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

[Frostmarrow]

I'm with you on this one, Talath. I've enjoyed 3.X up until now but I'm through with it. It's not that I can't remember all the rules - it's that I have to explain them all the time. I've longed for a simpler and more open system for some time now and soon, very soon, I'm going to playtest my own incarnation of d20/D&D. It's gonna be great!

 

[Ranger REG]

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 can only state the following perspective as a longtime veteran gamer of D&D.

From just the three core rulebooks alone, you have ample amount of rules to get you playing from 1st to 20th level, even though it doesn't fully cover all dressings of a campaign's many adventure scenarios (mainly dungeon crawls, which is appropriate for a game titled Dungeons & Dragons).

The skills, feats, and spells are plenty to choose from but can accept future add-ons. Then there are the brief explanations and skimmed guidelines for creating and adding classes and prestige classes to your existing campaign (DM's options).

Personally, it is not so much the amount of core rules it has (plus the DMG's healthy offering of variant rules), but how the rulebooks are put together. To me, if feels like a book you'd borrow from a law library. At least it stop short of using terms like "Section, Sub-section, Clauses," etc. (Try read Star Fleet Battles wargame rulebook.)

If you feel it is too much rules, just remember Rule 0. The DM have the right to filter out rules that are unnecessary for his or her game.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I never made the switch to 3.5 and I think I may have made the right call. I like games with a certain amount of complexity in that the rules provide a lot of options. However, d20 is pretty havy on the rules side. That said, I wing it from time to time. I stay as close as I can without allowing the game to get bogged down.

 

[Psion]

With a unified system that is implemented in specifics, conventions like named bonuses that make resolving some issue a matter of convention than cross referencing, and the skill system lend itself to winging it (see "the DMs best friend" rule), 3.x is as simple as it can be and have the coverage it does, and still maintain flexibility.

I do agree with S'mon the the (combat) rules are too tied to the grid, especially since 3.5, though I find you can work around it (in part by sticking with 3.o rules where appropraite).

 

[Khairn]

I understand what everyone is saying about the rules, and from a certain angle I agree with you.

But.

D&D 3 and 3.? were great advances in the rules from previous editions. They attempted to provide an extensive framework that was consistent, balanced (for the most part) and logical. Whether they succeeded to an extent that made you happy is debatable, but they did solve one of the major problems with earlier editions of D&D, namely the extensive lack of balance, consistency and logic.

Many of us have played 3.? since its release and its perfectly natural after so many years to now see its limitations and problems. But has the system changed or have our needs changed?

Someone has already mentioned rule 0, and that is a good place to start. But its sometimes hard to do given that almost every player (not just the GM) is usually an "expert" on the rules of the game.

 

[diaglo]

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?

oooooOOOooo.... Me.

i completely agree about the winging and too many rules.

my hat of d02 knows no limits.

d02 ain't D&D.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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?

It's the right game for D&D, but it seems evident it's the wrong game for you. The current incarnation of D&D is actually more an update of AD&D than the earlier, simpler forms of D&D. As you note, C&C is probably the game for you. Be patient and end your current campaign and start the next as C&C...however...

...if you're the designated DM, which you seem to indicate in your posts, maybe it's DM burnout that's causing the disillusionment.

 

[Belen]

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.

Very well put. Somehow I have never been able to put it this concisely.

 

[Belen]

It's the right game for D&D, but it seems evident it's the wrong game for you. The current incarnation of D&D is actually more an update of AD&D than the earlier, simpler forms of D&D. As you note, C&C is probably the game for you. Be patient and end your current campaign and start the next as C&C...however...

...if you're the designated DM, which you seem to indicate in your posts, maybe it's DM burnout that's causing the disillusionment.

I can see his point. Earlier editions were simpler in that the rules were modular. You could easily not use a rule and it did not break the game. Whereas in 3e, dropping AoOs would seriously affect the balance of the entire 3e system.

 

[Belen]

With a unified system that is implemented in specifics, conventions like named bonuses that make resolving some issue a matter of convention than cross referencing, and the skill system lend itself to winging it (see "the DMs best friend" rule), 3.x is as simple as it can be and have the coverage it does, and still maintain flexibility.

As you said, combat is a particularly complex portion of 3e. The game is much more tactical and it has lost some of the cinematic feel that characterized earlier versions.

Spells and magic items are also needlessly complex. I agree that named bonus' have been great for bring more definition to the game, but as you progress in D&D you either need a database of spell effects for each player and NPC, spell cards etc. There are so MANY different types of bonus' and conditional modifiers that the game begins to break down over time.

Eventually, the game becomes more about stats and mechanics than the characters.