A Realization (maybe an epiphany?) about D&D

[Talath]

Too many rules.

Let me give you a disclaimer; before I begin, let me say that I love D&D in its current incarnation, as well as past incarnations. Everything I say is my own opinion; I speak for only myself and no one else. If you feel like I am putting down your favorite game, or whatnot, that is not my aim.

I feel like 3e and 3.5 has too many rules. It's just me, in that I feel like I shouldn't have to wade through a book to find out how to disarm someone, or what a sleep spell specifically affect. I feel like I want to wing it; if its not covered, I feel like I have a keen enough mind and grasp of balance and the rules, enough that I could wing it, and wing it well.

I know what you're thinking; Castles and Crusades. Yes, I own it. I want to use it, it's just getting my group to adopt it. Being 3.5 players and all, they like their game.

Then again, when I explained it before, I told him that 3e didnt feel like D&D to me, and they basically said "thats bs, it feels like D&D to me." Now, I must say, it isnt the feel, but being restricted.

I think their biggest fear was converting our current campaign to C&C, which I wont do, and said I wouldnt do. I think if I start a new campaign using C&C, it would be okay.

Anyway, how many people feel that now, years after 3e is out, that maybe its either the right or the wrong game for D&D?

 

[Storyteller01]

Ditto. Not so much with 3.0, since I had no problem winging that version. 3.5 tends to add more to the mix, I think.

Followong the KISS rule and all...

YMMV

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

3e is the best edition of D&D yet.

It's versatile, complete, and for a change, is a system that's designed to hang together, rather than a mess of subsystem. Play C&C all if that's what you like, but for me (someone who doesn't have trouble with complexity or arithmetic), 3.5E is awesome!

 

[Talath]

It's versatile, complete, and for a change, is a system that's designed to hang together, rather than a mess of subsystem. Play C&C all if that's what you like, but for me (someone who doesn't have trouble with complexity or arithmetic), 3.5E is awesome!

Are you implying that I have trouble with these concepts? Maybe I wasn't clear.

It's not that I have trouble with math or complex rules. I run 3.5 and I am damn good at it. I have a solid grasp of the rules and I go most sessions without looking for a rule because I know it. Id tell you to ask my group, but thats an empty gesture seeing as how they don't inhabit EN World.

What I am trying to say is, I know the rules, I use them, but I shouldn't have to memorize lots of rules to get to the meat of D&D; the adventure.

 

[Storyteller01]

but for me (someone who doesn't have trouble with complexity or arithmetic),

Let's not get insulting. Most of us have no problem with complexity or math (matter of fact, most of the folks on this site are damned intelligent).


Anyways...

All of us can handle complexity. Question is: do we think it's fun? Some do, some don't. THose who don't, don't want it in their game.

I guess my issue isn't the massive rules available (I just ingore what I don't use), but the way that a particular view of balance is ingrained in the game. If it doesn't fit the original idea of the game, the game becomes difficult to adapt. I believe this is due in part to the rules as written.


My two cents...

 

[Kelleris]

Oh great, another thread begging to become an edition war. Do these types of posts come in waves? I think you guys are wanted over here.

It's interesting, though. What about message board dynamics makes topics occur in themed waves? Wacky.

 

[Coredump]

I used to play Magic:TG a lot. It was a game with very well defined rules. (or errata to make them well defined.) and it was designed as a competitive game, lots of fairness and balance being very important.

I feel I can tell the same company makes 3.X DnD. It is very concerned about getting the technical details right, all the math correct, balance issues galore, etc.

Is some ways this is very good. But it also feel a bit.....antiseptic. Like the game is to be played on a spreadsheet, instead of in imaginations.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The complexity of the rules is most likely mostly a backlash from the sheer inconsistancy of 2E at the end of its lifecycle.

It's also not unusual for things like this to swing in a circle. I make a comparison to American culture. Over the century the majority will be liberal, then conservative, then liberal again, then conservative again, and it goes in a big circle and flip flops back and forth. Right now D&D and d20 is in the rules heavy mode. It wouldn't surprise me if in a decade or two it (not neccesarily D&D but the majority of gamers' desires in a system) reverses.

Also, as the game designers mature, they start to know the rules, see them more clearly, and are able to codify them better. As above, they don't want to get into the 2E debacle again with just a sheer overflow of ideas. It was like a giant brainstorming session at the end. It isn't good for the game and it isn't good for business, as we saw with TSR. By providing a very stable framework, they can more easily measure what can and can't go in, what makes sense and what doesn't. The books end up not being the latest being the most powerful new additions to the game, but hopefully some good rules additions.

Add this to the fact that, yes, the current owners also create Magic: the Gathering, which is an extremely complicated rules-based CCG. Although, the actual designers of 3E were not CCG designers, the input of Wizards of the Coast I'm sure helped along the idea of a more balanced - and thus more complex - rules system.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Totally agree on this one! I do like 3x, but the rules make it seem like a computer game, instead of a RPG PnP game. And if your group has book memorizers in it, then it really becomes a chore, or constant arguements. I'm going to WFRP, though I don't care much for the new rules (D20ish).

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I prefer a system with a detailed and consistent ruleset, because it's easier to derive a "better" (however it's defined - more balanced, more interesting, more exciting) version of the rule once you start from a definite position.

In other words, I have no problem with DM judgement calls, but I would much rather have a system which doesn't make them necessary for a multiplicity of situations, like First and Second Edition AD&D did.

Of course, some jerk players aren't open to house rules and the like, but, uh, they're jerks.