Can we go back to smaller books?

[Reynard]

Frankly, any time you are asking for a 'Rule Light' system, I'm inclined to here unintentional irony.

But I'm not asking for a rules light game. I am asking for D&D, which is arguably rules-medium, even back during the Basic/Expert days (I am unfamiliar with OD&D).

Besides, the 200 page limit is perfectly plausible: Basic and Expert combined were 176 pages, and it is hard to argue together they were not a complete game offering years of entertainment.

 

[ExploderWizard]

304 pages. I may be having trouble with the math, but I believe that's not less than 300 pages.

Well, if you trimmed out the stuff that was added just for the cyclopedia (like skills) then less than 300 was certainly possible.

 

[Aus_Snow]

304 pages. I may be having trouble with the math, but I believe that's not less than 300 pages.

Oh for. . .

You must be kidding. So. . . nice impression of extraordinarily unbecoming pedantry that could serve no better purpose than to mislead! By all means, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Otherwise. . . Yes, I'm SURE it would be impossible to remove four of those pages. Hilarious.

 

[Celebrim]

But I'm not asking for a rules light game. I am asking for D&D, which is arguably rules-medium, even back during the Basic/Expert days (I am unfamiliar with OD&D).

Arguably, yes. But as these terms have no precise meanings, the fact that any particular term can be argued for doesn't really prove anything.

Besides, the 200 page limit is perfectly plausible: Basic and Expert combined were 176 pages, and it is hard to argue together they were not a complete game offering years of entertainment.

As I said, it is going to depend on how you define 'complete'. I certainly feel that most of the rules regarding high level play ought not really impact most campaigns. You don't technically need rules for 20th level wizards, there spells, and the sort of challenges that they are to face if you are content to pace the game such that no one ever reaches 20th level. I personally am content to spend years reaching 15th level (and have). But I suspect that a fairly significant block of players raised up on cRPG style adventures where the high levels are 'the good stuff' and looking for a clear end game and climax is going to balk at this idea.

Which isn't necessarily to say that the division of the rules along level and styles of play is by any means a bad one, just that by some common definitions of 'complete', if you divide the rules up the peices are not complete.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, if you trimmed out the stuff that was added just for the cyclopedia (like skills) then less than 300 was certainly possible.

In which case...

a) It wouldn't be an edition of D&D, and thus would fail Reynard's initial claim.

And...

b) It would no longer be complete, being by definition a peice of the whole rules.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh for. . .

You must be kidding. So. . . nice impression of extraordinarily unbecoming pedantry that could serve no better purpose than to mislead! By all means, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Oh thank you for being so gracious and charitable, kind sir. You are very generous and most becoming in your kindness and the beautiful way you avoid insulting me misleading pedant that I must truly be, especially considering I mentioned the page count of the rules cyclopedia in my original post.

 

[Reynard]

Which isn't necessarily to say that the division of the rules along level and styles of play is by any means a bad one, just that by some common definitions of 'complete', if you divide the rules up the peices are not complete.

Well, sure, but the line gets real fuzzy. Some might say the 1000 pages of 3.0 are noit complete because you need another 500 pages of psionics and epic level rules, or that 4E is incomplete without 3 PHBs, MMs and DMGs each.

My point isn't to argue that D&D can't have 1000s of pages of rules, but rather that it can be done without them, too -- and still be D&D, through and through.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, sure, but the line gets real fuzzy. Some might say the 1000 pages of 3.0 are noit complete because you need another 500 pages of psionics and epic level rules, or that 4E is incomplete without 3 PHBs, MMs and DMGs each.

The point is indeed that some might say that the rules aren't complete and will clamor for rules expansions that meet the specific needs of their campaign. I don't need rules for psionics and epic levels. The rules are 'complete' from my perspective with out them. Some other DM might say, "How can you call these rules complete; they have no rules for psionics or epic level play?"

My point isn't to argue that D&D can't have 1000s of pages of rules, but rather that it can be done without them, too -- and still be D&D, through and through.

Sure, you could probably trim D&D down to three modified classes, make races have no impact but flavor, provide rules for only the first 5 levels of play, provide only a few sample generic monsters as a guideline to further monster construction, dump the skill system, get rid of feats, leave environmental hazards to be improvised by the DM, and get the rules down under 60 pages. And it would still be recognizably D&D.

But the question would be, is this a 'complete' set of rules? How quickly would people clamor for expansion of the rules to cover the things we've clearly left out? Even more important from my perspective of what 'rules' mean, how quickly would the real functional set of rules grow under such a system as the DM ad hoc new house rules to handle things not covered under the formal written rules? Just because things aren't formally written down, doesn't mean that they aren't rules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In which case...

a) It wouldn't be an edition of D&D, and thus would fail Reynard's initial claim.

And...

b) It would no longer be complete, being by definition a peice of the whole rules.

WOW we played basic D&D all those years before the RC was released and never realized it wasn't a complete game.

The RC isn't really its own edition. The skills rules included in the book were not a part of the edition that the book compiled. This is why I believe the claim of "incomplete" to be misleading.

 

[Reynard]

The point is indeed that some might say that the rules aren't complete and will clamor for rules expansions that meet the specific needs of their campaign. I don't need rules for psionics and epic levels. The rules are 'complete' from my perspective with out them. Some other DM might say, "How can you call these rules complete; they have no rules for psionics or epic level play?"

In that case there really is no such thing as "complete" D&D rules -- or any RPG for that matter. But taking the argument that direction only serves to divert from the real point: D&D, even 3E and 4E, even in their current system forms, could be done, and done "completely" in 200 pages or less.

But, again, I'm not even asking for 200 pages or less. I'm just asking for Pathfinder in 3 128 page books (which ain't gonna happen, I know).