I'm done with 3.5

[ColonelHardisson]

Let me get this straight.

You've bogged yourself down with D&D rules and you're complaining about the 3.5E system as if it was D&D's fault?...If you added on a dozen other D&D books to the table and are now complaining about it, that's your fault.

I agree with this entirely. Choice is always good, and I enjoy knowing that there are all manner of books I can buy for D&D depending on what I'm looking for in my game. But I don't feel the compulsive need to buy every book and use it. The whole point of the revision of D&D was to make it so that any number of books could be added, but you really only need the core 3 (and many claim they can play an enjoyable game with only one or two, especially with the SRD freely available). If you play only using a very select few books, your game is just as "official" (if that means anything to anyone) as that of the group who buys and tries to use every single D&D book WotC produces. It's like buying a car and adding in all the accessories and then complaining how expensive and gas-guzzling it is. Forget the accessories and go with the basic car. It'll get ya there, maybe even faster.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I agree with you about the general bloat. There's a reason I've said I'd switch to Hero if there was the same level of Adventure Path type support -- D&D has actually become a more complicated/convoluted system.

Heh. I say this to my friends all the time. Hero has some strangeness to it and it's not a 'simple' game but the core rules can pretty much handle EVERYTHING that WoTC continues to pump out supplements for, especially 'official' supplements for things people have been doing since day one. "Hey, the ranger would be awesome if instead of spells, they got bonus feats!"

 

[Particle_Man]

I hear that Star Wars: Saga edition is very streamlined. I am going to get it and see what I can adapt for a fake medieval fantasy theme.

 

[fusangite]

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

Well, given that nobody was talking about the "realism" issue, this seems a bit out of left field. Whatever definition of "realism" people are working with, if that's their priority, D&D is a pretty suboptimal choice. One chooses D&D for other values like compatibility.

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.

Sorry to hear that. I was referring to 1E not 2E but this may be true of many groups in 1E too. But this is a digression.

The point I was making is that AoOs are obviously a tough concept if they are causing this much confusion seven years after their introduction. And that this issue is not one of communication but one of the basic structure of how they work.

We all have to empathize sometimes when things that seem perfectly simple and clear to us turn out to be tough and opaque for others. But I think it is important to push past our ideas about what should be simple and confront what actually is simple. Whether AoOs should be as tough as they are for people to understand and run, they are nevertheless difficult for many of us. And it's not because WOTC are bad communicators.

 

[Greg K]

Sure, you could pass on Complete Divine or whatever. But that'd be like trying to play basketball without the 3-point field goal. Or like playing Magic: The Gathering with only a single starter deck. It's not the full game.

I don't see it that way. Then again, I don't like the majority of the material which WOTC offers in their class and race supplements and, therefore, have no desire to use or include it.

 

[Umbran]

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 going to sound like many of hte others here.

I won't try to speak to the awkward mechanics. Everyone's got their own preferences, and what seems awkward to one may seem simple to another. YMMV, and if that's a major reason to find another game, that's cool. I hope you find one that fits you.

I note that for the rest, you're statement is a bit... slanted. All the prestige classes, feats and spells are DM and player options, and are what can be called rules bloat, and are the book treadmill. So, in effect, you're sort of triple- or quadruple-counting these.

In the end, I don't think comparing D&D, along with all the optional rules support with a game that has little aside from its core rules published is really a fair comparison. Rather like comparing a full buffet table to a single dinner choice from the menu. Nobody makes you even really consider all the items from the buffet, much less force you to carry an overfull plate to your table. You can stick to the soup and salad if you like.

 

[Edgewood]

A lot of what I have read from most people (and these are entirely valid opinions in my book) is that I can certainly do away with the options in D&D and stick to the 3 core books. I am in complete agreement with that statement. As they say on the Colbert Report, it has a sort of "truthiness" to it.
My reasons for dropping this version are of course quite personal in that I find that the push for purchasing the splatbooks for D&D is always there. When you have X players who are continuously buying these books and want to use them in the game, you can't help but generate a little resentment by saying, "sorry, we're just sticking to the 3 core books and that's it." Even if I make that absolutely clear at the beginning of a campaign and all players agree to it, the desire to eventually bring in new options will slowly creep in. It's part of the culture of D&D to bring in these options to keep the line viable.

Do I have a choice? Of course I do. And I know that maybe my arguements may be somewhat slanted, but really, who's aren't really. I don't think many people can make a completely even arguement without biases slipping in. It's human nature.

I would like to thank everyone for their input. EnWorld has proven once again why it is such a useful community. I got to see differernt sides to this issue in a very open and kind manner. Heck, the UN wished they had it so good.

Keep Smilin'

 

[The Cardinal]

yep, Complete Divine was the last 3.5 book I'll ever buy.
When my current D&D campaigns have ended I will use C&C for the Known Realms/DCCs (which I will still buy, though I'd like to see more C&C stuff from Goodman Games) and the Wilderlands - and GURPS4e for everything else.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

My reasons for dropping this version are of course quite personal in that I find that the push for purchasing the splatbooks for D&D is always there. When you have X players who are continuously buying these books and want to use them in the game, you can't help but generate a little resentment by saying, "sorry, we're just sticking to the 3 core books and that's it." Even if I make that absolutely clear at the beginning of a campaign and all players agree to it, the desire to eventually bring in new options will slowly creep in. It's part of the culture of D&D to bring in these options to keep the line viable.

Yeah, but if these players keep buying the books, it must mean they enjoy the game, right? If they don't like what you call "rules bloat," tell them to quit buying new books they expect you to allow in the game. If they balk, maybe they should find a new DM and you a new group. Plus I think it's still disingenuous to keep blaming the game and its "culture" when it's really more about what your group wants. And from what you've been saying, it seems more about what you want, rather than what the group wants, given that there has to be some enthusiasm for the game if people keep buying new books and wanting to try new options. What happens when the players start wanting more options with, say, those older editions of D&D? It happened with my group as early as 1981. At least now we wouldn't have to concoct a bunch of shoddy house rules like we did back then.

 

[Coplen]

Try Rolemaster.















What?