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

[skinnydwarf]

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?

I've been having great fun with C&C. Although I love playing 3.0. It's just that C&C is soo much easier to DM. The way things are going, I think I run even C&C rules light. :-D

 

[Impeesa]

Two addendum to this:
1) Whenever the manufacturer needed to grow quarterly profits, the next expansion trotted out new rules to trump the existing rules. (I quit when the new rules included "Whenver this card goes to the graveyard, put it back in your hand")
2) As Monte Cook recently mentioned, players were rewarded for their mastery of the rules. To this end, maximizing mastery of the rules was more important to winning than actually doing anything interesting. (People quit playing against me whenever I brought out my discard deck because it wasn't fun for them.)

IMO, neither of these two traits are appropriate for a good role-playing game. The first reduces the control of the DM over the world, the second reduces the connection between the player and the character.

::Kaze

Two comments:
1) The original rules were for a totally new type of game. They were good, but far from perfect. Since nobody had ever done a game anything like that before, some rewriting and clarification was necessary to streamline the game and make it more playable as it matured. At the same time, as a more stable rules framework was codified, they could now add material to keep the game fresh without breaking anything.
2) Of course players are rewarded for their mastery of the rules. Instead of stumbling through the game, spending most of your time bickering about how things work, you can enjoy a good game with more interesting, game-related interaction and much more subtle strategy both in and out of combat.

Both points should sound familiar; IMHO, they apply equally to both Magic and D&D and most definitely are not bad things.

As for your comment about removing control from the DM, I suspect that's a non-issue. I saw a quote somewhere (on a Magic card, I think, but I could be wrong) that went something like "You can tell the ships bound for success, they're led by a man you call captain. The ships bound for failure are led by a man who tells you to call him captain." A good DM will have the respect of his players, and all the control he needs if he wants to bend the rules a bit for a good story. Well-written rules help protect players from all the bad DMs out there who just plain don't know what's going on and are making up some inconsistant crap (to the detriment of their players' enjoyment).

As for the connection between character and player, I find I have a much closer connection to my character when the rules are detailed enough to back up my concept, make him good at whatever it is he does, and so on. YMMV.

p.s. If nobody likes your discard deck, it's not because of your superior rules knowledge. It's because dedicated discard is like land destruction: bloody annoying, and ultimately not all that productive for the player trying to win with it.

Is some ways this is very good. But it also feel a bit.....antiseptic.

As opposed to infectious and ultimately fatal to the hobby if not properly contained?

Of course, d2 ain't D&D. How do you play a game that rely on flipping a coin? You might as well use the more popular Jan Ken Po System.

Hey now, there's no reason to restrict d02 to using a single coin.

--Impeesa--

 

[Goblyn]

Of course, d2 ain't D&D. How do you play a game that rely on flipping a coin? You might as well use the more popular Jan Ken Po System.

Similar to Jan Ken Po is Koui Boui Bo, which is such a good resolution system, many serious arguments are settled with it.