Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Assess this chap's position (3.0 and older versions)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 2737095" data-attributes="member: 1757"><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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 <em>as long as you're willing to lump it and go with a reasonable interpretation</em>. 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, just my opinion. I have plenty more to disagree with about the initial statement, but not enough time...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ruleslawyer, post: 2737095, member: 1757"] 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. 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 [i]as long as you're willing to lump it and go with a reasonable interpretation[/i]. 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... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Assess this chap's position (3.0 and older versions)
Top