Is 3x D&D a rules-heavy system? Is that a good/bad thing?

[Asmor]

3.x is rules heavy.

The existence of systems that are more rules heavy than 3.x does not change the fact that 3.x is, in and of itself, rules heavy. To suggest that it is not, that implies that that person has not played much at the lighter end of the rules spectrum.

hth

I don't think anyone's really been implying that, so much as they were arguing for a broader spectrum. Certainly, in terms of sheer complexity and number crunching, there are vastly more complicated systems...

But if we're just pigeon-holing everything into "rules heavy" or "rules light," I think you'd be hard-pressed to call D&D light.

 

[JustKim]

D&D is heavy on combat rules only. When it comes to resolving almost anything else D&D is very rules light.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure any of the choices really reflects my position.

3.X is 'rules-medium'. It is neither a true rules heavy system like GURPS or HERO, nor a true rules light system. It has achieved a happy balance between incompleteness and complexity.

3.X has both good rules and bad rules. Some of the rules are bad because they are incomplete, and hense need further complexity. Some of the rules are bad because they are too complexity, and need something of further elegance. Since I have a higher tolerance for complexity than incompleteness, I tend to lean towards '3.X needs more rules'. However, when I say this, I'm really specifically thinking of the action-resolution system. Most of 3.X's complexity is an outgrowth of its magic and character creation rules set. These areas are anything but elegant (as the proliferation of character creation focused splatbooks suggest) and could use to be significantly pared back.

I don't however expect this to happen. The reason is that rules heavy systems make more money than rules light systems, and significantly improving the elegance of the character creation rules would severely injure WotC's ability to produce extensions of the rules set which would have a high level of demand in the market. Relatively few people could be convinced that the game needs more (or even just improved) rules for handling demographics, climate, diplomacy, perception, economics, mass combat and so forth. It's quite easy to sell books however that allow you to make you different sorts of powerful characters, or cast spells with new sorts of powerful effects.

Hense, 4E is already indicating the same sorts of incompleteness in its character creation system that plagued 3E.

 

[balterkn]

I'll join the "I think it's rules-medium" bandwagon.

There are heavier weight rules systems out there. DnD 3E (d20) seems to be about in the middle in terms of level of detail overall. In terms of combat options, I'd say it is heavier than most (but not all, by a long shot - HP makes it more rules light than some). In terms of other-than-combat, it is pretty rules light (note the extent that diplomacy doesn't really indicate what will happen, regardless of how well you roll).

 

[Darklone]

Considering the possibilities D&D offers with it's combat and spell rules, I say it's actually rules light. I know several systems with nearly as many rules and not half as many options (with respective rules) during gameplay.

 

[Flynn]

When I reached the point that I no longer enjoyed 3E because of the level of prep necessary to run a quality game, I found that 3E fell into the "Rules-Heavy" category for me. YMMV.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[ejja_1]

I voted other

Considering rule zero it's as heavy or light as you make it. That has and always will be my favorite part about D an D no matter what edition you play. It's up to you what you put in to it and what you get out of it.

 

[Oryan77]

I voted that it's rules heavy and I don't like it that way. But I do think the rules has it's good points and I would still rather play 3e than older editions because of the rules.

It's much easier to learn than older editions. And if you spend the year :\ it takes to memorize most of it pretty well, then it's very helpful for the DM. But one thing I've never liked is how it's also easier for players to learn; which causes them to argue with the DM whenever he tries to rule on the fly without players realizing it.

Back in 2e, the ONLY arguments I'd ever hear in the group were about conflicting assumptions on who was where on the battlefield and other things that had to do with not using minis & a battlemat. Players would be imagining the scenario layout one way, while the DM is imagining it the other way. So it didn't have to do with rules, it had to do with no mat or minis being used.

Nobody questioned the DMs rulings on anything else. All we wanted to hear was "what happened". Even if we didn't trust the DM to be fair, we still only wanted to know "what happened" and then we'd deal with it and say, "He's a hardass DM".

 

[buzz]

I voted "Other".

As far as the jargon goes, D&D 3.5 is "rules-heavy". I've played tons of HERO, and I don't think D&D is anywhere less crunchy enough to merit "rules-medium". With all of the corner-cases and special exceptions in D&D, much less the fiddly bits strewn throughout the various supplements, I find that D&D can actually be a little more complex in play than HERO.

Regardless, I couldn't definitely choose whether this "aspect" is something I like or don't. For me, it's not about liking "heavy" or "lite" (terms I hate) for that property alone. I care more about whether rules enhance fun, inhibit it, or simply contribute none.

There are parts of 3.5 that I find less than fun, but I don't necessarily need those bits to be "lite"-er; I just need them to be better. Thankfully, 4e seems to be going in a direction I like w/r/t this.

 

[Jackelope King]

Rules-Medium. It's nowhere near the level games like GURPS or Hero, and the added ease of a unified resolution mechanic makes it easier to work with than games with a dozen subsystems. I don't mind the level of complexity, but I think the game would benefit from some simplification in actual gameplay.