How much rules are too much rules?

[Yora]

This subject comes up sometimes in discussions about the merrits of the Editions of D&D and other RPGs, and I think it would be interesting to hear the thoughts on this by the people here.

What I regard as a big problem of particularly the 3rd Ed. (I'm never really learned 4th) is "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

Particularly 3rd Ed. D&D has a lot of character options and customization is something a lot, if not most players like a lot. However as I see it, it creates a way of thinking and approaching the game, that you need to have a feat, skill, or specific item to "unlock" to ability to perform a certain task. There's the plain ability check of 1d20 + ability modifier that can be used for really any task that has no rule, but in my experience this very rarely shows up.
When players are faced with a problem, the common response appears not to thinking about creating a way of circumventing the obstacle or comming up with a creative solution, but to consult the character sheet if you have a special ability or spell that is made for exactly this situation. I very rarely see people getting out ropes and hammers to find a way to use the environment to their advantage.

Other games have really only the basics covered: Attack, Defense, common skills, fire-and-forget spells. And personally, I like that a lot and it makes me quite happy to hear about the bare bones plus modules approach planned for 5th Edition. I really prefer to wing it a lot. Iron Heroes has the Stunt-system, which lists a lot of options, but it's really mostly "Make a skill check and if you roll well, you get a bonus or your enemy gets a penalty." Charging down stairs? Balance check and you get +2 to attack. Stuff like that that provides small advantages to players who come up with interesting descriptions to their characters action instead of "I attack". Or in the most extreme case RISUS, in which you have only class levels in multiple archetypes that are used to roll for really everything.

Please share your views and oppinions on this.

 

[Blackwarder]

Well I think that god had it right with the ten commandments... So I vote ten rules.

Warder

 

[Minigiant]

I am a person who likes thinking outside he rules but I've been burning by DM Fiat before. Then there are the d20 +ability grants odds that make the DM or player unhappy.

For D&D anyway, I say anything that you'd expect to see in an adventurer's life should have a rule. Rules for tripping disarming is good since many adventurers disarm and trip enemies, but few make clay pots or make bite attacks.

 

[Hassassin]

Few rules, a moderate number of options (PHB) and a lot of guidelines (DMG).

As an example, 3e skills should be 1 page of the mechanics (rules), another page or two listing the default skills and how each class gains them (options), and a few pages in the DMG on making rulings about DCs with some tables for common situations (guidelines).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would like to see the core rules be less than 150 pages. Optional modules can expand further but the basic game should be playable at that page count or less.

B/X was 128 pages and covered levels 1-14. It shouldn't take a whole lot more to cover up to level 20.

 

[Bluenose]

I would like to see the core rules be less than 150 pages. Optional modules can expand further but the basic game should be playable at that page count or less.

B/X was 128 pages and covered levels 1-14. It shouldn't take a whole lot more to cover up to level 20.

How much character customisation was in B/X, though? Not a great deal by the standards of 3e and 4e. And of course there weren't all the classes and races people like to say are an essential part of D&D.

Though I do think it would be amusing when the caster classes realised how limited their spell list was.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How much character customisation was in B/X, though? Not a great deal by the standards of 3e and 4e. And of course there weren't all the classes and races people like to say are an essential part of D&D.

Though I do think it would be amusing when the caster classes realised how limited their spell list was.

Very little if any customization, which is fine for the basic core.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I voted 3.

D&D is not a rules-lite game, and needs to have deep character creation and a tactical element. But I'm quite happy to see a long line of supplements only for those who need them. You want to play in the desert? Check out the desert book. Campaign about dragons: rules for dragon hoards are in there. This kind of thinking.

I think it's more important that the basic rules structure be applicable to many situations than it is that every type of situation should be discussed explicitly in one book.

 

[delericho]

I think "Star Wars Saga Edition" had it about right, at least in terms of the quantity of rules - a single 256-ish page Core Rulebook that includes everything that is needed to play, followed by a limited set of fairly meaty expansions for those who want them.

IMO, the single biggest issue with the rules in both 3e and 4e is the sheer weight of them, especially since the vast majority of that material never gets used. 4e's DDI made this less of an issue, but only if you assume that everyone has and is making use of laptops/tablets/whatever. Since that's something I emphatically don't want...

To put it another way:

Step 1, take the 4e Red Box. Step 2, tip out all of the contents.

Now, I expect everything I need to play the game (across a full and satisfying campaign) to fit into that box (and I do mean everything - character sheets, dice, battlemats, tokens...). If you took the 3e rules and threw out everything I never used, that should be possible; it should be possible with 5e, too.

If the game can't be made to fit within those confines, it is too complex. IMO, of course.

D&D, at its heart, is not a complex game. I wonder why we keep insisting that it needs to be made so?

 

[dkyle]

The rules should be exhaustive for whatever is important and consequential to the campaign.

Want a game where tactical combats are important? There should be well defined rules for tactical combat.

Want a game where exploration is emphasized, and avoiding combat is important? There should be well defined rules for that, but combat itself can be relatively loose.

Want a game that emphasizes collaborative story creation? There should be precise rules for how much "story-power" each player gets, and when.

Basically, to me, any time "DM fiat" is invoked for something important, that's a failure of either the game system, or the choice of system for the campaign.