I'm done with 3.5

[rowport]

QFT. I think most people don't realize how intimidating the PHB alone can be to someone whose never played before, or to a DM whose trying to step up to bat for the first time. There's alot of information, rules, nuances, etc. to remember. I think stating that 3.5 only gets complex when you add sourcebooks is understating the issue.

Yes it's based on a simple mechanic...roll d20+mod and see if you beat DC,but that's not all of it. First, there's remembering where all these modifiers come from as well as what ability determines what. There's the differences between saving throws and skill/ability checks(why doesn't my jump skill or my tumbling skill help me dodge a mechanical trap?). Then there's the "tactical" nature of combat, where rules like AoO...diagonal movement, criticals, reach, etc. must be remembered and applied. The different uses for different skills. Spells, feats, etc. etc.

I agree with your statements, but fail to see your argument. Are you saying, "D&D is too complex to new gamers, and should therefore be made more simple" or are you saying "D&D is too complex for some new gamers, so they might prefer other game systems instead"? If you mean the former, I completely disagree-- there are lots of folks who like the current system, so leave it alone. If you mean the latter, I totally agree. There are lots of RPG alternatives, and lots that are less complex than D&D. Those alternatives would not be my preference, but I can easily see how they would be for other folks.

 

[jdrakeh]

Of course, you can really simplify things with:
http://wiki.greywulf.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Macropedia/Microlite20Downloads

And again, see the link in my .sig for the Official (at the present time) Microlite20 fan forums

 

[Imaro]

I agree with your statements, but fail to see your argument. Are you saying, "D&D is too complex to new gamers, and should therefore be made more simple" or are you saying "D&D is too complex for some new gamers, so they might prefer other game systems instead"? If you mean the former, I completely disagree-- there are lots of folks who like the current system, so leave it alone. If you mean the latter, I totally agree. There are lots of RPG alternatives, and lots that are less complex than D&D. Those alternatives would not be my preference, but I can easily see how they would be for other folks.

I'm saying both, that is if WotC is looking to attract new gamers.

I'll say this, the simplification and streamlining in Star Wars SAGA has been, almost universally, praised. The game is selling great and it's attracting alot of people. D&D 4th ed. should take the same approach...I mean if you like the complexity of 3.5...I mean...well you've got your game then, right? How is making the same game going to garner new blood? WHat do you just want a 3.75 or something, that's what supplement books like Unearthed Arcana are for.

 

[Moggthegob]

This is a very solid observation. I hope 4E kills them. They are not just a "communication problem," (the universal term for demonstrably failed political policies too).

There are lots of rules that were communicated a lot worse in the past that people understood right away nevertheless. I recall that in AD&D, the words "high" and "low" were used randomly and interchangeable in the explanations of armour class. Sometimes an AC of 10 was called "very high" and other times "very low." Yet nobody failed to grasp the system, despite profoundly opaque language on the part of designers.

Personally, I dont think 4e uis coming our way any time soon. We've been hearign 4e rumors ever since 3e.The Rules compendium coming out is proof that they plan on sticking with this edition for some time.
secondly, speaking as someone who has dmed both 2nd and 3rd ed, thAC0 was the single most difficult to explain concept in the game and I have found that 3e is infinitely easier to teach people than ad&d. Its streamlined. its the msot realistic system i can think of short of LARP.

Removing rules doesnt make the game more realistic, it does just the opposite.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know if you'd rather play space fantasy but Star Wars: SAGA edition is simple, elegant, and has multitudes of options built in.

Its what I'm itching to play, but I'm in the middle of a D&D game right now, so...

 

[molonel]

So play something different. I got fed up with DMing 3rd Edition D&D, so I switched to d20 Modern. I've also been playing a little GURPS, and a friend started up an Exalted game that I'm playing in.

No game system can keep you happy forever, and anyone who says differently is selling something.

Go play some Call of Cthulhu, or Paranoia, or GURPS, or whatever strikes your fancy.

 

[Edgewood]

I don't know if you'd rather play space fantasy but Star Wars: SAGA edition is simple, elegant, and has multitudes of options built in.

I would be up for anything different and easy on the rules. I used to play the old WEG d6 Star Wars and loved it. I'll definately check it out .

I'm also going to check C&C and some of the links that Smootrk and others have provided in this thread.

 

[ShadowX]

I will echo the sentiment that blaming 3rd edition for a rules bloat is quite puzzling. People seem to forget that RPGs are not like other games that require you play within the rules. The game in RPG is the actual role-playing and 3rd edition is just one method to graft mechanics onto that game. You have the final choice on which system or variation of a system you want to use. Asking WotC or 3rd party publishers to stop publishing more material because you think there is enough is like asking farmers to stop growing food because we already have enough and it's just lowering the market price. There may be a surfeit of supplements for 3rd edition, but they must turn a profit and that requires publishing books. I suggest you get over needing every supplement ever published, because any non-defunct rule set will eventually run into the same problem.

Personally, I think AoO are a rather elegant way to add battlefield control and tactical movement into the game. You need something to discourage rushing to an opponent's rear flank and spice up the combat flavor. If you want something simpler they are among the easiest rules to throw out.

I also find character options enhance rather than detract role-playing because now your roleplaying flavor has a mechanical representation. It is all fine and dandy that you are a wizard focusing on necromancy, but it is much cooler to take a dread necromancer and receive some abilities that differentiate yourself from a run-of-the-mill wizard. Then again, I don't find this any added rules burden because I only need to know a small subset of player options at any given time. None of these "splat" books actually add anything but slight modifications of the rules and only if that actual character option is in play. So each player should know his own capabilities and maybe a passing familiarity with his fellows'. DMs have it a little harder having to be versed in all of their players' characters and monsters, but again you don't actually have to memorize this stuff.

 

[MerricB]

This is a very solid observation. I hope 4E kills them. They are not just a "communication problem," (the universal term for demonstrably failed political policies too).

There are lots of rules that were communicated a lot worse in the past that people understood right away nevertheless. I recall that in AD&D, the words "high" and "low" were used randomly and interchangeable in the explanations of armour class. Sometimes an AC of 10 was called "very high" and other times "very low." Yet nobody failed to grasp the system, despite profoundly opaque language on the part of designers.

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.

There are very few people who understood how AD&D 1E initiative worked. For the most part, they just used the initiative rules from the Basic set: highest on d6 goes first.

The other part to this is that AD&D put a lot more of the rules burden on the DM. Especially in 1e, where the players didn't even really understand how combat worked. So, if the DM didn't get the rules, the game didn't get played.

I suggest that there is a difference between people who are interested in the *results* of the system (I've killed a monster, yeah!), and those interested in the *how* of a system (I've just been invisible, used sneak attack, and had a poison on my blade - he failed his saving throw, took lots of Con damage, and died instantly!) D&D 3E is a lot more about the *how* of the game, thus allowing players to really customise their characters, than in the *results*. Sure, it has results, but it leans more towards people interested in how.

So, D&D doesn't appeal to everyone... but it never did.

Cheers!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There's only one problem with AoOs - they are caused by leaving a square rather than entering. People find this deeply counterintuitive.

I certainly found it counterintuitive. But D&D has had that bit of counterintuition for a while.

For the sake of simplicity, the narrative flow requires the "I run up and hit him!" to resolve as easy as possible. We could compare weapon lengths, weapon speed factors, and initiative into a magic formula for the sake of "realism" in determining who attacks whom when, but it really is not worth it.

Once you have given up on AoOs for entering a space, you are stuck AoOs for leaving a space if you want restrictions on movement at all. (I suppose one could cook up a even more complicated device...)

It really is not a big deal to unceremoniously yank AoOs out of the game. This has got to be the easiest possible example of major rules surgery in the universe. The patient will live. Most combat-centric RPGs make do without the concept of AoO, after all.