I'm done with 3.5

[Edgewood]

Keep the core rule books for when you want to pick it back up. There will likely be lots of people who can easily jump into a game when you get bored.

That's what I intend to do in fact. I have no desire to get rid of my 3.5 books. I just want a different experience. That's all.

 

[Derren]

I agree with the many PRCs etc. They are just cheap page fillers for more money. But I still don't get how people can think that AoOs or D&D in general is complicated.
And unless someone in the group refuses to learn the rules AoOs and Grapple don't slow down the game by any meaningfull amount.

When you look at what RPGs are out there, you will come to the conclusion that D&D and D20 in general are one of the easier RPGs to learn.

 

[Imaro]

Basically, no. The player essentially added it by saying, "I'd like to play a psion."

And you agreed, by saying yes, to allow the psionics rules into YOUR campaign. Now if he goes to another campaign with a different DM is that character automatically acceptable to play...no. Definitely not if the DM is only using the 3 corebooks. So the player didn't add it...you allowed it in your game.

Hyperbole.

If you feel there are ways D&D could be improved (and there are), tell WotC about it, or vote with your dollar. You want to pitch them a Basic/Advanced model? Go for it. Do I think WotC will bite? No, and I think they have good reason not to.

Do I think there's more constructive things you can do with your time than shake your fist at WotC for not perfectly matching your preferences? Absolutely. D&D is not the only RPG in the universe.

You keep dancing around the issue...how does this setup, in any way, affect the type of game you would like to play? You're right, it's not the only game in the universe, and in my mind having a less complex game only brings WotC more money, especially if you can add the complexity and tactical minutae others enjoy...it's called the best of both worlds. I can't comment on their reasons, but I will say this is the first time in D&D's history that it is competing with numerous games based upon it's d20 and OGL system(s). Gamers have more options in a familiar rules set than they've ever had before...this wasn't the case when 3.0 and 3.5 first came out.

I think the true test will be D&D 4th, it will already face loosing part of it's player base that refuses to switch over...but now it's also competing with systems such as True20, C&C, BFRPG, etc. where it can loose even more of it's fanbase. IMHO if their wasn't a demand for simplification and streamlining in the D&D rules, I don't think so many companies would have jumped on that particular bandwagon. The problem is D&D is the most recognized rpg...even when I played C&C with people at work for the first time, I told them we'd be playing D&D and they automatically had an idea of what the game would be like. In the end you shouldn't cater to everyone with any product...unless it can be done in a way that is inclusive to the target you want to reach anyway, and that's what my suggested model is all about.

 

[Imaro]

I agree with the many PRCs etc. They are just cheap page fillers for more money. But I still don't get how people can think that AoOs or D&D in general is complicated.
And unless someone in the group refuses to learn the rules AoOs and Grapple don't slow down the game by any meaningfull amount.

When you look at what RPGs are out there, you will come to the conclusion that D&D and D20 in general are one of the easier RPGs to learn.

Uhm...no, I own alot of rpg's and I wouldn't rank D&D as one of the easier. At best it's mid to high-end complexity and crunch.

 

[Mark CMG]

That's what I intend to do in fact. I have no desire to get rid of my 3.5 books. I just want a different experience. That's all.

Well just make sure you have a good time while doing it!


And if you have any trouble getting your regular friends to play, convert some new players. The hobby can always use new players.

 

[Campbell]

Having to add additional material in order to gain tactical complexity is actually not the best of both worlds. For those who enjoy tactical complexity it is clearly an inferior product, largely because it would increase the workload and expenses required to enjoy a tactical game. Additionally, for me at least, it is critical that the disparate rules that make up a game interrelate in a way that is consistent. When rules are framed not as individual components but as part of a much larger framework they tend to enrich a game, rather than create conflicting priorities.

 

[Imaro]

Having to add additional material in order to gain tactical complexity is actually not the best of both worlds. For those who enjoy tactical complexity it is clearly an inferior product, largely because it would increase the workload and expenses required to enjoy a tactical game. Additionally, for me at least, it is critical that the disparate rules that make up a game interrelate in a way that is consistent. When rules are framed not as individual components but as part of a much larger framework they tend to enrich a game, rather than create conflicting priorities.

Isn't this exactly what you do if you start with the Basic Set and then move into the 3 core rulebooks? Are their conflicts in this? Don't these two products interrelate in a way that is consistent? If not, why has it been mentioned so often as a good "primer" for playing D&D? I think it is pretty good, just not enough utility for the price.

As far as cost goes If the base game + your tactical and complex rules end up equal in price to the core books, then what's your complaint. Now paying for alot of rules you don't want to use or ignore most of the time during play...that's something to complain about.

What increased workload? Reading the extra rules and implementing them in play? That's what you wanted right? It's actually a greater workload for those of us that want to simplify it.

 

[Campbell]

Isn't this exactly what you do if you start with the Basic Set and then move into the 3 core rulebooks? Are their conflicts in this? Don't these two products interrelate in a way that is consistent? If not, why has it been mentioned so often as a good "primer" for playing D&D? I think it is pretty good, just not enough utility for the price.

I am not particularly familiar with the Basic Set. I haven't actually ever met any one who used. Maybe the circles I travel in are remarkably different than most people, but I almost everyone I know has been able to start with the Player's Handbook. Sure, they may not immediately grok the game in its entirety, but a complete and exhaustive understanding of the rules isn't really required to start. Additionally, I've found that most people do not really want to start with a simpler game and than move on to a more complex one. People tend to play games with a level of complexity that they're comfortable with. I think the general split that existed between AD&D players and players of the Basic Game is evidence of this phenomenon.

As far as cost goes If the base game + your tactical and complex rules end up equal in price to the core books, then what's your complaint. Now paying for alot of rules you don't want to use or ignore most of the time during play...that's something to complain about.

I'm not quite sure what sort of business model you see such a game having. I paid a combined cost of around $60 for my 3rd Edition Core Set, which I bought retail. I paid about $60 for the revised set on Amazon, and it would have been less if I hadn't waited so long to get into the revision. That's amazingly cheap for about 950 pages of play tested material with strong production values and good indexes. Spreading out that material inevitably raises costs, since you're paying for the costs of binding several books.

What increased workload? Reading the extra rules and implementing them in play? That's what you wanted right? It's actually a greater workload for those of us that want to simplify it.

By spreading out material, hunting down rules references becomes a chore. You need to hunt down Book D for a rule that's referenced in Book A, instead of flipping pages. Additionally, rules in advanced supplements may very well conflict with rules in the core books, which can lead to all sorts of confusion. Added to this concern is the general prevalence of supplementary material not being treated with the same care and attention that core material is, which means this approach might require further work to smooth out rough edges.

One concrete example of my bad experience with this sort of model is the Player's Option series from AD&D 2e, which often conflicted with the rules in the core books. There were radically different combat rules. Weapon specialization varied dramatically. Additionally, most supplements were 'balanced' for the core game and required work to fit into a Player's Option campaign.

More than anything else, my point is that if you're going to have radically different games they should be separate games. Compromise in this area usually only makes both parties miserable. I understand that you want a game that works for you out of the box. I also want the exact same thing. The issue is that we're never going to be able to find a game that serves both of our needs appropriately, and I don't think we should try.

 

[BronzeDragon]

The OP needs more Conan.

 

[Minicol]

Well, I'm done with D&D 3.5.

Do you expect to find players ?
Around my place nobody would be interested.