Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[Zappo]

This is an interesting perspective. And a laudable way at playing yourself, I shall add. However, you have to look at the cultural context. The game is presented in such a way as to be imagination light. There is very little "here are some rules for you to take or modify" annd very heavy on "These are The Rules, use them or be Floundering in a Sea of Chaos".

I disagree. The current edition of D&D is by far the most customizable ever, and the books actually directly tell you that you can and should change stuff, develop ideas, and tinker to get the game you want. D&D 3E is a "toolbox" game by design. It's got everything, put together in a modular way. You can take something out and put something in and it will work fine more often than not.

Changing rules in older editions was a nightmare by comparison - I think that the reason for which people forget this is that there weren't rules for lots of stuff.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Yes. 3E is too quantitative.

For me, at least.

 

[francisca]

Changing rules in older editions was a nightmare by comparison - I think that the reason for which people forget this is that there weren't rules for lots of stuff.

Not so, at least in my experience. I've never forgotten what was and wasn't there, as I'm still playing core 1E.

We've never had trouble coming up with rulings right on the spot, and then documenting the ones that were repeated. It didn't detract from the game, nor bring the rest of the system down around it, and didn't add alot of extra baggage (such as flipping through the manuals to find skill sysnergies, or arguing about which bonuses apply), at least not with the people I played with.

The only time I had trouble with people and rules was when official rules were added, such as the Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival guides. That's when the rules lawyers in my group reared their heads, citing "the rules" constantly.

 

[Belen]

D&D is quite quantitative, but the part I find annoying is how complex the quantitative aspects can be, haste doesn't just give you an extra attack it also gives you a +1 dodge bonus, extra movement of a certain amount I have to look up repeatedly, a reflex bonus of a type I have to look up, and an attack bonus. that is just one common spell that means changing stats on a lot of creatures in the middle of combat which might be brought down by dispel magic. And so a summoner with an augmented feat summoning a series of different fiendish creatures then casting group buffs on them quickly takes a bunch of time to crank out the numbers. It makes rapid combat for high level characters against lots of diverse foes more challenging than it needs to be and this is just using pretty core stuff.

Ding, Ding...we have a winner.

 

[Abstraction]

I like the rules to be separate from the fluff. I prefer to add in the fluff myself afterwards because I think that I'm pretty good fluffer.

 

[Belen]

I like the rules to be separate from the fluff. I prefer to add in the fluff myself afterwards because I think that I'm pretty good fluffer.

You might be a good fluffer. I prefer some fluff guidance in the rules because so very many people would not know fluff if jumped into their lap wearing a "fluffy" sign, meowed with a fluff sound, or otherwise engaged them in fluff-related activities.

And the rules are so darn boring to read without them. Sometimes I wonder how the writers of the PHB ever got a date. The book lacks so much personality that only physics prof would love.

 

[der_kluge]

I like the rules to be separate from the fluff. I prefer to add in the fluff myself afterwards because I think that I'm pretty good fluffer.

Uh... nice. I think we have a new winner.

 

[Umbran]

This is an interesting perspective. And a laudable way at playing yourself, I shall add. However, you have to look at the cultural context. The game is presented in such a way as to be imagination light. There is very little "here are some rules for you to take or modify" annd very heavy on "These are The Rules, use them or be Floundering in a Sea of Chaos".

Like MerricB, I am unconvinced. I see a number of places in the core rules where they discuss changing things. I cannot think of any particular instance of the rules saying "Don't change these, Or Else!". Would you care to produce a quote or two that support your position?

Also, like the physician who needs to heal himself, I think perhaps you should take a look at the cultural context. Homebrewing has been part of D&D (and overall RPG) culture for three decades now. D&D started as a homebrew of miniature battle rules. 2e, 3e, and 3.5e all contain instances where common house rules have been absorbed by the core rules. I don't think the writers felt the need to encourage folks to use their imaginations to change the rules as written, because history has shown that such action is inevitable. It'd be like printing "We suggest you use a spoon" on every pint of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream.

Every single book produced by WotC or 3rd party publishers is, in effect, intended for you to use to change the rules. How then, do you get ot the idea that the game tells you not to change rules?

 

[der_kluge]

I agree with Voadam, in that I think it is really a complicated system, and high level combat can really get bogged down in number crunching, especially when lots of high level magic is involved. Really nasty stuff. I had to start brining a calculator to my last game sessions, because those creatures put out so much damage that it just got to be too big of a headache otherwise.


But there's a bit of a dichotomy going on here. I see some people talking about customizable rules, etc, but are the really really all that customizable, as opposed to say GURPS? D20 just doesn't work everywhere, I don't think. I mean, in the game I'm currently playing in, I'm playing a cleric, and I asked the DM if there was ever going to be undead in the game. We hadn't fought any or seen any, and we're 3rd level. So, I have this ability to turn undead that I haven't been able to use, and if I was never going to be able to use it, I wanted to have the option of replacing it with something else. But D&D doesn't really let you do it very easily. So, D&D isn't very portable - the characters are designed with a specific world type and makes certain (*gross*) assumptions about the kind of game you'll be playing in. All the CRs are adjusted to this, all the monetary values are adjusted to this, all the class skills, and modifiers are all adjusted to this. To modify them, or to place them in a world where these assumptions don't hold true automatically makes some classes more powerful, and other classes weaker. Players don't get the option to choose their abilities based on your surrounding. So, you could eliminate undead from your world (not so unrealistic) and then you've just shafted your cleric to some degree. The rules don't easily support that.

I guess what I'm driving at is that some of the classes have *fluff* inherently engrained into them as part of who they are. Clerics turn undead, and druids summon animals for example. So, for me, there is fluff in the system, but it's not the right kind of fluff. A good system should be portable, and world-independent. I should be able to make a balanced cleric in a world devoid of undead, for example. The fluff should add flavor to the rules, not constrain the rules to the world.

 

[Henry]

I agree with Voadam, in that I think it is really a complicated system, and high level combat can really get bogged down in number crunching, especially when lots of high level magic is involved. Really nasty stuff. I had to start brining a calculator to my last game sessions, because those creatures put out so much damage that it just got to be too big of a headache otherwise.

I can sympathize with this, because the numbers at high levels in the D&D system get very hard to manage. I can remember in 1E and 2E that it was a memorable event when a fighter or ranger did 20 or 30 damage at 5th to 9th level; now, the 7th level barbarians and fighters can deal 50 damage a turn on an average day. At high levels, characters walk around with 100-300 hit points, but it's because they have twice the hit dice they used to. In some respects, it was always the same - mages dealt their fireballs, lightning bolts, and cloudkills - but the system raised hit points and attack rates to compensate.

A good system should be portable, and world-independent. I should be able to make a balanced cleric in a world devoid of undead, for example. The fluff should add flavor to the rules, not constrain the rules to the world.

Now I do have a bit of dissent here, because part of the feat system's strength is for making abilities more versatile; there are at least a half-dozen feats for clerics who want to put their turning undead abilities to good use even in undead-poor environments.

On the other hand, I do prefer my feats to inject a little more than just "+X to this skill" or "+Y to this combat maneuver." Exemplary feats to me give you abilities that no class has, or give you contacts in an organization, etc.