I'm done with 3.5

[Hussar]

Something that confuses me is the idea of pricing. 90 bucks to buy into D&D is a fair chunk of change, that's true.

But, when was D&D cheap? It was 50 or 60 bucks (Canadian) back in the 80's to get into 1e. Basic/Expert/etc was 25 bucks a box IIRC. I remember it wasn't like I could just walk into Fads (the hobby shop in London Ontario at the time) and plunk down for a Player's Handbook with pocket change.

D&D has never really been all that cheap of a hobby to start off. Not overly expensive as hobbies go, but, not cheap either.

 

[buzz]

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.

Well, I've heard this argument before, but I've yet to see any proof that it would result in more new players or anything like that. If anything, past precedent shows that splitting D&D into distinct games is a bad thing.

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.

All of those are subsystems, and other than the possible exception of psionics, none of them generally appear in published adventure and supplement product. None of them actually add or change anything about the core ruleset, either. Swift and immediate actions are the only rules I can think of that have been essentially adopted as core by WotC's line of supplements.

...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.

D&D has more published adventure support than any other RPG on the face of the earth. I think one would be hard pressed to point to any other mainstream RPG that has more resources available for people new to the game than D&D does. I also think the DMG and DMG2 do a very good job of explaining the DM's role; IMO, better than any previous edition (thought Red Box Basic was very good in this regard).

Now, could that advice be better? Sure. The pulp RPG Spirit of the Century, IMO, does a better job of giving the GM the tools they need to run a good game than just about any other RPG in existence right now.

However, does the quality of that advice have anything to do with the mechanical complexity of the game? Not really.

 

[buzz]

D&D has never really been all that cheap of a hobby to start off.

Well, if we don't dismiss the SRD, the entry cost for D&D 3.5 is currently $0.

Quick reminder: I am in no way arguing against the OP's decision to play something other than D&D. I'm well off on tangents at this point, for which I apologize.

 

[buzz]

Another quick point...

Arguing complexity is kind of a red herring. What matters is whether Game X is providing an experience that you consider fun. And since what's fun to one person can be pure boredom to the next, I think it's best to get away from condemning the source of said fun. I've played really simple RPGs that sucked, and ones that were awesome, and complex RPGs that sucked, and ones that were awesome. No one end of the continuum is inherently better than the other.

 

[fusangite]

The problem here is that a battle of anecdotes doesn't really get us anywhere.

Clearly market research by WOTC would be preferable because, I agree, it is difficult to discern how widespread a problem is based solely on annecdotal information.

But that does not mean we should wholly throw out annecdotal information in the absence of proper quantitative data. Some of my complaints about D&D fall flat on these boards. Some have a small, committed circle of supporters. But when I wade into AoO discussions, I find that people whose posts I never follow, and often people with low post counts, chime in. So, I do think that we can attribute greater numerical strength to the people who don't get AoOs and think they should be taken out than to the people who have big problems with most other aspects of the game. Whether we're 10%, 30% or 60%, I have no idea.

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

I think you are confusing games that have complex, deep and interesting tactics with games that have a lot of rules. That's why the first game I mentioned was Go. Go has an absolutely tiny number of rules, one kind of piece and is one of the most strategically and tactically complex games ever invented. Ditto chess.

Liking tactical complexity and liking lots of rules are not the same thing at all. I have no evidence that these systems with fewer rules are less tactically interesting or complex. So I see zero correlation between number of rules and tactical complexity. I'm not sure that AD&D miniatures battles had fewer or less interesting strategic permutations just because they had fewer rules.

X bolsters my belief that, more often than not, it's a preference thing, not a complexity thing.

What about all of the above. Maybe one of the reasons AoOs remain a hard sell is not because they have one annoying feature that annoys all of us but rather because they have multiple annoying features that annoy different segments of the hobby. I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there.

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 enjoy battle tactics. And nothing kills my enjoyment better is the moment where we go, "Wait a minute? Did we just do the last round wrong? Shouldn't X have got an AoO?"

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.

The fact that WOTC has a profit motive and a good marketing strategy does not mean that it is infallible in judging what appetities exist in its customer and potential customer bases.

 

[buzz]

So, I do think that we can attribute greater numerical strength to the people who don't get AoOs and think they should be taken out than to the people who have big problems with most other aspects of the game. Whether we're 10%, 30% or 60%, I have no idea.

I dunno. I just think web fora present a very skewed picture. With 3.5, I don't feel like I see complaints all that often, and adjudicating AoO in my games hasn't been an issue. Ergo, there's doubt in my mind.

I think you are confusing games that have complex, deep and interesting tactics with games that have a lot of rules.

Well, I hope not, as I'm not trying to make that connection. What I'm trying to say is that, IME, often when I hear someone complaining about complexity, be it specifically AoO in D&D or something else, what they really seem to be telling me is just that System X isn't giving them what they want. Specific to our discussion, it's not that they want a robust tactical experience, or don't like how D&D provides it, but rather that they don't want a robust tactical experience period, Go-level-simple or not. Naturally, not 100%, but pretty close.

Maybe one of the reasons AoOs remain a hard sell is not because they have one annoying feature that annoys all of us but rather because they have multiple annoying features that annoy different segments of the hobby. I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there.

Gotcha. All I can say is, it's hard for me to see it, as AoO just doesn't cause problems in my games. Your PC provokes when leaving a threatened square or taking an AoO-provoking action in a threatened square. Done.

The fact that WOTC has a profit motive and a good marketing strategy does not mean that it is infallible in judging what appetities exist in its customer and potential customer bases.

I'm not saying they're infallible. I'm saying that they spend more time, money, and effort analyzing their marketplace than any other RPG company, period. I think their design staff has also shown that they pay very close attention to what makes for a good play experience. Ergo, I'm betting that the odds would be very, very good that, were AoO fundamentally flawed in some way that hurt the play experience, they would never have survived this long and shown up in as many products. I feel confident that their presence in the new Star Wars RPG is quite telling in this regard.

 

[Flynn]

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.

With the SRD, the OGL and companies like Lulu.com, you can do exactly that if you really wanted to. Create a streamlined fantasy d20-based game, and then publish an advanced set of rules for it. Or if you'd rather not, try to convince someone else to do it, and voila!

Hey, if you do get it going, I'm interested in checking out your work.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[buzz]

With the SRD, the OGL and companies like Lulu.com, you can do exactly that if you really wanted to.

And some already are, and their work has been linked to in this very thread.

 

[Brentos]

Basic Game?

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.

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

 

[Brentos]

But that does not mean we should wholly throw out annecdotal information in the absence of proper quantitative data. Some of my complaints about D&D fall flat on these boards. Some have a small, committed circle of supporters. But when I wade into AoO discussions, I find that people whose posts I never follow, and often people with low post counts, chime in.

This low poster loves him the AOO's! I hated them in 3.0 because I completely couldn't understand them, as the rules were written horribly, but in 3.5...not one problem with me or my groups. In fact, I think it was the SW minis rules that first started clarifying it for me.

Ditto chess.

Are you saying chess is easy to learn and has few rules? Yikes! Castle-ing, En Passant, time, notation, etc. Much more difficult then AOO when I try to teach some one.

Liking tactical complexity and liking lots of rules are not the same thing at all. I have no evidence that these systems with fewer rules are less tactically interesting or complex. So I see zero correlation between number of rules and tactical complexity. I'm not sure that AD&D miniatures battles had fewer or less interesting strategic permutations just because they had fewer rules.What about all of the above. Maybe one of the reasons AoOs remain a hard sell is not because they have one annoying feature that annoys all of us but rather because they have multiple annoying features that annoy different segments of the hobby. I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there.I enjoy battle tactics. And nothing kills my enjoyment better is the moment where we go, "Wait a minute? Did we just do the last round wrong? Shouldn't X have got an AoO?"The fact that WOTC has a profit motive and a good marketing strategy does not mean that it is infallible in judging what appetities exist in its customer and potential customer bases.

AOO does make D&D more tactically interesting (many other rules as previously mentioned, though are bad). I never like games where the fighters just run past the mooks and cut off the head of the spellcasters, or when the monsters do the same to the players. How do you block otherwise? DM fiat? Bleh...unfair. Do those other systems mentioned handle this issue? I'm curious, as I've never played them.