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

[Yair]

My latest epiphany was that more than I don't like the complexity of D&D, I don't like its restrictiveness. There are just a lot of things that can't be done in D&D 3e. In our last combat I found myself saying "this isn't how D&D works, you need to decide..." TWICE. (Yes, we COULD have thrown the rules to the wind, but we don't like playing that way.)
I'm still looking for/working on a game system that will answer all my woes but will be fun to play... haven't quite found it yet, and if I would I'll probably won't have a party to play it with.

I like playing D&D, don't get me wrong. But I have my share of frustrations with it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In our last combat I found myself saying "this isn't how D&D works, you need to decide..." TWICE. (Yes, we COULD have thrown the rules to the wind, but we don't like playing that way.)

I'm curious what these two things are.

 

[Meadred]

I totally agree; the rules set of D&D 3.X is too complete for my taste. Or perhaps I rather should say, it is too complete in regards to the kind of game I want to play and DM. I like to be able to whip together an evening of fun with only a few notes, my creativity, and (lacking a better word) "fingerspitzgefühl" (sp?). Given that D&D nowadays is so complete, I feel restricted; there's a rule for basically everything. It's kind of like playing "Papers & Paychecks" or "Income Tax - the RPG".

Just for the record: I have a master of science degree, and I'm an analyst working (among other things) on future underwater and spaceborne sensor systems. I'm _not_ intimidated by math or complexity; I'm bored to death by it. When I get home from work I want to kick-back and enjoy some fun role-playing; not an exercise in advanced computational mathematics!


Cheers,
Meadred

 

[Yair]

I'm curious what these two things are.

1) A player wanted to move to a position overlooking a door, AND shoot at anything that would come through the door. Can't do it on the same round (I think; you can ready a "partial" action by not also move IIRC).
2) A character wanted to flail about wildly to find an invisible character he knew should be around him. You can't - you can make an attack and so have a 50% chance of making contact into a square, but you are limited in the number of attacks you make.

Of course, we may have been mistaken on the rules here, but D&D's x actions/round and initiative structure limits what you can do and when, it's built-in. That these limtations will fly in the face of what a character wants to do is inevitable.

(And to anyone that hasn't read my previous post - yes, I know we could have ignored the rules, we rather not, thanks.)

 

[MonsterMash]

In a lot of ways this is how I feel about 3e and 3.5 - base mechanics are good - consistent mechanism for determination and approach to numbers (high = good), but so many rules, I personally find the skills/feats system to be a bit of a bind and to me it seems like trying to codify things that could be part of RP, but I've not grown frustrated enough to abandon D&D.

I also find the emphasis on balance to be a bit of a weak point as situations can alter the difficulty of an encounter massively or the actual power of a particular class (Druids in towns, bards in hack and slash scenarios).

As an experienced Analyst/Programmer it's hardly as if I have difficulty with complex rule based systems as that's a lot of what I create, so I am going to check out C&C to see if it fits better my requirements.

 

[S'mon]

I agree that the system often does feel too rules-bound, 3.5 in particular often feels tied down to the battleboard. RPGs aren't adversarial games like CCGs and I think D&D suffers from importing an inappropriate mentality which can inhibit GM freedom. Plenty of 3e fans don't even _like_ GM freedom. GMing 3e I often find myself worrying the players will say "That's not how the rules work" which was rarely a problem with prior editions. I agree with MonsterMash that the basic d20 mechanics are very nice & elegant though, it's the encrustation of rules to address every situation that's the problem.

 

[S'mon]

Yair - per RAW you can indeed Move & Ready in the same turn.

I don't use the RAW about "choosing a square" to attack an invisible foe; I use DC 20 Spot check to locate the right area/square, DC 40 Spot check negates the 50% miss chance. I find that works much better.

 

[green slime]

Really.

DnD isn't any advanced computational mathematics. Just plus and minus. The difficulty does not lie therein.

The difficulty is in which effects add in to which other effects.

Someone casts a spell (there are thousands). You then have to check up whether the target is valid, whether the bonus it adds stacks with other bonuses on the target(s). whether it exceeds an existing bonus of the same type, and remember how long it has all been functioning.

Sure, at low levels with just a few spellcasters, and next to no magical items it is not a problem.

get to around level 15, battling mutliple foes with spell-like abilities and powerful spellcasters.... I just no longer have the time to memorize details on how things resolve.

 

[Yair]

Yair - per RAW you can indeed Move & Ready in the same turn.

Ooops. Oh well, it wasn't like anything ever came out of the door anyways.

I don't use the RAW about "choosing a square" to attack an invisible foe; I use DC 20 Spot check to locate the right area/square, DC 40 Spot check negates the 50% miss chance. I find that works much better.

I allow a DC 20+Hide to spot the opponent; but they failed the spot, and were guessing...

 

[Beale Knight]

Slight Hijack:

1) A player wanted to move to a position overlooking a door, AND shoot at anything that would come through the door. Can't do it on the same round (I think; you can ready a "partial" action by not also move IIRC).
2) A character wanted to flail about wildly to find an invisible character he knew should be around him. You can't - you can make an attack and so have a 50% chance of making contact into a square, but you are limited in the number of attacks you make.

Actually in the first cast, the player can indeed move and ready an action/shoot (oop - I see S'mon beat me to this).

In the second case - I'd rule that that's not an attack, that's a Search check (and one with a low DC if the target is indeed nearby). Searching character flails about and if he/she finds the invisible character it's from smacking it - but not hard enough to do damage.

Back on topic - I like the way the rules are set up for a reason others have brought up - they just all fit well together and consistantly. There's more than a few particulars I have some issues with, but my groups have never had any problem working around them, and we've not felt put out by deciding to work around them.