jdrakeh said:
No, I recall those rules... but again, they weren't really any more difficult than many of the situation-specific, feat-based, attacks in D&D 3x (IMHO).
As someone who has DM-ed for all editions of the game (except the three white books, for which I was only a player), I'll just say "NO" to that statement. Running the unarmed combat rules in 1e requires looking at two tables (in addition to the THAC0 tables, under some interpretations) and reading them and the associated texts, not to mention that conditions under those rules change from round to round with no real rhyme or reason. I find it extremely hard to believe that SIMPLE (yes, simple) rules like those for Cleave (you drop an opponent, you get an extra melee attack. How hard is that?) even vaguely compare.
Like I said earlier, though - it's all in how people process information and what works for them. Those rules in AD&D 1e worked (and still do) for a lot of people. So they don't work for you? Well, bully for you! That said, your assertion that said rules are 'impossible to actually use' just doesn't stand up.
I'm sorry, but that's a pretty thin assertion. Very complicated chaotic rules may be easier to read for some people than others, but it's a perfectly reasonable statement to say that rules like the above-mentioned unarmed combat rules are in fact, incredibly difficult to use compared to their 3e counterparts. Lawyers make distinctions like this all the time with respect to regulatory schema. RCRA and CERCLA are "minefields," whereas simpler stuff (the New York State BCL, for instance) is just more straightforward. You're entitled to your opinion, but layout and ease of use go a bit beyond mere subjectivity. That's why we pay writers, proofreaders, editors and printers to handle these things competently.
In short, when viewed through the comforting lens of nostalgia, previous editions of (A)D&D seem less rules-focused and simpler. In practice, with the likely exception of the color-coded boxed sets (Red Basic, Blue Expert, etc.; what's the name for that version?) there were just as many rules ambiguities and just as much confusion. The only reasons why I can see all these complaints about 3.x's rules complexity surfacing are the following:
1) People assume into the mix the vast range of player options in 3e while forgetting all the optional stuff that was out there in 1e/2e. You want "one million" rules? Check out the 1e UA, DSG, WSG, umpteen Dragon magazines, and the optional additions speckled throughout the DMG and occupying several pages at the back of the PHB. Skills, each with a different modifier to the ability check and a different number of required proficiency slots (not to mention the different proficiency advancement tables by class); crazy whacked-out rules like the psionics stuff; rules for attaching a grappling hook, climbing a slope, and crossing a bridge all using different types of mechanics and all scattered in different sections of books; NPC reaction tables; jousting rules spelled out across a 20-page article; et cetera. Or how about 2e Skills and Powers/Combat and Tactics/Spells and Magic? 3e has a huge number of options, but at least they're straightforward, easy to learn, use the same mechanics, and are generally easy to look up (especially if you use a searchable computer-based SRD).
2) Obsession with errata and FAQs. I will agree that people simply didn't use to treat D&D like a piece of federal legislature or business software; they do now, and that's 90% of the problem. D&D rules really aren't that complex
as long as you're willing to lump it and go with a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that people (maybe just the folks on these boards) seem to want answers to their rules questions codified, and the rules themselves amended and refined like the fish fumet at the French Laundry. No one really forced that sort of thing in 1e/2e, so maybe it just seemed simpler. I have one rules lawyer in my group, and let me tell you that he's gotten infinitely more tractable with 3e rules running.
3) The Internet. Everyone gets to voice their opinions about the rules to the designers, to WotC Customer Service, and to each other, which IMHO has led to a lot of snowballing on the topic of "broken" rules. (I also see this as a consequence of MMORPGs and of the increased overlap between programmers/engineers and gamers; not that gamers haven't always included a strong techie quotient, but, quite simply, more people are in that industry now.) So everything gets poked and prodded to the point where someone looking at these boards for the first time would think that NOTHING works right in 3e.
Anyway, just my opinion. I have plenty more to disagree with about the initial statement, but not enough time...
