I'm done with 3.5

[buzz]

And the source is usually something un- or poorly explained or otherwise counterintuitive in the interface or documentation. So no, not entirely user error.

If 3.0 was still the current edition, I might agree with you. With 3.5, I think AoOs are pretty clear, and my two D&D groups have no problem with them. Now, if you wanted to talk grappling, you'd get some sympathy from me.

Remove AoO from the game, and you've just made combat a lo less entertaining for players who like tactical challenge. Rather than blame D&D, just realize that maybe you don't like tactical challenge, and find a game that better suits your tastes.

 

[buzz]

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

Can I get an "amen"?

 

[buzz]

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

The causal link between "simplicity" and "attracting new gamers" is oft-asserted and yet-proven.

As for Star Wars Saga, it's a little too early to claim anything about it as a model to emulate. That said, I do agree that there are many innovations I've seen in the WotC previews that might be great additions to D&D.

Of course, SWS does still have AoOs...

As for D&D "rules bloat"... I have to wonder what version of D&D 3.5 critics are playing. Looking only at WotC products, I see lots of supplements that add classes, PrCs, feats, and spells, but I don't see all that many books that actually add new rules. The only real additions I can think of are swift and immediate actions, and, if you're playing Eberron, Action Points.

 

[Imaro]

The causal link between "simplicity" and "attracting new gamers" is oft-asserted and yet-proven.

As for Star Wars Saga, it's a little too early to claim anything about it as a model to emulate. That said, I do agree that there are many innovations I've seen in the WotC previews that might be great additions to D&D.

Of course, SWS does still have AoOs...

As for D&D "rules bloat"... I have to wonder what version of D&D 3.5 critics are playing. Looking only at WotC products, I see lots of supplements that add classes, PrCs, feats, and spells, but I don't see all that many books that actually add new rules. The only real additions I can think of are swift and immediate actions, and, if you're playing Eberron, Action Points.

You're kind of missing my point...I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing thing. Create a D&D core rules that's streamlined and simplified along the order of SWSE, then produce a "core options" book, like Unearthed Arcana for those who want a more complex game...that way we're all happy and all playing D&D. This will be especially conducive if the base rules are cheaper than the $90 core that is the base of D&D now.

I don't seee how a model based on the above hurts either side of the simplified vs. complex factions. It gives both sides what they want. I never cited AoO as complex within themselves, in fact I don't think many of the rules in D&D 3.5 are complex when taken alone...however the sum of the parts is greater than any individual part, and that's where, IMHO, the complexity arises. Too many simple rules can become complex.

Uhm...okay I was arguing that the "core rules" by themselves are pretty complex, but when adding supplements there's more than just action points, swift actions and immediate actions(IMHO there's too many types of actions period, but that's an argument for another time). There's psionics, maneuvers, skill tricks, taint, etc.

No you don't have to use these rules, but they are there. I think the complexity of D&D manifest's at it's worse when running the game. That's one of the reasons I'd be more than happy to play in a game...but won't run one at this point. The fact of the matter is you need a DM to play, and I don't see 3.5 as a rules set that makes it simple or streamlined for a new person to run the game. Now you can list all the tricks of the trade that experienced DM's use...but I'm foccusing on the new player that wants to get a game going...or even a player who wants to take a turn at DM'ing. IMHO they are in for a tough time. This is all of course IMHO and YMMV, but I think it's a valid point when discussing expanding the player base...player means DM as well.

 

[fusangite]

Remove AoO from the game, and you've just made combat a lo less entertaining for players who like tactical challenge. Rather than blame D&D, just realize that maybe you don't like tactical challenge, and find a game that better suits your tastes.

So the fact that I play all kinds of games that include tactical challenge like Go, Chess, Axis & Allies, Shogun, Warhammer, D&D, etc. and enjoy them? That's an illusion on my part? Unless you want to start claiming that the world is full of deluded souls who think that like tactical challenge but actually don't and are all involved in a collective delusion, you are going to need a different explanation for the persistent misunderstanding and resentment associated with AoOs lo these many years.

I prefer: they just don't mentally click with a lot of otherwise smart people. It happens. I teach for a living and sometimes, there is a bit of mental acrobatics I can do to make a concept understandable and simple for myself. Sometimes the things that work for me work for my students; but sometimes they just don't. Some of the concepts I teach are just tough concepts for a lot of otherwise smart people to grasp, even though they are very easy for me to understand. And it's not just about my teaching skills; some ideas are tough for most people -- for whatever reason -- and that's just the way it is. I think AoOs are in that category.

EDIT: And so is calculus.

 

[Fifth Element]

I would like to publicly announce that I'm tired of basic D&D, and from now on will be using rock-paper-scissors for conflict resolution in my games.

 

[RFisher]

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.

I've tried to capture most of what I learned during my own journey back to classic D&D here. Perhaps you will find some of it helpful.

As I struggled to figure out why the grognards had stuck with such out-dated systems, I think I learned that the appeal of classic D&D that I found is not only nostalgia & fewer/simpler rules, but also an array of minor changes that give a different feel to the game. Perhaps subtle; perhaps not.

 

[fusangite]

I would like to publicly announce that I'm tired of basic D&D, and from now on will be using rock-paper-scissors for conflict resolution in my games.

What's wrong with my a magic 8-ball!?

 

[Presto2112]

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.

Heh, you know I know what you mean. When I started our game, I sent out a list of books I was willing to let in for character options. They included the Core, PHB2, the Races books, the first installments of the "Complete" splatbooks (Warrior, Adventurer, Divine, and Arcane), the Spell Compendium, and Dragon articles on a case-by-case basis. So naturally, one of our players asks me "can I play an Artificer?", and dopey me, I said 'sure'.

 

[buzz]

I prefer: they just don't mentally click with a lot of otherwise smart people.

The problem here is that a battle of anecdotes doesn't really get us anywhere. Some people are claiming that there are these hordes of people who just can't grok AoO, and this is counter to my experience. That the people I notice who are vocal in their dislike also seem to almost always mention that they've moved on to Super-Simple-Non-Tactical RPG X bolsters my belief that, more often than not, it's a preference thing, not a complexity thing.

I will, of course, not deny that there may be folk who simply don't like AoO's implementation, but still love a tactical system. I have yet to meet any in the flesh, but hey.

And, like I said, if AoO were a genuine problem messing with D&D's ability to provide fun, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that WotC would have eliminated them already. E.g., they would not be present in the new SW RPG.