I'm done with 3.5

[Chainsaw Mage]

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?

All you need is the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual. There's your simple (and rather boring, though that's just me and my group's feelings) D&D game. . . . Me, I can never have enough prestige classes, feats, spells, psionics, epic material, etc. It's like walking through Candy Land for me.

You've just stated the problem with recommending that people "stick to the three core books." Most D&D players, like yourself, find such an approach "boring." It's all fine and good to tell someone to stick to core, but if they can't find players to join their "core only" game, the advice is hollow at best.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

You've just stated the problem with recommending that people "stick to the three core books." Most D&D players, like yourself, find such an approach "boring." It's all fine and good to tell someone to stick to core, but if they can't find players to join their "core only" game, the advice is hollow at best.

If a DM doesn't like piling on options, and the players do, there's a disconnect there that needs to be addressed. That goes beyond the options' availability.

It's still rather like blaming one's weight problem on doughnuts, while standing in line at Krispy Kreme.

Brad

 

[Raven Crowking]

If a DM doesn't like piling on options, and the players do, there's a disconnect there that needs to be addressed. That goes beyond the options' availability.

Of course there is. The disconnect is simple to understand, too:

Piling on options is good for the players, but a headache for the DM.

After all, no matter how many options you pile on, each player is only responsible for knowing the options that player is currently using. No matter how complicated those options make the character, each player only has to worry about one specific instance of that complexity.

The DM needs to know all the options currently being used, whether by players or by monsters. Even if he uses no options himself, with a party of 4 PCs he has the potential of having to know four times the options that any given player does. Moreover, because some of those options influence the types of encounters that player seeks, and how those encounters play out....including, possibly, forcing some options on the DM (if you can summon a creature with X template, perforce the DM must be ready to run X template)....the increase for the DM can be exponential.

Is this the fault of the game?

Well, it is part of the game, so I would have to say Yes.

Are the options a bad thing?

I would say No.....But the DM ought to have some very specific means to deal with the complexity of the options, and in particular the prep time complexities that those options cause. Villian classes, adaptable character generation software, etc. The idea of including products with advanced and classed monsters is a step in the right direction....although this should be a seperate line from the Monster Manuals IMHO.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Re: D&D and complexity, I think a lesson can be learned from Magic.

When Magic first came out, it was pretty rad. And hugely popular. You had your deck, I had mine, and we'd do battle. The very serious players would buy a bunch of decks, and be able to *construct* specific decks, but after a while everyone knew all the cards.

Then they introduced expansions, and, okay, that let people try new things and build new decks. But then they introduced even more expansions, and then more, and more and more and more... and the casual player just threw up his hands and gave up. It was too much. Players with just the basic decks and a couple expansions couldn't compete; they weren't even playing the same game as the hardcore guys.

D&D 3.5 is in the same spot, I think. The guys who compulsively buy the splat books (I'm one of them) are in an entire different league from the guys who play with the core 3 books. They're not playing the same game. That's a problem because D&D is a social experience; you need the DM and his four players to be on the same page. My group, for example, has 2 players who use just the PHB, one player who uses some of the Complete books, and one who has every book and is playing a swordsage from Tome of Battle. The other players just shake their head when the swordsage guy does his thing, and are confused if I introduce a monster, feat, or spell not from the core books.

It's not even about power creep; it's just that there's an apparent disconnect. It's awkward. It's like throwing a party, and some people show up in shorts and t-shirts while others show up in suit and tie. Sure, they're all friends, all drinking and talking together... but it's weird, and the vibe (or the game) suffers.

What's my point? Well, I think it's time to push the reset button on D&D. Get everyone back on the same page, playing the same game.

 

[Hussar]

Ah. That's completely different then. I've come up with a whole evenings adventure in the time it would take me to vet a 3e encounter. I could probably come up with a whole campaign for Dungeon Squad. So, the DM support advantage isn't looking so great to me.

& really, I've played more D&D adventures under non-D&D systems than I have any edition of D&D. My groups have never found leveraging D&D's DM support for other systems hard enough to not play a different system.

Having been accused more than a couple of times of hyperbole here, you can honestly say that it takes more than 2 minutes to check out a pre-written 3e encounter? I can't say that I care if something is off by +1. I don't. But, saying that it takes hours to check the math of a single encounter is far more exageration than anything I said.

How come no one jumps on him?

Having just played classic Traveller & classic D&D campaigns after years of "unified mechanic" games, I find unified mechanics more hype than real value. xdy+z vs. target number just isn't that much more complex than d20+x vs. target number.

Unless, of course, you want to roll low (as in the case of non-weapon proficiencies) or want to roll low using percentile (thieve's skills), or roll high percentile (percentile strength) or as high as I can without going over... or ... or... You're right, using different dice isn't difficult. However, remembering if I want to roll low, or high or in the middle can be a right pain.

() Traveller character generation is awfully simple. You don't have nearly the number of decisions to make as in D&D3e & they're almost all simpler than the various balancing/considering decisions you have to make during 3e character crafting.

My bad. I meant Mega-Traveler where you have a chance of dying during chargen. I never did play Traveler. All I know is it took about 3 hours just to create a basic character without any extra rules.

 

[Flynn]

My bad. I meant Mega-Traveler where you have a chance of dying during chargen. I never did play Traveler. All I know is it took about 3 hours just to create a basic character without any extra rules.

The chance of death was during the early years of CT, and was replaced with only a chance of maiming and getting out of service early. MT never had the chance of death you are speaking of. It was always "wounded and out". Character creation was always under 30 minutes for me, even for a seven-term Scout with one heck of a background story when we were done.

As a big fan of Traveller, I hear this trotted out all the time in regards to Traveller character creation. Hehehe. It's amazing how many people lock on to that one aspect, and never mention that character creation in early versions of Traveller, as it is random, doesn't allow you to make many choices in the actual direction your character develops, such as skill selection or the like. I don't mind it, because MT does give you some choices, and because I like the challenge of playing a random character of that nature. Others don't, and that's okay. We're ultimately not here to talk about Traveller. There are, indeed, a lot fewer choices overall, and Traveller character creation is very easy in comparison to 3E and v3.5. That's the point that was being made, and it would be a shame to use an irrelevant point to take the discussion away from the point of this thread.

Bringing us back to v3.5, as has been mentioned before, people with different levels of access to the various splatbooks tend to end up playing in games where those with the least access have no idea what's going on when someone else pulls out a rule/game mechanic from a book they don't own. If the disparity is great enough, the players with lowest access can feel lost in a gaming environment using rules they didn't even know existed, much less understand. The only way to prevent it is to game to the lowest common denominator.

Now, that would be an interesting house rule: You can't use anything from a splatbook that each member of the gaming group doesn't already own. Hehehe. Oh, and no PDFs....

No, that would never fly, at least with most groups.

I, too, am feeling the burn-out from D&D's too many options. I don't know if it's time to hit the reset button yet, but it's definitely time to start looking at other ways of doing things, and see if burn-out can be avoided. That's ultimately what this thread speaks of, in regards to what I'm getting out of it. YMMV, of course, and that's cool with me, too.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Maggan]

My bad. I meant Mega-Traveler where you have a chance of dying during chargen.

A feature present in Classic Traveller as well.

/M

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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

Can I have it now then?

 

[MerricB]

The DM needs to know all the options currently being used, whether by players or by monsters.

Personally, I don't think that's the case. The DM needs to know all the options being used by monsters - which is in his purview - but not those held by players. Instead, the player must be able to describe the effect to the DM in terms that can be adjudicated.

As a case in point, a Wizard character in my campaign has just taken the Fiery Burst reserve feat from Complete Mage. I haven't actually looked at reserve feats that much - I know the general idea, but not the specifics - but all he had to tell me was it did 8 damage with a Reflex half save to a monster and we were fine.

Most character abilities are like that. Summoned monsters are under the control of the player, etc. A DM might need to check the rules from time to time to make certain they're being followed properly, but for the most case 3.5e writes them in a clear fashion so such checks don't cause undue problems.

This may give problems to DMs who work under the paradigm of "I determine everything", but I've not had many problems with it.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Then they introduced expansions, and, okay, that let people try new things and build new decks. But then they introduced even more expansions, and then more, and more and more and more... and the casual player just threw up his hands and gave up. It was too much. Players with just the basic decks and a couple expansions couldn't compete; they weren't even playing the same game as the hardcore guys.

True even when there were no expansions.

Magic appeals to many different types of players. Read some of Mark Rosewater's articles on the subject at www.magicthegathering.com - they've identified three main personality types (Spike, Johnny, Timmy).

D&D and Magic share in common that you need to play the game with players with a similar outlook to you: if you have a player who is only concerned with "winning" in a group of role-players, then there is trouble brewing.

Cheers!