Is 3x D&D a rules-heavy system? Is that a good/bad thing?

[Stormtower]

3.5E is rules heavy and takes dedication to master. Despite the occasional hand-holding needed to introduce new players to the game, I'd have it no other way. I like games that reward system mastery and 3.5E definitely resembles that remark.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

The calculus of rules

I voted "rules heavy; like it that way," but I wanted to clarify how I define the relevant terms. You can interpret "rules heavy" to mean "there are a lot of rules" (rule complexity) or "there is a rule for (almost) everything" (rule coverage). When it comes to combat in 3E D&D, I think both are true. However, rule coverage is a good thing, and rule complexity is the price we pay.

I like rule coverage, because it allows players and DMs to define their expectations. Is my player's barbarian a Conan-like avatar of mighty destruction, or is he a misguided savage with a pointy stick? They also define the range and distribution of possible outcomes, creating moments that are dramatic and suspenseful for everyone at the table, DM included. Does the dragon's breath weapon char the rogue to the bone, or does she drop behind that outcropping in time? Rules with good coverage allow players and DMs to exercise their creative muscles, since they help arbitrate what will happen (with what probability) when the creations of the players interact with the creations of the DM.

For a given amount of rule coverage, rule complexity determines how much of a pain it is to figure out what actually happens at the table (or in the design process for the DM). Clearly, rule complexity and rule coverage are related to one another. I would say that rule complexity trades off rule coverage with another quantity, rule credibility. (Saying that every attempted action succeeds is both simple and covers a lot of ground, but no one would buy it.)

Presumably, WotC's goal with 4E is to reduce rule complexity while maintaining rule coverage and rule credibility (which determine rule enjoyment!). Conceptually, this is no different from the research in my own field (machine learning) to develop models that are both simple and that accurately match the data. Similarly, in statistical regression, you try to find small classes of functions (rule complexity) that match all of the data (rule coverage) with minimal error (rule credibility).

 

[jdrakeh]

Yes, 3x is rules-heavy. I would be far more happy about that if it felt like this heaviness accomplished something that couldn't be done with far less crunch. I still own a lot of 3x books, mind you, but of the many heavy-ish rule systems that I own it easily fares the worst when it comes to measuring complexity versus payoff, IMO.

[Edit: Since there is a lot of comparison going on, I should probably clarify. For me, D&D 3x is just as complex as HERO FRED and slightly more complex than the GURPS Basic Set.]

 

[Psion]

3.x is rules heavy.

The existence of systems that are more rules heavy than 3.x does not change the fact that 3.x is, in and of itself, rules heavy. To suggest that it is not, that implies that that person has not played much at the lighter end of the rules spectrum.

I could just as easily say the converse. Not much of a HERO or Rolemaster fan, eh?

Whether it's good or bad, I have to ask myself "does it take more effort modeling things than it's worth?" For me, the answer is generally, no. At it's core its light; the only thing I would fault is that some conventions like buffs means more at-the-table accounting than tracking than I would like.

 

[Samnell]

I'll go with rules medium. I could do with it being a few pounds heavier. The most infuriating parts of the system for me aren't those where I have all the tools I need to accomplish my goals, but instead where the system just shrugs and tells you you're on your own. The second worst (and their positions swap depending on my mood at any given time) is where the remarkable consistency and coherence they built into the rules goes flying out the window.

I have played, and absolutely despise, rules-light games. I'd rather not play than play one.

 

[SavageRobby]

I voted for rules-heavy, and I don't like it that way. We stopped playing it years ago in favor of other (lighter) systems. I liked a previous poster's system of dividing into rules coverage and rules complexity. Trick is, I think you can have high rules coverage without high rules complexity.


It would be interesting to see the dimensions of players vs. GMs here. For me, I'm primarily a GM.

 

[Woas]

Other.

Yes, I would define it rules heavy. However that isn't good or bad. It just is.

 

[Greylock]

I could just as easily say the converse. Not much of a HERO or Rolemaster fan, eh?

Whether it's good or bad, I have to ask myself "does it take more effort modeling things than it's worth?" For me, the answer is generally, no. At it's core its light; the only thing I would fault is that some conventions like buffs means more at-the-table accounting than tracking than I would like.

Did I profess an opinion as to whether or not "rules heavy" was good or bad? No, I did not. Did I mention any game in particular other than D&D #.x? No, I did not. Did I say that D&D 3.x was more trouble than it was worth? No, I did not.

Fwiw, the two games I've been in most recently are Castles & Crusades, which I would call rules light, and Aces & Eights, which I would call rules heavy. I've also prepped Rifts and 3.0 characters in recent months, so I figure I'm experienced with rules heavy and rules light systems, and do not consider one to be inherently better than the other. They are simply different.

And I still consider 3.x to be rules heavy.

hth

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Other: I'd say D&D is in the middle ground: rules-medium.

 

[Psion]

Did I profess an opinion as to whether or not "rules heavy" was good or bad?

No, but that was part of the topic question. I'm not obligated to limit the scope of my response to your post.