs have a revival centered around d20 bringing back Golden/Silver Age players)
2009-14 - Brass Age (D&D stumbles, the D&D-alikes (Pathfinder, OSR) have their moment)
2015-22 - Tin Age (streaming and Kickstarter change the landscape and rpgs become more popular than ever before but D&D feels more dominant than ever)
2023+ - ? (either the hobby moves online & effectively merges with computer gaming (if WotC gets their way) or the rest of the industry steps in to fill the void & the 20+ year dominance of D&D is finally broken (if they don’t))
 
Concerning 5e DCs, I find adjusting Easy to 8, Moderate to 13 and Hard to 18 worked out best for lower level, grittier games where consequences can be punishing. I think the term "Moderate" is misleading as 13 is the spell save DC for level 1-4 caster with 16 in their primary stat i.e. a spell cast by a gifted prodigy.
Well, that's again with the terminology. Everything should be scaled by adventure standards. Is this an easy task in a day to day situation? No. Is it an easy task in a life or death situation? Yes. And again, DC 10 is "perform life-saving first aid on someone actively bleeding out, with no medical gear". That's the benchmark for "easy".
 
up to 73 - The Arneissance
1974-1980 - The Rule of Gygax
1981-1990 - The Age of Exploration
1991-1999 - The Goth Invasion
2000-2009 - The Story of Gaming
2010-Present - Fuck It, Let's Just Play Old Shit

I'm iffy on those last two, as you have the story of gaming take place during the d20 era, and PBTA didnt start until 2010
 
I'm iffy on those last two, as you have the story of gaming take place during the d20 era, and PBTA didnt start until 2010
Yeah, I'm not really up on the whole history of storygaming thing... a poor RPG historian am I.
 
Concerning 5e DCs, I find adjusting Easy to 8, Moderate to 13 and Hard to 18 worked out best for lower level, grittier games where consequences can be punishing. I think the term "Moderate" is misleading as 13 is the spell save DC for level 1-4 caster with 16 in their primary stat i.e. a spell cast by a gifted prodigy.

Well, that's again with the terminology. Everything should be scaled by adventure standards. Is this an easy task in a day to day situation? No. Is it an easy task in a life or death situation? Yes. And again, DC 10 is "perform life-saving first aid on someone actively bleeding out, with no medical gear". That's the benchmark for "easy".
pretty much the same conclusion i came to doing some conversion work. You have to assume that the "Moderate" is "moderate for people who are professionals in mildly challenging situations" not "your afternoon in the office"
 
As someone who has GM’d every edition of D&D (minus 4E), all of them require an experienced GM to run well…wait, that’s true of every RPG…experience matters
I completely agree. It's just my experience that a string of novice DMs couldn't handle everything 5e needed them to handle when they were relying on the books for "how do".

Ya know... different thread for "what are good games for new GMs to learn on?" might be interesting.
 
Yeah, I'm not really up on the whole history of storygaming thing... a poor RPG historian am I.

well, it's kinda confused because what I would classify as a "story game" is very different from what I think the storygaming movement is centred on. I see storygaming as an outgrowth of the Forge.
 
pretty much the same conclusion i came to doing some conversion work. You have to assume that the "Moderate" is "moderate for people who are professionals in mildly challenging situations" not "your afternoon in the office"
And that's for every rpg, because otherwise you end up having to call the lowest DC you roll for, or the absolute highest modifier to your roll you can get, something like "very challenging". This can be better explained in most rpgs, but I've yet to find one game where rolling for day to day tasks, or even fairly challenging real world scenarios, would not destroy the task resolution system and make everyone look incompetent.
 
And that's for every rpg, because otherwise you end up having to call the lowest DC you roll for, or the absolute highest modifier to your roll you can get, something like "very challenging". This can be better explained in most rpgs, but I've yet to find one game where rolling for day to day tasks, or even fairly challenging real world scenarios, would not destroy the task resolution system and make everyone look incompetent.
absolutely, but it is a surprisingly hard thing for people to retain. same with the don't roll unless it is interesting.
 
High Fantasy built their combat system around the idea that you had a 100% chance to hit at first level and then applied difficulties and resistance to that to find the actual change. I've always wondered why they didn't carry that through into their skill system. But then that was just a list of maybe 20 things that you rolled percentile for and that roll was your rating.
 
I’d rather not see another thread spin-off but I don’t see a difference between those two things. Except that story games seem to have narrowed in breadth compared to the heyday of the Forge. Might just be me paying less attention.
 
up to 73 - The Arneissance
1974-1980 - The Rule of Gygax
1981-1990 - The Age of Exploration
1991-1999 - The Goth Invasion
2000-2009 - The Story of Gaming
2010-Present - Fuck It, Let's Just Play Old Shit

2023- The age of exploitation


What you're saying is basically like answering the question by asking how many rust-monsters can dance on the head of a pin? And if that pin is made of ferrous material, how long before accidental contact with their antennae disintegrates the pin? Except someone is going to add that it isn't a pin, pins aren't that big; it's a knitting kneedle. And knitting needles are sometimes, but not always, covered in a plasticised coating to prevent wear and tear.

So, what we're actually talking about is the likelihood that all these dancing rust monsters, which we have more of now because the point of knitting needle is wider than a pin (No, no it isn't! Oh yes it is!), will score the plastic coating, leading to exposure to their antennae. So really what we need to talk about is the sharpness of a rust monster's claws versus the hardness of a coated knitting needle and how long before the application of both claw and antennae destroys the pin that's being danced upon.

Ah but they aren't antennae, says someone else, they're more like antler fronds. They supply a picture of a rust monster.

But that isn't even a real rust monster, says another. Here's a fully labelled diagram of a rust monster showing where you're wrong.

That's all well and good, says one of the first someones. But no one is taking into account the tail. All you're worrying about are the claws, and the fronds (Antennae! Antlers! Deedley-Boppers says a drive-by troll! Rust Monsters don't have claws, shouts someone new to the whole process!) but really we need to be cognizant of the tail, how it's affecting the balance of those rust monsters, and whether or not the presence of the tail is actually limiting the number of rust monsters on the end of your pin. (NEEDLE!) Pffft adds a new combatant. Rust Monster tails are purely aesthetic. The rules have never mentioned them.

The asker of the original question, who was wondering how much basic bite damage for medium-sized creatures in d20 based roleplaying games is, hasn't read the thread for weeks. Four of the posters haven't fed their cats for 72 hours. The cats are slinking closer to their owners, sticking to the shadows, ancient hunger guiding silent steps. The starving felines launch themselves through the air.

d8. The answer was d8.

Most knitting needles are made of aluminum or plastic, therefore impervious to Rust Monsters rendering your little theory as complete bullocks. :tongue:
 
Ah, I misunderstood. Ok, you have a personal definition of “story game”, which is different from what the storygame movement, an outgrowth of The Forge, is centered on.
 
Ah, I misunderstood. Ok, you have a personal definition of “story game”, which is different from what the storygame movement, an outgrowth of The Forge, is centered on.

Yeah. I don't know that the storygame movement has any kind of consensual definition of "a storygame"

I have what I consider a common sense one. It doesn't align to the games storygamers play.
 
I believe it is mentioned in The Hobbit that hobbits have a natural talent for stealth. That is one of the reasons Gandalf recruits Bilbo as a Burglar (the LotR motivations are a retcon by Tolkien). May need to pull the book off the shelf to confirm.
Yes, but that's halflings - not Bilbo specifically - it's a racial ability not a class ability. It's the same as Drizzt (apparently, never having read the books) being a Drow can wield two weapons, yet he's a Ranger and from that in later D&D editions Rangers can wield two weapons (sigh). B/X correctly gives Halflings a racial ability to hide (though, oddly, not sneak) and to dodge attacks.

The one time Bilbo tries to do an actual Thief skill - pick a pocket - he fails (and that's for comedy purposes anyway).

Hobbit Thieves - who pick locks, disarm traps, and climb sheer surfaces - are not a thing in the source material.
 
As someone who has GM’d every edition of D&D (minus 4E), all of them require an experienced GM to run well…wait, that’s true of every RPG…experience matters

As much as some bristle at the "shared story telling" description a good GM really does need to be a decent story teller and the really good ones have some repressed author in them. A GM is much more than a referee, they have to apply the rules and describe situations in an interesting way. You have to be creative and be able to think up cool stuff to make your own adventures or even to flesh out published ones.

Orcs (1Ea, 6 per blister pack) roll for initiative works, but it leads to a pretty dull game experience.

The tendency for more serious gamers to create house rules, and write their own material is not just some geek thing, the creativity involved in RPGs attracts people like that, it is not something that one can get just reading a book on GM-ing.
 
Yeah, 'Burglar' doesn't really equate to thief skills, as it only refers to someone who enters places illegally (at night usually) to steal things, which is certainly something Bilbo does in the Hobbit.
 
Ya know... different thread for "what are good games for new GMs to learn on?" might be interesting.
IMO the format of the DM book from the 1983 Basic Set is just about perfect. It starts with an essay summarizing the basics of how running an adventure works with some handy checklists of procedures (events in a game turn, events in a combat round), then presents a sample adventure with running instructional commentary telling the DM what to do in each encounter - starting in the first couple encounters with literal read-aloud text and step-by-step instructions, then for the rest of level one more traditional module-style text but with notes and suggestions of things to look out for, then for level two a map and list of things to include, and for level three a brief list of suggested elements (to ease the novice DM into not just administering the game action but also creating adventures), then a big FAQ with explanations and suggestions for all of the most common “problem” areas, and after all that the reference sections with the monsters and magic items and dungeon-design tables. The first sections are all written in an approachable and conversational tone. It’s how I learned the game at age 9 and I feel like just about anybody could learn how to run the game pretty well from a book like this.

The big caveat, though, is that IMO the content doesn’t live up to the format - the sample adventure is bad and so is a lot of the advice in the FAQ section (encouraging the DM to fudge die rolls to make for a better story, discouraging the DM from adding new content of their own (monsters, equipment, etc) and so on). Frank Mentzer had his own ideas about what D&D should be like and they don’t fit with mine (and I don’t think they fit with Gary Gygax’s either). But this format with better content would be ideal.
 
I've been googling to find a working definition of "storygame" and yet I am still baffled and confused.
 
Last edited:
If I were t divide gaming into "Ages" like comics, I'd go -

up to 73 - Prehistory
1974 - 1980 - The Stone Age
1981 - 1990- The Golden Age
1991 - 1999 - The Silver Age

Hmmm, I would go:

1970s Wargames
1980s RPGs
1990s Card games
2000s (Euro) Boardgames
2010s maybe a slight RPG return but still Boardgames
2020s Too early to say!
 
The thing about the old school dungeon crawl is that it's very easy to DM. Particularly if you don't even have to design the dungeon. The large scale choices the dungeon offers are all laid out before you, and you only need to adjudicate creative solutions to problems that players come up with.

Compared to the notion of a dungeon the idea of an 'adventure' is incredibly nebulous.
 
I've been googling to find a working definition of "storygame" and yet I am stiff baffled and confused.
The term is almost useless. If you look at what was talked about on storygames.com, D&D is a story game...

Jennifer Anniston declares almost any game they don't like a story game.

Other definitions or lists of what qualifies abound.
 
Hmmm, I would go:

1970s Wargames
1980s RPGs
1990s Card games
2000s (Euro) Boardgames
2010s maybe a slight RPG return but still Boardgames
2020s Too early to say!
2030s RPGs run by AI's online
2040s, The AI having been trained by running rpgs, now play elaborate games against each other in the post apocalyptic wasteland using the last remaining humans as living game tokens.
 
I've been googling to find a working definition of "storygame" and yet I am stiff baffled and confused.

heh, yeah. Try reading this for some background:

 
Yes, but that's halflings - not Bilbo specifically - it's a racial ability not a class ability. It's the same as Drizzt (apparently, never having read the books) being a Drow can wield two weapons, yet he's a Ranger and from that in later D&D editions Rangers can wield two weapons (sigh). B/X correctly gives Halflings a racial ability to hide (though, oddly, not sneak) and to dodge attacks.

Is that the origin? Because in 2e, two weapon fighting requires you to use a smaller weapon in your off hand, unless both are daggers, and this applies to Rangers as well. Drow dual wielding in 1e UA doesn't have that restriction, so Drizzt wields two scimitars because he's a Drow and not a Ranger.
 
Yes, but that's halflings - not Bilbo specifically - it's a racial ability not a class ability. It's the same as Drizzt (apparently, never having read the books) being a Drow can wield two weapons, yet he's a Ranger and from that in later D&D editions Rangers can wield two weapons (sigh). B/X correctly gives Halflings a racial ability to hide (though, oddly, not sneak) and to dodge attacks.

The one time Bilbo tries to do an actual Thief skill - pick a pocket - he fails (and that's for comedy purposes anyway).

Hobbit Thieves - who pick locks, disarm traps, and climb sheer surfaces - are not a thing in the source material.

What would you consider the primary literary source for the thief depicted in D&D? I'm not familiar with any fiction that offers a good example of the D&D thief. Bilbo is as good as I can offer, and as pointed out he was at best a naturally talented but inexperienced burglar.

I'm not super familiar with The Grey Mouser but he doesn't seem a good example of the D&D thief or they would have been better fighters than they were (only mages were worse). Conan was often thief like in his early career, but he is an even worse example for a D&D thief than he is an example of the D&D Barbarian.

Thieves world wasn't released until 1979, so D&D was more likely an influence on the fiction, than it being an influence on the game although by B/X it could be the source for the idea only humans can be thieves.
 
What would you consider the primary literary source for the thief depicted in D&D? I'm not familiar with any fiction that offers a good example of the D&D thief. Bilbo is as good as I can offer, and as pointed out he was at best a naturally talented but inexperienced burglar.

I'm not super familiar with The Grey Mouser but he doesn't seem a good example of the D&D thief or they would have been better fighters than they were (only mages were worse). Conan was often thief like in his early career, but he is an even worse example for a D&D thief than he is an example of the D&D Barbarian.

Thieves world wasn't released until 1979, so D&D was more likely an influence on the fiction, than it being an influence on the game although by B/X it could be the source for the idea only humans can be thieves.

I think finding and disarming traps is what sets D&D thieves the most apart from most fiction involving thieves. The earliest example I can think of is Raiders of the Lost Ark, although there probably is something earlier.
 
I've been googling to find a working definition of "storygame" and yet I am stiff baffled and confused.
That because it is a focus not a well defined set of mechanics.
The same issues exist between RPGs and wargames.

For example what is the difference between Melee/Wizards and The Fantasy Trip?
What is the difference between Battletech and Mechwarrior?

As a rule in campaigns focused on collaborative storytelling using game mechanics you will find a lot more metagame mechanics. Mechanics are meant to be used by the players as a player within the campaign, unlike mechanics which are meant to be used by the player acting as their character.

For example world building rules meant to be used by the group to build the setting of the campaign are metagame rules
The ability of the Chronicles of Amber characters to create worlds is something that the characters can do in that setting.

Mechanically the two sets of examples do the same thing. The main difference is the focus, cooperative storytelling, pretending to be a character having a adventure, and playing a game where all the rules you can use are defined and you play until the defined victory conditions occur.
 
If I were t divide gaming into "Ages" like comics, I'd go -

up to 73 - Prehistory
1974 - 1980 - The Stone Age
1981 - 1990- The Golden Age
1991 - 1999 - The Silver Age
For just D&D it should be
'71 - '83 - The Rise of Dragons (exponential growth of the kingdom year on year)
'84 - '92 - The Tyranny of the Wizards (growth stops abruptly, but the Game Wizards rule the kingdom with a rod of iron)
'93 - '96 - The Gathering of the Magicians (increasingly desperately clinging to power, the Wizards grasp at straws to keep control, not noticing the Magicians' first steps to enslave the world with their cards)
'97 - '99 - The Doom of The Game Wizards (The Magicians slay the Wizards and all is laid waste)
etc. etc.

Somewhere in there was a serious point that you can't really split '71-'83 into different periods. D&D grew exponentially every year at a constant rate from '71 to the early eighties. For example the number of published* scenarios consistently doubled every year, from which we can infer that likely the number of players of D&D was also growing at a constant rate. It appears that with Blackmoor spawning Dungeon! and D&D and Mineapolis Dungeon, this growth was because of Blackmoor not because of D&D. (That is, given Blackmoor, a published RPG dungeon crawl ruleset was inevitable). Nothing - not the publication of D&D or any particular tournament or the James Dallas Egbert case - affects the rate of growth. Hence if you took up D&D at any point during this period of growth, just one year later you would have been playing D&D for longer than half of the people playing D&D. Thus whenever you took up D&D it would appear to you that the game took off in popularity immediately after you had taken it up.

I'm not sure exactly when the growth stopped, but it resulted in TSR's financial woes in '83-'85.


*when the number of players was very small, early dungeons were seen by a majority of players, so I treat Blackmoor and Greyhawk and tournament dungeons as "published" since a reasonable proportion of the player base experienced them.
 
IMO the format of the DM book from the 1983 Basic Set is just about perfect. It starts with an essay summarizing the basics of how running an adventure works with some handy checklists of procedures (events in a game turn, events in a combat round), then presents a sample adventure with running instructional commentary telling the DM what to do in each encounter - starting in the first couple encounters with literal read-aloud text and step-by-step instructions, then for the rest of level one more traditional module-style text but with notes and suggestions of things to look out for, then for level two a map and list of things to include, and for level three a brief list of suggested elements (to ease the novice DM into not just administering the game action but also creating adventures), then a big FAQ with explanations and suggestions for all of the most common “problem” areas, and after all that the reference sections with the monsters and magic items and dungeon-design tables. The first sections are all written in an approachable and conversational tone. It’s how I learned the game at age 9 and I feel like just about anybody could learn how to run the game pretty well from a book like this.

The big caveat, though, is that IMO the content doesn’t live up to the format - the sample adventure is bad and so is a lot of the advice in the FAQ section (encouraging the DM to fudge die rolls to make for a better story, discouraging the DM from adding new content of their own (monsters, equipment, etc) and so on). Frank Mentzer had his own ideas about what D&D should be like and they don’t fit with mine (and I don’t think they fit with Gary Gygax’s either). But this format with better content would be ideal.

A modified choose your own adventure was popular for a bit. I think the solo / guided adventure is a really useful technique to help new GMs. They can run it as a solo to learn how stuff works and learn the module some, then run it as a training wheels adventure with players to get used to the GM side of the table. That works for teaching the basics anyway.

Actually developing from a technically competent (knows the rules) GM, to one that is actually fun to play with takes more effort, but that only comes with experience and learning what the table wants / expects, more fights, open landscape or breadcrumb trails, humor, deep philosophical debates with NPCs, funny voices etc is just not going to be the same from group to group.

Technically competent isn't exciting but a lot better than doesn't have a clue and at least provides a good starting point.

The thing about the old school dungeon crawl is that it's very easy to DM. Particularly if you don't even have to design the dungeon. The large scale choices the dungeon offers are all laid out before you, and you only need to adjudicate creative solutions to problems that players come up with.

Compared to the notion of a dungeon the idea of an 'adventure' is incredibly nebulous.

Sure, I think a lot of GMs start off as basically wargames referees making the dungeon crawl a great place to start.

I can remember drawing up maps that were basically just boxes in the ground holding monsters and treasure. Over time I started drawing up towns and villages that were basically just above ground boxes holding encounters. Eventually I started thinking about why things were where they were, and how they fit into the bigger picture.
 
heh, yeah. Try reading this for some background:

Oh, I forgot about that... Much more entertaining than my response... You should edit in a little piece about storygames.com into that though... (storygames.com, originally by a different name, was formed as The Forge was shutting down and featured several of the folks who actually had sensible thoughts from The Forge, including Vincent Baker).
 
My answer is “the one they want to run”
But I’m a firm believer in doing is the best teacher
<scene opens with several teens and an EMT standing next to an ambulance>
Narrator: Today, on "Learn First Aid By Doing It" our participants learn...
<EMT pulls a gun and Blam! kneecaps the nearest teen>
Narrator: ...how to treat gunshot trauma.
<EMT hands the least panicked teen a first aid kit, gets in ambulance, drives off>

Seriously though, while "the one they want to" is pretty reasonable because motivation & enthusiasm are great and all, there are some systems that probably aren't going to be easy or fun to first time GM for. Plus a good number don't actually have any practical advice for the most common issues in their system.
 
I think finding and disarming traps is what sets D&D thieves the most apart from most fiction involving thieves. The earliest example I can think of is Raiders of the Lost Ark, although there probably is something earlier.

Yeah, there is probably something earlier, but I'm drawing a blank, although there is a lot of mythology about the pyramids having curses and traps on them so there is likely something in 1930s fiction when Egypt-mania was a big thing.

Raiders was 1981, so again post dates the D&D thief by several years.


That because it is a focus not a well defined set of mechanics.
The same issues exist between RPGs and wargames.

For example what is the difference between Melee/Wizards and The Fantasy Trip?
What is the difference between Battletech and Mechwarrior?

As a rule in campaigns focused on collaborative storytelling using game mechanics you will find a lot more metagame mechanics. Mechanics are meant to be used by the players as a player within the campaign, unlike mechanics which are meant to be used by the player acting as their character.

For example world building rules meant to be used by the group to build the setting of the campaign are metagame rules
The ability of the Chronicles of Amber characters to create worlds is something that the characters can do in that setting.

Mechanically the two sets of examples do the same thing. The main difference is the focus, cooperative storytelling, pretending to be a character having a adventure, and playing a game where all the rules you can use are defined and you play until the defined victory conditions occur.

That is a good distinction, never thought of it in that sense, but it does fit into what I consider story games, so long as you draw the line with a 4" paint brush.
 
Seriously though, while "the one they want to" is pretty reasonable because motivation & enthusiasm are great and all, there are some systems that probably aren't going to be easy or fun to first time GM for. Plus a good number don't actually have any practical advice for the most common issues in their system.
The fact of the matter is that only D&D really offers the "book that's for the person who's going to run the game". Yeah there are a few edge cases, but no system drills down into it like D&D. As we know the quality of advice and useability varies from edition to edition, but it's there, clearly labelled.: This is the book for beginners that want to run the game for their friends.

The majority of other games make the unconscious assumption that you've already crossed the chapel perilous of reading a DMG. I've noticed that most newer games barely touch on what an RPG game is, in fact. "We all know what an RPG is, so we'll just get to the heart-breaking work of staggering genius" type attitude. When it comes to new gamers, the serpent is swallowing its own tail and its own egg.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top