I'm done with 3.5

[pawsplay]

In that case, you haven't seen enough players fail to get AD&D.

In one of my AD&D 2E games, the only reason it survived was because I did the THAC0 calculation for a couple of my players *every* time it came up. They didn't understand it at all.

Then again, maybe they didn't understand it because you did it for them every time it came up.

 

[fusangite]

Are you saying chess is easy to learn and has few rules?

No. How could you possibly have got that from the words in the paragraph that mentioned chess!? What I said was that chess, despite having fewer rules, was more strategically complex and Go, despite having even fewer rules than chess, was the most strategically complex. What I was saying was that number of rules and strategic complexity of a game are not strongly correlated.

I was saying this because I like doing tactics and strategy in games but, nevertheless, dislike AoOs.

 

[Brentos]

No. How could you possibly have got that from the words in the paragraph that mentioned chess!? What I said was that chess, despite having fewer rules, was more strategically complex and Go, despite having even fewer rules than chess, was the most strategically complex. What I was saying was that number of rules and strategic complexity of a game are not strongly correlated.

Ahhh, gotcha.

 

[fusangite]

I dunno. I just think web fora present a very skewed picture. With 3.5, I don't feel like I see complaints all that often, and adjudicating AoO in my games hasn't been an issue. Ergo, there's doubt in my mind.

I can see that. And I'm not saying my personal experience of 6 gaming groups in 2 cities thousands of miles apart all having trouble with AoOs is any more representative.

often when I hear someone complaining about complexity, be it specifically AoO in D&D or something else, what they really seem to be telling me is just that System X isn't giving them what they want.

I agree. "Complexity," is just below "realism" on the list of dumb, non-descriptive, inaccurate objections to things.... And not just in gaming, either!

Specific to our discussion, it's not that they want a robust tactical experience, or don't like how D&D provides it, but rather that they don't want a robust tactical experience period, Go-level-simple or not.

That's true of "them." But not of the particular players I've worked with who have had AoO trouble. Our trouble has usually been that the counter-intuitive nature of the AoO seems to make it harder for us to simultaneously internalize the geometry of the board and the consequences of the AoO system. That's the experience of me and my current military-ranking Thursday night GM who lectures internationally on military strategy.

Again, just annecdotal but I know I'm not the only strategy geek who likes his battles but not his AoOs. Now, that stated, I am happy to concede that fewer strategy geeks have trouble with AoOs than, for instance, story geeks or drama geeks. But a number of us do.

Gotcha. All I can say is, it's hard for me to see it, as AoO just doesn't cause problems in my games. Your PC provokes when leaving a threatened square or taking an AoO-provoking action in a threatened square. Done.

But the double-move exemption screws up my geometric picture of the rule. I have internalizing the idea that if I leap on a horse after fleeing, I provoke an attack of opportunity but if I run around my horse, I don't. Add to that the five foot step exemption and pretty soon, AoOs start happening less than 50% of the time people leave threatened squares in most combats. When the exception, in practice, is usually more common than the rule, the rule, itself, becomes hard to internalize.

 

[MerricB]

It's worth noting that the AoO for leaving a threatened square has been there since 1e. (Actually, possibly in oD&D as well, but the combat rules are more vague and mixed with Chainmail).

Cheers!

 

[trancejeremy]

Yeah, AD&D 1e had a lot of weird rules that I only ever really saw used in practice in the old Gold Box games. Like what Merric mentions, if someone was next to someone and tried to move away, you got a free swat at them. And rules for "sweeping" lesser opponents.

 

[buzz]

But the double-move exemption screws up my geometric picture of the rule. I have internalizing the idea that if I leap on a horse after fleeing, I provoke an attack of opportunity but if I run around my horse, I don't. Add to that the five foot step exemption and pretty soon, AoOs start happening less than 50% of the time people leave threatened squares in most combats. When the exception, in practice, is usually more common than the rule, the rule, itself, becomes hard to internalize.

Technically, the exception is when you take the withdraw action (which is a full-round action), not when you make a double-move.

But, hey, if it doesn't give you fun, it doesn't give you fun.

 

[RFisher]

If anything, past precedent shows that splitting D&D into distinct games is a bad thing.

() Is there any doubt that the 1e PHB & Mentzer's Basic Set were two of the most successful RPG products ever? Granted, there were a lot of factors that fed into that success, but I just don't see any evidence that the D&D/AD&D split was really a bad thing even if I have a hard time understanding why.

& the D&D/AD&D split was much deeper than anything people seem to suggest these days.

Isn't that what the basic game boxed set is? It seems they've done that type of product several times now.

Yet they don't seem to sell the way the old basic sets did. Maybe that's partly because the market is different today, but I think it has at least as much to do with the differences in approach.

Yeah, AD&D 1e had a lot of weird rules that I only ever really saw used in practice

The free attack on a fleeing opponent was used in every AD&D session I've ever participated in. (Well, maybe there were sessions with no combat or in which no-one fled...)

 

[Imaro]

Well, I've heard this argument before, but I've yet to see any proof that it would result in more new players or anything like that. If anything, past precedent shows that splitting D&D into distinct games is a bad thing.

No one's talking about splitting it into seperate games, reread my post and you will see I'm talking about making the base game less complex with optional modular sourcebooks to increase said complexity if you want to. I think the basic game as well as Star Wars SAGA are good examples of what I'm talking about. A set of easily grasped and implemented rules, that don't become bewildering or hard to grasp, yet...you can add to them as you gain a greater comprehension and understanding of them.

All of those are subsystems, and other than the possible exception of psionics, none of them generally appear in published adventure and supplement product. None of them actually add or change anything about the core ruleset, either. Swift and immediate actions are the only rules I can think of that have been essentially adopted as core by WotC's line of supplements.

I was originally talking about just core and you switched to "option" books...now were talking about core again...ok. IMHO the core rules are pretty complex, especially if someone is new and trying to digest and start their own game.

D&D has more published adventure support than any other RPG on the face of the earth. I think one would be hard pressed to point to any other mainstream RPG that has more resources available for people new to the game than D&D does. I also think the DMG and DMG2 do a very good job of explaining the DM's role; IMO, better than any previous edition (thought Red Box Basic was very good in this regard).

This is what I call the "spend more money solution". If you buy this and this and this the game will be easier to run. Which ultimately isn't a very good solution.

It's not about the "DM's role" it's about all the things a DM has to keep track of in a game...all the interacting components that must be accounted for in a combat, especially since most of the time the DM will be running a multitude of characters in an adventure as well as playing referee to his PC's(who probably have less rules knowledge than he/she does.). You have the interaction of feats as a multitude of special casese in combat, AoO, modifiers(through buffs, penalties, etc.), movement, spells, special abilities of monsters, etc.

I'll give you an example of the type of streamlining or simplification I would like to see. In the Weapons of the Gods rpg, the question of modifiers is simplified by the fact that only the greatest(positive & negative) applies. No remembering if stacking does or doesn't apply...no keeping track of different durations for different modifiers, no multiple refiguring. In D&D this would also help since the DM would also have a better gauge of what level buffs, bonuses, etc. his pc's will be most likely to use.

Now, could that advice be better? Sure. The pulp RPG Spirit of the Century, IMO, does a better job of giving the GM the tools they need to run a good game than just about any other RPG in existence right now.

However, does the quality of that advice have anything to do with the mechanical complexity of the game? Not really.

Once again my problem isn't really about DM'ing advice...it's about how the rules set does or doesn't facilitate an "ease of use" structure to implement all that advice in.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I was thinking of starting over with AD&D. Not as basic as basic, but not as cluttered as 3.5.

I like options, but I get really tired of WOTC solving a problem by making a new feat to cope with it. The system works well if you just stick with the 3 base books, but once you stray into the 3.5 machine by buying or allowing other books, it gets away from you rather quickly. I love options, but there are way too many. Even if you just allow the complete books and the base books, it is just nuts.

What ever happened to the good old days when a party of 6 players with equal XP consisted of a 14th level rogue, 2 10th level fighters, a 9th level cleric, a 8th level mage and a 1st level barbarian