Is D&D too complicated?

[Aries_Omega]

d20 and me

I been playing since basic red box D&D and DMing since 1st Edition. My campaign has been through all three and by and far I love 3E.

It takes longer for a character, but writting up adventures are pretty easy now. That and my house rules book is whiddled down a bit. It has the benefit of 1E in that a DM has alot of pull to do what they want, yet is there is enough codified material that you have a ruling on things like 2E and the math is simpler and things make more sense....ie the THAC0, AC and rolls. A common question I got from new players was something like this "I need an 18 to hit a guy with an AC of 0, but an 8 for a AC 10?? Why....10 is a bigger number then 0".

IMHO 3E is the best thing to happen to AD&D since...since....I dunno since Greenwood? And it is OGL....meaning you can make your own worlds up and publish them....every gaming geek dream right? Or just mine?

AriesOmega

 

[Belen]

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



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.

Not so easy. It requires tacit agreement from the entire group. Players may not be willing to give up the power advantage given in 3e.

For me, the wonder of the game has been stamped into the mud in favor of balance and rules.

 

[Desdichado]

Yep, that's what I was remembering. I think they may have overdone it (see my earlier comment about the other four d20 games WotC has produced in one book that are completely ... complete, for instance) but overall, it's not a bad strategy on the face of it.

And are these hypothetical rules-lawyery players really that common? I don't know that I've ever played with one, much less having one in my current group.

 

[Belen]

I been playing since basic red box D&D and DMing since 1st Edition. My campaign has been through all three and by and far I love 3E.

It takes longer for a character, but writting up adventures are pretty easy now. That and my house rules book is whiddled down a bit. It has the benefit of 1E in that a DM has alot of pull to do what they want, yet is there is enough codified material that you have a ruling on things like 2E and the math is simpler and things make more sense....ie the THAC0, AC and rolls. A common question I got from new players was something like this "I need an 18 to hit a guy with an AC of 0, but an 8 for a AC 10?? Why....10 is a bigger number then 0".

IMHO 3E is the best thing to happen to AD&D since...since....I dunno since Greenwood? And it is OGL....meaning you can make your own worlds up and publish them....every gaming geek dream right? Or just mine?

AriesOmega

It's great if you're a player. You really have the option to make a character that does things that you enjoy. In that respect, things are great.

Otherwise, you're a glorified operating system.

 

[hong]

Yep, that's what I was remembering. I think they may have overdone it (see my earlier comment about the other four d20 games WotC has produced in one book that are completely ... complete, for instance) but overall, it's not a bad strategy on the face of it.

And are these hypothetical rules-lawyery players really that common? I don't know that I've ever played with one, much less having one in my current group.

I know some people who know the rules in the books off by heart (or close to it). If I was to use the hoary old roll/roleplaying distinction, they'd definitely be way off the roll end of the scale. None of them have had any problems with campaign-specific house rules that aim to provide a specific flavour. They may not like the flavour itself, but that's not the same thing as not liking house rules per se.

It's much more a personality issue than anything else, IMO. That cuts both ways; a stubborn DM can cause just as much grief as a stubborn player. In particular, people with a clear chip on their shoulder about the One True Way of Gaming can easily cause hackles to rise.

 

[Belen]

And are these hypothetical rules-lawyery players really that common? I don't know that I've ever played with one, much less having one in my current group.

Very common, although I would not call them rules lawyers. That implies that they manipulate the rules. Instead, they just know them very well and can use them to create very effective characters.

Then, we look at things like the RPGA. The GM in that game seems to follow a set formula with no wiggle room. It's like everything is scripted and the GM just runs encounters and feeds pre-generated plots.

And they are very common with people who started with 3e rather than came from other editions. People who started with 3e have been taught that players deserve access to feats, classes, items and beyond. They have been taught that strict adherence to the rules is good, while deviation is arbitrary and bad. They have been taught that deviation from the rules automatically means that the GM will screw them over.

 

[francisca]

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.

As Dancey pointed out, recruitment by experienced gamers is, and probably always will be, the most dominant way to get new players into the game. However, in the interest of driving revenue, WotC will need to find ways to increase sales, which means tapping those that aren't exposed to experienced players.

And yes, a GM-less game is a tactical board game with no story. Not only do a lot of D&D groups play it that way already, but look at Mage Knight. There is obviously a market for that kind of game. If there exists a similar game which leads to D&D, is that a bad thing?

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?

I don't think finding players is the problem. There are lots of people interested in other games like CCGs and clicky miniatures who would probably like to play D&D, but don't want to DM because of the time it takes. Next time I'm in the FLGS I think I'll ask all the guys flopping cards and clicking bases.

And yes, I agree board games and choose your own adenture stories are not D&D, or any kind of RPG. Just because I look at the gaming market and speculate about a strategy does not mean I advocate or like the strategy. I'm just wildly guessing what a big company might do to try to make some money.

 

[Umbran]

Players may not be willing to give up the power advantage given in 3e.

Yes, but that's a problem with the players, not the rules. At the gaming table, all folks must be willing to flex a bit to help others (including the DM)have fun. If some people refuse to do that, this is not a fault in the rules, it is a fault in their teamwork.

I know such people exist. However, I agree with Joshua Dyal that their influence and frequency are being largely overstated. The majority of folks, when presented with a fellow gamer who politely and simply asks, "Could you please stop doing that? It is making the game much less fun for me," will accede to your request.

But, in the end, if you feel the game's wonder really has been stomped into the mud, there's the simple expedient of playiing a different game, including previous editions of D&D. If it's so all fired horrible for you, doing something else is an option. And that's not a "stop playing in my pond" statement. It's a recognition that you gotta do what you find fun. If you don't find 3e D&D fun, do something else! Life is too short to spend on leisure pursuits that hold no wonder for you.

 

[Belen]

And yes, I agree board games and choose your own adenture stories are not D&D, or any kind of RPG. Just because I look at the gaming market and speculate about a strategy does not mean I advocate or like the strategy. I'm just wildly guessing what a big company might do to try to make some money.

No worries. I am not trying to pick on anyone. I understand where you're coming from. My main issue is the WOTC policies and not with any posters, players etc. I hate the way they have promoted the game in the last few years.

 

[teitan]

3rd edition is very complicated, but I think most gamers can handle it. The one thing I have noticed is that since D&D has so many rules, and 99% of them make sense, many players and DMs expect there to be a rule in the book for every situation. When there isn't and there has to be some interpretation, a large discussion breaks out. It's as if the rules belong to both the players and the DM and there has to be some sort of concensus reached on every point. That's fine, but at what point do the rules take over the game, at what point is form more important than function?

Except that this is all about NEW gamers. Sure we experienced gamers have no problem with it but Billy Kid might have a lot of problems if he tries to just jump into the game without being taught to play...

Jason