Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geoffrey" data-source="post: 400885" data-attributes="member: 764">I guess it depends on what you mean by &quot;complicated&quot;. I don't doubt that Rolemaster and several other RPGs are more complicated than 3E. I do think that 3E is more complicated than OAD&amp;D. Consider:OAD&amp;D Players Handbook: 128 pages3E Players Handbook: 304 pagesOAD&amp;D Dungeon Masters Guide: 240 pages3E Dungeon Masters Guide: 224 pagesThat's a total of 368 pages for the two OAD&amp;D books versus 528 pages for the 3E books. That's an extra 160 pages! That's like a whole extra OAD&amp;D Players Handbook! Certainly all those extra pages weren't merely devoted to additional art (which, BTW, I think is deplorable in the 3E books).At this point I must admit that even OAD&amp;D is too complicated for my tastes. I run an OD&amp;D (the 1974-1976 rules) campaign with several house rules (including, BTW, a few things from 3E). But, for my money, the single best version (overall) of the D&amp;D rules are the 1981 Basic and Expert books by Tom Moldvay.* While I have my problems with them, these two 64-page books give you all you ever need to buy for a lifetime's enjoyment of D&amp;D. Why the hell should I wade through scores of pages of combat when these books explain it in a fraction of the space? Each character class has, IIRC, only a page or two devoted to describing it. You read that, and now you know everything the rules say about your character. The rest is up to the imagination.If anybody wants truckloads of rules for every conceivable contingency, God bless him. Dive in and have fun. But to me that's not fun. It's more like work. Give me slim rulebooks any day.*Here's a great review of these books: <a href="http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_6402.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_6402.html</a>Unlike the author of this review, I never played the 1981 version of D&amp;D, so I don't have any nostalgic attachment to it. Quite the opposite, in fact. I started with the 1977 blue book by Holmes and quickly advanced to OAD&amp;D. When the 1981 version came out I was frankly contemptuous of it. I thought AD&amp;D was for serious gamers and Moldvay's version for sissies. (Give me a break, I was only in middle-school!) So when I say this is the single best published set of D&amp;D rules, it is most definitely not nostalgia talking!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geoffrey, post: 400885, member: 764"] I guess it depends on what you mean by "complicated". I don't doubt that Rolemaster and several other RPGs are more complicated than 3E. I do think that 3E is more complicated than OAD&D. Consider: OAD&D Players Handbook: 128 pages 3E Players Handbook: 304 pages OAD&D Dungeon Masters Guide: 240 pages 3E Dungeon Masters Guide: 224 pages That's a total of 368 pages for the two OAD&D books versus 528 pages for the 3E books. That's an extra 160 pages! That's like a whole extra OAD&D Players Handbook! Certainly all those extra pages weren't merely devoted to additional art (which, BTW, I think is deplorable in the 3E books). At this point I must admit that even OAD&D is too complicated for my tastes. I run an OD&D (the 1974-1976 rules) campaign with several house rules (including, BTW, a few things from 3E). But, for my money, the single best version (overall) of the D&D rules are the 1981 Basic and Expert books by Tom Moldvay.* While I have my problems with them, these two 64-page books give you all you ever need to buy for a lifetime's enjoyment of D&D. Why the hell should I wade through scores of pages of combat when these books explain it in a fraction of the space? Each character class has, IIRC, only a page or two devoted to describing it. You read that, and now you know everything the rules say about your character. The rest is up to the imagination. If anybody wants truckloads of rules for every conceivable contingency, God bless him. Dive in and have fun. But to me that's not fun. It's more like work. Give me slim rulebooks any day. *Here's a great review of these books: [url]http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_6402.html[/url] Unlike the author of this review, I never played the 1981 version of D&D, so I don't have any nostalgic attachment to it. Quite the opposite, in fact. I started with the 1977 blue book by Holmes and quickly advanced to OAD&D. When the 1981 version came out I was frankly contemptuous of it. I thought AD&D was for serious gamers and Moldvay's version for sissies. (Give me a break, I was only in middle-school!) So when I say this is the single best published set of D&D rules, it is most definitely not nostalgia talking! [/QUOTE]

Verification