Narf the Mouse wrote:Wasn't OD&D simple enough for anyone to pick up and play?
I'm not sure if you mean Original D&D, or if that is a typo of AD&D, but part of the answer is pretty much the same.
1st and 2nd editions of D&D were apparantly designed with the philosophy that all dice are random. Depending on the reason for rolling the dice, you might need a high number, a low number, or a middle number. For example, when attacking the idea was to roll equal to or higher than the THAC0 and then compare that to the AC of the target. But, if you were rolling an ability check you needed to roll as close to the number without going over. And, if you were rolling a system shock or any thief ability, you needed to roll under the number. (An obscure rule in the AD&D 2.5 Monstrous Manual stated that certain monsters could only be struck on an attack roll of 1, but most DMs and even many TSR employees didn't even know of the rule much less enforce it.)
A new player could easilly and often get frustrated and confused.
3rd edition sought to simplify this by simply declaring high numbers to always be good. This was stated as a goal by the 3rd edition design team at Gen Con 2000.
And, again, I'm coming back to the fact that most people who learned 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd edition D&D learned by joining a pre-existing group, sitting with people already familiar with the game and learning from experience. 4th has a really steep learning curve (there is no "easy" character class like a 1st ed cleric, a 2nd ed thief, or a 3rd ed fighter), and is a huge industry step backwards.
The rest of the table top role playing industry has moved to skill based systems. Third and 3.5 D&D were almost skill based, maintaining just enough class importance to remain recognizable as D&D. Fourth has, basically, released an archiac 70s / 80s style rpg system. Yes, it is "easier" in the fact that there are fewer options. Just as there are really only three to six different types of warlock in WoW, there are really only three to six different types of warlock in D&D 4E. Simple, but very restrictive.
I am beginning to question that 4E is something that can be picked up and played. In 3.5 there were a lot of options for beginning characters and so some campaigns (Arcanis and White Star just to name a few) allowed free rebuilds up to a certain level. That way if you had a first level fighter who took Power Attack and didn't realize that it really didn't help until higher levels unless you wanted it to unlock other feats, you could go back and change it. Or, if you found that the higher dex really wasn't as useful to your particular character concept as a higher INT combined with Combat Expertise, then you could change it. In 4E there aren't as many options, but they are all somewhat confusing options in that you have to decide each and every round what to do, whereas low level PCs in 3.5 could swing their sword and move on, learning the different available options as the game progressed.
4E might be easier in total. But, I think it has a steeper learning curve in that there are no beginning classes. In 3.5 it was fairly easy to take a Fighter or Rogue and play it. Intermediate classes included Barbarian, Druid, Paladin and Sorcerer. Advanced classes were Bard, Cleric, Monk and Wizard. In 4E, all classes are equally easy, but that also means that all classes are equally hard.
My opinion might change after playing 4E for a while, but at current I'd much rather teach a new player 3.5 by giving them a fighter or rogue and letting them learn as we play than teach a new player 4E.
Theno
I found role-playing games on the internet, recognized it as something I'd found interesting as a kid from when I'd seen part of a session, researched it, bought the 3.5 D&D handbooks and argued some friends on a forum to start an openrpg D&D game which lasted a year and a half. I also tried DM'ing, which failed miserably.
None of this would be a problem if they kept supporting 3.5 until 4e was firmly established, slowly phasing out 3.5 as they went. 
