Is D&D too complicated?

[MonsterMash]

As someone who'd been away from D&D and RPG in general I did find that 3e did seem to be heavy on rules and making an effort to try to cover everything. I've started running a campaign this year and initially I was going 'oh my god look at the prep required', but I've got round it by creating generic NPC stat blocks I can use, e.g. war1, war2, exp1, and so on with a bit more willingness to wing an encounter like I did in the old days.

But to bring in new players I'd definitely say something less hefty looking and pricey would help. For novice players and DMs its hard not to get mesmerised into going: 'we must follow all these rules as they are written' rather than knowing how to go ok, just use a will/fort/ref save, DC whatever.

 

[Henry]

For the worse:
1) If you do it by the book, as many players and DMs insist, you cannot wing it unless you have a good portion of the ruleset memorized, or have incredibly good organization and can quickly find the info you need.

Agreed; if I had to memorize every spell, skill, and feat out there, I'd go nuts. I'm not that good of a comput-- excuse me, DM.

3) If you deviate from the rulebooks to keep your players off balance, you will probably run afoul of a good portion of 3E players because of your ad-hockery and disregard for game balance.

I've decided I'm leading a sheltered life; I am the worst rules lawyer I know. Most players I've ever run into never protested what I did with the rules, at home or otherwise, and it surprises me.

The only time I saw a complaint was at a home game when I actually changed a basic game rule on the fly, and I agreed, because the most basic game rules every DM should set beforehand and not change mid-stream. (I thought it would be more dramatically appropriate for someone making a reflex save to actually MOVE out of the range of the effect. I still do, but I shouldn't have changed my handling of it after the session started.)

So, there is the give-and-take as I see it. In 1E, you had to trust the DM not to screw you... But come to think of it, so can a 3E DM. But at least with 3E, the players can point to the rule book and say that a particular encounter had too high of CR, etc... (Yet another example of how 3E is player-oriented, rather than DM-centric.)

I agree, but I don't let players worry me who crunch numbers to the extent of worrying about CR's and EL's. The players in my games are GOING to run into things that are above their ability; knowing when to retreat and re-think a challenge is a learned skill, not a given, and no better way to learn than by example.

 

[Belen]

The rules have definitely become too complicated. I think it has caused problems. I know that I have experienced a lot of trouble with the rules and how they have changed my game and my group. The game has changed into little more than a tactical wargame. When I have expressed my concerns over how the rules have changed the group, people begin to question why I play DnD, as if a tactical wargame is the only way to play the game.

For me, it seems like 3e has forced a hardline division between gamers. My group has divided along the lines of rules/tactical oriented versus roleplay/story oriented.

No balance exists between the two sides. The rules oriented players dominate the game as they dominate combat. If the roleplay oriented gamers want to compete, then they are forced to delve deep into the rules or get left behind.

Game rulings cannot be made on the fly. If a GM does not have ADVANCED rules knowledge, then the players do not trust him. You are fair if you use the correct rule, while unfair and arbitrary if you do not take the time to find the correct rule.

Rules discussion dominates our game. If not discussing a tactical problem, then people sit and discuss "builds" etc even if the GM is trying to keep the game flowing.

The half of the group that does not have advanced knowledge of the rules usually remains quiet during rules discussion and if someone does speak up or disagree with something, then a long speech takes place detailing why this rule makes things balanced and how it integrates into the game.

There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. You either "build" "optimal" characters or spend combat being ineffective. Once this annoys people with good builds, then they begin making suggestions about how to build the character better. Choices that make sense for the character but are less than optimal are met with disdain.

Now, I truly enjoy the time spent with my friends. I would not trade that experience for anything. Some of them simplely enjoy the rules and work to gain an optimal knowledge and I do not blame them for it.

This is the fault of 3e and how it is PRESENTED. The three core books would not be so bad if every book that followed did not enforce the idea that rules are god. If a book such as Complete Warrior did not contain so many class and feats, and had more balance between crunch and roleplay, then there would be some argument that crunch should not be the focus of the game.

WOTC has made it understood that crunch is the method by which the game is played. They have made it understood that the players should EXPECT a game of strict rules that leave the GM little more than a mediator or servant. Their focus is on players and what they can continually give players to sell books. Player empowerment, GM restriction.

Are the rules too complicated? Hell YES.
Barrier to entry? Yes
Why? Too many rules and how the heck can a group of kids want to learn the game since not one of them would want to GM for the game.

Motto: Third Edition, everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM.

Cathartic Rage ended.

End of Line.

 

[hong]

The rules have definitely become too complicated. I think it has caused problems. I know that I have experienced a lot of trouble with the rules and how they have changed my game and my group. The game has changed into little more than a tactical wargame. When I have expressed my concerns over how the rules have changed the group, people begin to question why I play DnD, as if a tactical wargame is the only way to play the game.

For me, it seems like 3e has forced a hardline division between gamers. My group has divided along the lines of rules/tactical oriented versus roleplay/story oriented.

No balance exists between the two sides. The rules oriented players dominate the game as they dominate combat. If the roleplay oriented gamers want to compete, then they are forced to delve deep into the rules or get left behind.

Game rulings cannot be made on the fly. If a GM does not have ADVANCED rules knowledge, then the players do not trust him. You are fair if you use the correct rule, while unfair and arbitrary if you do not take the time to find the correct rule.

Rules discussion dominates our game. If not discussing a tactical problem, then people sit and discuss "builds" etc even if the GM is trying to keep the game flowing.

The half of the group that does not have advanced knowledge of the rules usually remains quiet during rules discussion and if someone does speak up or disagree with something, then a long speech takes place detailing why this rule makes things balanced and how it integrates into the game.

There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. You either "build" "optimal" characters or spend combat being ineffective. Once this annoys people with good builds, then they begin making suggestions about how to build the character better. Choices that make sense for the character but are less than optimal are met with disdain.

Now, I truly enjoy the time spent with my friends. I would not trade that experience for anything. Some of them simplely enjoy the rules and work to gain an optimal knowledge and I do not blame them for it.

This is the fault of 3e and how it is PRESENTED. The three core books would not be so bad if every book that followed did not enforce the idea that rules are god. If a book such as Complete Warrior did not contain so many class and feats, and had more balance between crunch and roleplay, then there would be some argument that crunch should not be the focus of the game.

WOTC has made it understood that crunch is the method by which the game is played. They have made it understood that the players should EXPECT a game of strict rules that leave the GM little more than a mediator or servant. Their focus is on players and what they can continually give players to sell books. Player empowerment, GM restriction.

Are the rules too complicated? Hell YES.
Barrier to entry? Yes
Why? Too many rules and how the heck can a group of kids want to learn the game since not one of them would want to GM for the game.

Motto: Third Edition, everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Fusce iaculis tempor neque. Duis ac justo vel risus lobortis elementum. Ut vulputate neque sed eros. Nulla sit amet elit. Praesent et elit. Sed eu orci. In vehicula lacus eget tellus. Maecenas at felis quis neque vestibulum bibendum. Nunc vitae nisl at lorem adipiscing luctus. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec pellentesque. In nulla tortor, pellentesque a, cursus eget, ultricies a, tortor.

Proin ligula wisi, porta in, aliquam at, sollicitudin nec, est. Nulla egestas, diam eget ultricies mollis, ante orci tincidunt pede, sed eleifend ante arcu id quam. Maecenas a mauris a ipsum accumsan rhoncus. Cras eget urna. Nulla id lacus quis ante fermentum varius. Ut scelerisque ipsum eu nibh. Duis commodo. Vivamus vulputate eros sit amet enim. Mauris convallis. Pellentesque mauris neque, interdum eget, ullamcorper quis, sagittis a, libero.

Aenean at lorem lacinia metus vestibulum pharetra. Nulla bibendum odio sed ipsum. Ut neque ligula, vestibulum non, accumsan sit amet, vulputate quis, urna. Aenean nec lorem. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Cras nibh. Curabitur sollicitudin. Cras laoreet, lorem et bibendum mollis, mi dolor varius nisl, sit amet scelerisque nisl dui at mauris. Curabitur pellentesque. Ut feugiat arcu eu ligula. Donec nibh magna, volutpat nec, imperdiet nec, viverra congue, lorem. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Fusce vestibulum vulputate sem. Maecenas id augue eget est pharetra viverra. Nam dapibus mollis enim. Integer viverra sapien ac mi. Cras at urna quis ligula nonummy fringilla. Nullam odio est, dictum et, aliquam sed, imperdiet eget, nibh. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae;

Sed sit amet dolor. In ultricies. Nullam quis mi quis diam varius ultricies. Mauris ac ante id lacus posuere iaculis. Aliquam et turpis in ipsum rutrum ornare. Vestibulum in magna. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In vel dolor. Maecenas pede wisi, auctor aliquet, aliquam in, fermentum quis, dui. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; In at sem sed leo tincidunt egestas. Nam fringilla nibh eget wisi. Nulla facilisi. Aenean mattis, elit ac bibendum dictum, dolor arcu laoreet risus, in consequat eros wisi ac ligula. Donec sit amet libero. Sed sit amet dolor. Cras suscipit, sapien a scelerisque cursus, nibh wisi varius magna, in aliquet eros nibh sed lorem. Quisque aliquet tempus est.

Cathartic Rage ended.

Standard rant reply included.

 

[Belen]

Standard rant reply included.

We can always count on hong for meaningless drivel and dubious sense of humor.

 

[hong]

We can always count on hong for meaningless drivel and dubious sense of humor.

Insert generic snappy retort.


Hong "bored now" Ooi

 

[Psion]

there are 2328 feats. Let me reiterate - 2328 feats Now, I have to caveat that by stating that I haven't done any consolidation (i.e. some of those feats are reprinted through multiple books, and some are superceded by later books.) The PHB alone has roughly 110 feats. While actually creating a character may only take you 1/2 hour, how long do you spend *deciding* what choices you want to take?

It's really not that complicated.

My blanket rule - PHB feats allowed, let me know if you want to use anything else.

The players usually do not sift through a stack of books to pick their feats when creating a character. Usually the only way a player ends up with a feat from another book is if:

• They were reading a book at home and saw a feat that interested them, and remembered it for when they made a character.
• They ask the DM if there is a feat that does something they are interested in doing.
• They look through a specific book that pertains to their character class.

They do not sift through 2000+ feats when creating a character.

 

[Psion]

Most players I've ever run into never protested what I did with the rules, at home or otherwise, and it surprises me.

I've had players complain when I have implemented a rule correctly and they though I got it wrong. Silly players.

My current group of players has NEVER questioned my rulings. Why is simple: we work as a team to get the most out of our game and get the experience we want, instead of trying to play it like we are adversaries.

 

[Torm]

Thinking more on the subject, I think that, from the experienced DM aspect of it, the game is far too well defined, rather than too complicated. I recently lost a regular player because I, as a DM, as well as our other DM, wanted to do things to our campaigns for flavor that went against a strict reading of the core books. And I'm not even talking about BIG things - things like a shop having Potions of Cure Light for 70gp when the DMG said they were 50gp were an issue with him.

There are a lot of things I like about 3E (R.I.P. THAC0), but I almost think that some of its advantages (very well defined rules, for example), may actually be hindrances to certain aspects of storytelling and ROLEplaying. Rule 0 sounds like a cop out to some people, but it may actually be the most important rule in the book.

 

[francisca]

My current group of players has NEVER questioned my rulings. Why is simple: we work as a team to get the most out of our game and get the experience we want, instead of trying to play it like we are adversaries.

Once again, Psion brings the focus right back where it belongs.