I'm done with 3.5

[buzz]

() 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.

People who've worked for TSR and WotC, e.g. Dancey, have explicitly talked about how splitting the core brand into two game lines did not make good business sense.

Even with a less drastic divide, you can end up splitting your market. I mean, what do you do with supplementary material, especially adventures? Do you have to split them between "only uses basic rules" and "uses advanced"? Any division is just a bad idea.

 

[Imaro]

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

No it's not, and I wish people would quit assuming this. The Basic game allows you to play up to 2nd level...I am talking about a full game, but with streamlined and simplified rules. Not an "intro" product to all the complexity that exists.

Edit: And you know what...looking over my "never used" copy I see why it doesn't sell well. It's not broad enough and doesn't have enough re-use value to warrant $25. I can get a board game for the same or a little more that has unlimited play use. This product is really an eye-candy set that is very very limited in actual worth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even with a less drastic divide, you can end up splitting your market. I mean, what do you do with supplementary material, especially adventures? Do you have to split them between "only uses basic rules" and "uses advanced"? Any division is just a bad idea.

I guess those "Complete" and "Races of" books were a bad idea, then?

 

[Imaro]

People who've worked for TSR and WotC, e.g. Dancey, have explicitly talked about how splitting the core brand into two game lines did not make good business sense.

Even with a less drastic divide, you can end up splitting your market. I mean, what do you do with supplementary material, especially adventures? Do you have to split them between "only uses basic rules" and "uses advanced"? Any division is just a bad idea.

You have a basic stat block and then in a paragraph underneath include the "advanced" info. Don't really see how this is a problem, since I'm assuming the complexity builds modularly. This is no different than an adventure that has "optional supplement" info in it. And wouldn't be any longer than a stat block for using the "advanced" version anyway.

 

[buzz]

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.

You were originally talking about "rules bloat" in what I thought was the context of all the supplements that have been produced. Did you mean to talk about bloat in regards to previous editions? If so, I must have missed that, or conflated your posts with others.

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.

WotC has a list of free adventures on their site as long as your arm.

Regardless, I think pointing to cost is a red herring. RPGs cost money (though the SRD is still free, FYI). A rules-lite game is still going to be vexing to a newbie if the text on GM'ing sucks. That the DMG does a pretty dang good job explaining how to run games, and that there are more adventures, free and otherwise, available for D&D than any other RPG makes a very good argument in favor of D&D as helpful to the newbie.

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.

FWIW, if you actually start at 1st level, you do essentially ease yourself into the system, both as a player and a DM. You start out with access to a subset of the system that grows gradually over time. This is why the Basic Set doesn't start at 10th level.

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.

I'm not going to deny there's room for improvement in D&D, especially in terms of DM workload. I just don't see the game as bloated or fundamentally flawed.

 

[buzz]

I guess those "Complete" and "Races of" books were a bad idea, then?

I don't see how that relates at all. As already stated, none of those supplements fundamentally change the game, and even when a WotC product does use content from a supplement, they include enough info so possession of said supplements is unnecessary.

 

[buzz]

You have a basic stat block and then in a paragraph underneath include the "advanced" info. Don't really see how this is a problem, since I'm assuming the complexity builds modularly. This is no different than an adventure that has "optional supplement" info in it. And wouldn't be any longer than a stat block for using the "advanced" version anyway.

I would then look forward to the inevitable bitching about the product containing info that Joe Complainer doesn't need, and man WotC is screwing him. I also have to imagine it being more work for the development team having to now take into consideration how encounters will play out with different rules in place.

RPGs that try to please everyone are doomed. WotC's doing the right thing by sticking with a single rule set that does X and supporting its ability to do X. Honestly, if you want a simpler game, go play a simpler game. There are hundreds of them out there.

 

[Ozmar]

Well, I'm done with D&D 3.5. I'm going to take a step back from the rules bloat, the awkward mechanics (AOO anyone?), the endless prestige classes, feats, spells, player options, DM options, and the book treadmill that has become the current version of D&D. I need a simpler system. I'm pulled the old boxed sets out and re-read the basic and expert rules. I was delighted to read through something that no longer gave me the "gamer headache". It's so much easier to digest than the out of control monster 3.5 has become. Maybe I'll check out C&C and see how that goes.

Bah!

Awkward shmawkward. D&D works jest fine fer me.

But I am pretty much done with buying more books. Not with playing. Got tons of room for playing. Just no more interest in buying.

Ozmar the Cheap

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see how that relates at all. As already stated, none of those supplements fundamentally change the game, and even when a WotC product does use content from a supplement, they include enough info so possession of said supplements is unnecessary.

If you have Core Rules, and then you have supplements that add to those Core Rules, then their shouldn't be a problem, right?

If the Core Rules are less complex in terms of, say, number of feats and classes, then adding supplements that increase that complexity shouldn't be a problem, right?

If the Core Rules are less complex in terms of, say, combat, then adding supplements that increase that complexity shouldn't be a problem, right?

But, as I read it, you want us to believe that adding supplements that increase the complexity of combat will split the audience, but adding supplements that add dozens of new classes, races, spells, and feats will not. Despite the fact that, say, vehicle combat rules occur outside the Core Rules already.

Sorry, buzz, but if the suggestion of "a simpler core with supplements to add complexity" is going to split the audience, then it seems likely that the audience is already split.

RC

 

[Imaro]

You were originally talking about "rules bloat" in what I thought was the context of all the supplements that have been produced. Did you mean to talk about bloat in regards to previous editions? If so, I must have missed that, or conflated your posts with others.

I was talking about the core 3.5 rules actually being "bloated' to a certain point.

WotC has a list of free adventures on their site as long as your arm.

Regardless, I think pointing to cost is a red herring. RPGs cost money (though the SRD is still free, FYI). A rules-lite game is still going to be vexing to a newbie if the text on GM'ing sucks. That the DMG does a pretty dang good job explaining how to run games, and that there are more adventures, free and otherwise, available for D&D than any other RPG makes a very good argument in favor of D&D as helpful to the newbie.

Uhm...you've turned it into an either/or question, when it's not. Having less complexity in rules has no bearing on DM advice. In fact your not addressing the point of a newbie. Through time he may find sites on the internet, free adventures...whatever, but I'm talking about playing the game as is presented in the core alone.

FWIW, if you actually start at 1st level, you do essentially ease yourself into the system, both as a player and a DM. You start out with access to a subset of the system that grows gradually over time. This is why the Basic Set doesn't start at 10th level.

Right...because all the complexities I listed don't start at 1st level(AoO, buffs, combat maneuvers, spells, feat interaction, etc.) and DM'ing at first level never involves multiple opponents with multiple abilities.

I'm not going to deny there's room for improvement in D&D, especially in terms of DM workload. I just don't see the game as bloated or fundamentally flawed.

And I don't see how the model I suggest in any way, stops you from playing the game you want to and giving those who want something else their piece as well.