Can we go back to smaller books?

[Celebrim]

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.

Which returns us to my first claim, which I thought critical enough to give it its own paragraph:

"It depends very much on what you mean by complete."

By my understanding of the word 'complete', what you are asking for is an incomplete version of the rules which would nonetheless, contain a sufficient subset of the rules to allow a narrow range of play for a new player or group to wet their feet.

Now, clearly that idea is attractive to you, but I confess I'm not entirely sure why you want that or what you see in it. I get irritated by systems that are clearly incomplete and require you to buy an endless array of supplements to get a complete game. I'd rather buy a tome that is sufficiently thick and detailed that the supplements are strictly optional.

But again, the quibble here over what 'complete' means is over I think how we define what rules are not really essential to and critical for play. For my perspective, for example, 3rd edition was the first attempt at a complete set of game rules. Earlier editions left much of the game rules up to the individual DM to work out for himself and then force onto the players by his authority. I starting reading through the 3e Player's Handbook and went, "OMG, we are finally going to have formal rules for fatigue!!!" I don't think I'm the only 1e DM who was frustrated with the silence of the rules on acts of endurance, and by rules lawyers that always insisted that per the rules they would never get tired and be utterly fresh no matter how long they forced marched their characters through the driving rain, in the dark, across rugged terrain.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D, even 3E and 4E, even in their current system forms, could be done, and done "completely" in 200 pages or less.

Let me try coming at this from a different direction.

What were the 1e rules for traps?

Flip through the rule books however you like, you won't find rules for traps. (I can't really speak to BD&D because I'm not as familiar with it). However, this doesn't mean that 1e AD&D didn't have rules for traps. The rules for traps can be inferred from the rules that governed traps in official published modules.

For example, no where in the rules did it say that you could avoid a trap by a successful save vs. Paralyzation. Yet, this mechanic would appear again and again in published modules and was a defacto house rule for many kinds of traps at most tables.

Likewise, no where in the rules did it say that you could avoid a trap by rolling your dexterity or less on a D20. Yet this mechanic also repeatedly appears as an alternative to the 'save vs. Paralyzation' mechanic in official modules from a very early point in the games history (I'm not sure what the earliest example is). This proto-mechanic suggests an entire set of game rule expansions - the 'ability check'. The ability check would in turn become so formalized, that it would form the basis of official rules expansion - the non-weapon proficiency. But the 'rule' existed before it became formalized and was used at many tables (including ones I played at and ran). There was no formal rule for when it should be used. The rule in effect was something like, "If the player wants to do something where there is a risk of failure and an aspect of random chance, and you don't know how to adjudicate it, allow the player to roll a d20 and if the result is less than the ability you deem relevant to the task, the task succeeds."

Likewise, I can't think of anywhere where it said that the fortune mechanic in certain types of traps attack as creatures of a certain HD, yet traps worked this way as well. In fact, traps worked in alot of different ways.

Now, imagine we want to compile for the new player the rules governing traps so that, without providing examples in published modules, the new DM will be able to invent new traps using mechanics according to the standards we've set down. In 1e, how many pages would that take?

 

[Mallus]

While I'm hardly a card-carrying member of the Austrian School, I think the success of 3e and now 4e pretty clearly demonstrates a majority of the hobby likes buying big honking books full of rules. People buy what they like. And recently, it seems D&D playing-people like large rule books.

Conversely, I think the current resurgence of smaller, simpler alternatives, like the retroclones, shows there's a viable niche market out their for that brand of D&D.

 

[jaerdaph]

Oh people please, I can't believe I have to remind everyone here of the reason why we don't have smaller books:

The bigger the book, the more damage it does when you throw it at unruly players.

 

[Reynard]

What were the 1e rules for traps?

Intetresting aside: I am reading through the new Hackmaster Basic,which ilike quite a lot, but get a little irritated by the lack of trap rules. So i grab my beloved 1E DMG to mentally mark where those rules are (since I planned on, at the time, using the 1E DMG with HMb) and discovered, to my great astonishment, that there weren't any trap rules there, either -- just a brief discussion on tricks and traps in lovely Gygaxian prose. It was a strange realization: traps were a fundamental part of the game, yet not covered by the rules in any explicit manner.

The ability check would in turn become so formalized, that it would form the basis of official rules expansion - the non-weapon proficiency. But the 'rule' existed before it became formalized and was used at many tables (including ones I played at and ran). There was no formal rule for when it should be used.

Not to be pedantic, but I am 99% certain (I don't have a book in reach) that ability checks are discussed under saving throws in the 1E DMG.

 

[Reynard]

The bigger the book, the more damage it does when you throw it at unruly players.

There's a pun in here.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Let me try coming at this from a different direction.

What were the 1e rules for traps?

Flip through the rule books however you like, you won't find rules for traps. (I can't really speak to BD&D because I'm not as familiar with it). However, this doesn't mean that 1e AD&D didn't have rules for traps. The rules for traps can be inferred from the rules that governed traps in official published modules.

Check out 'The Adventure' chapter in the 1E PHB. Players are educated here about the possibility of traps of various types that are designed to injure/kill, confine, or channel thier characters.

The nuts and bolts of trap operation was left to the creativity of the DM. One could run traps just fine without ever looking at a published module. The idea of needing every minute detail of game mechanical operation spelled out in black and white is a more recent one in rpgs. Left to think for themselves, DMs came up with all types of interesting and creative ways to mechanically run traps. Talking with other gamers back then I don't recall a lot of hopelessly lost DMs who had no idea how a trap was supposed to work. I suppose the reason for this was that there wasn't a rulebook set suitable for weightlifting that spelled out the 'right' way to do things.

 

[Ourph]

Oh, I know. But there's no reason D&D can't do it.

But why should it? D&D simply isn't that game. It's like bemoaning the fact that McDonald's doesn't have Bananas Foster and Champagne on their menu. Why should they when there are completely legitimate, alternate choices that provide the exact same thing. If you really want Bananas Foster and Champagne, it seems incredibly strange that you would refuse to order them simply because they don't come wrapped in wax paper with the golden arches printed on it.

 

[cildarith]

No edition of D&D can be condensed to under 300 pages. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Incorrect.

The 1981 editions of the Basic and Expert rulebooks each weighed in at 64 pages (128 pages total), cover levels 1-14 and is, IMO, a complete game.

The booklets are littered with illustrations, examples of play, and avoid small font sizes. Underground and wilderness adventures are addressed, all spells, monsters and magic items are included.

It is amazing how far the modern RPG (and D&D in particular) has degenerated into the massive bloat that we see today.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Oh, I know. But there's no reason D&D can't do it. Mostly, I am irritated by the size of the Pathfinder book.

Did you actually buy the Pathfinder book? If you did, then you've shot yourself in the foot on this score, because by buying it, you gave a tacit agreement to Paizo that you are okay with the size of the book.

The only way Paizo would take your statement that the book is too big would be if they weren't able to sell copies of their game and the overwhelming reason given by people why was that it was just too big. But complaining about it after the fact does you no good whatsoever (other than the release of tension you get from getting this off your chest.)