Is D&D too complicated?

[Torm]

I just looked at my last post and it struck me as funny - TORM doesn't like playin' by the RULES!

 

[Henry]

And I'm not even talking about BIG things - things like a shop having Potions of Cure Light for 70gp when the DMG said they were 50gp were an issue with him.

I'm sure to have an interesting talk this weekend.

 

[Desdichado]

barsoomcore, that's what I do as well. However, I'm not sure that "No, because I ignore most of the rules" is the same thing as a plain "no"

Really! I better step up my security.

 

[Desdichado]

And there goes Balance out the window plus a million other things and a bag of chips. Sure you can do it... but should you?

In my case, yes, absolutely I should. The game is fun that way, both for me to run and for my players to play. It wouldn't be otherwise. Balance? My players seem to be appropriately challenged. Sounds like balance is fine to me.

 

[francisca]

I agree, but I don't let players worry me who crunch numbers to the extent of worrying about CR's and EL's. The players in my games are GOING to run into things that are above their ability; knowing when to retreat and re-think a challenge is a learned skill, not a given, and no better way to learn than by example.

I'm fortunate enough not to have to worry about it either. The guys I play with are way more interested in having fun than bickering about rules. When I make a rule gaff, discuss, fix, then move on.

However, I have been in the FLGS a few times and seen some tirades about how the NPC should be out of magic missles, that item costs too much, etc.. I've also had others relate similar stories too me.

Same thing happened in 1E of course, but it seems to me that 3E "backs" the player more.

 

[Desdichado]

Same thing happened in 1E of course, but it seems to me that 3E "backs" the player more.

To bring the whole discussion full circle, that's ironically to facilitate new players. Or more specifically new DMs. I've read (a Monte Cook blog or some such?) that one of the design strategies of 3e was to allow play almost without a DM so that new groups can get started without some experienced showing them how.

 

[Psion]

And I'm not even talking about BIG things - things like a shop having Potions of Cure Light for 70gp when the DMG said they were 50gp were an issue with him.

He'd go nuts in my game. I think fixed prices for anything are whacked, especially in a psuedo-medieval economy. I definitely bring to bear concepts like buyers' and sellers' markets, cost of distribution, and so forth.

AFAIAC, prices in the DMG are a starting point only.

 

[francisca]

To bring the whole discussion full circle, that's ironically to facilitate new players. Or more specifically new DMs. I've read (a Monte Cook blog or some such?) that one of the design strategies of 3e was to allow play almost without a DM so that new groups can get started without some experienced showing them how.

Yep, I know. And I don't object. 3E does in fact limit the impact of poor DMs because everything is so well defined. In theory (and practice) experienced DMs and groups are going to hack the ruleset anyway, so except for handing them an axe to grind ("the system is too defined and dumbed down for newbie DMs") there is no downside. (Note that I'm not grinding that axe. I moan a bit about how long it takes to craft a high level NPC, but I see the wisdom in the idea of defining most of the situations a DM will face. There is a price however: $90 and about 1,000 pages.)

Hell, I've even speculated that someday there will be a DM-less option for D&D. Take the miniatures game, bundle it with a choose-your-own adventure type of scenario, and you are off.

 

[hexgrid]

To bring the whole discussion full circle, that's ironically to facilitate new players. Or more specifically new DMs. I've read (a Monte Cook blog or some such?) that one of the design strategies of 3e was to allow play almost without a DM so that new groups can get started without some experienced showing them how.

Monte Cook said: (from http://montecook.com/diary3.html )

One thing, for example, that we tried to do was to "take the DM out of the equation" as much as possible. Now this has caused its own share of problems, but the reason we did it was to make the game as easy as we could for new players. If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn.

I think this is the root of almost all the complaints about d20 that have been showing up in recent threads. DMs feeling bogged down by the rules have let this aspect of the game take over the campaign.

Once you recognize the issue, I think it's easy to fix.

 

[Belen]

Yep, I know. And I don't object. 3E does in fact limit the impact of poor DMs because everything is so well defined. In theory (and practice) experienced DMs and groups are going to hack the ruleset anyway, so except for handing them an axe to grind ("the system is too defined and dumbed down for newbie DMs") there is no downside. (Note that I'm not grinding that axe. I moan a bit about how long it takes to craft a high level NPC, but I see the wisdom in the idea of defining most of the situations a DM will face. There is a price however: $90 and about 1,000 pages.)

Hell, I've even speculated that someday there will be a DM-less option for D&D. Take the miniatures game, bundle it with a choose-your-own adventure type of scenario, and you are off.

Bad design strategy. Almost every gamer I know was recruited by a more experienced player. So, basically, a GM-less game mean a tactical board game with no story.

Thing is, once you remove the GM, then you begin removing the need to have groups. Isn't finding enough players a bigger barrier to entry and getting a GM? Of course, once you have a GM-less game, then why not just have a board game that you can play yourself with a choose your own adventure story. Choose one path and the "story" tells you what monster to put down in order to fight. It even gives you the tactics of the monster!

Yay?