Is D&D too complicated?

[kamosa]

I never understood the difficulty some people seem to have with THAC0.

1. Keep adjusted THAC0 noted on your character sheet where you have the rest of the weapon stats noted (damage, speed, range, etc.). Remember that bonuses to hit should *subtract* from THAC0. So if you're a 7th level fighter with weapon specialization, Str 18/14 and a +2 sword, you have an adjusted THAC0 of 10.

2. The AC you hit is equal to THAC0-1d20, with the exception of rolling natural 1s or 20s.

Never was a problem for me.

I never got that either, or why the new system is so much better. It is exactly the same system except now you add instead of subtract from 10.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

3E also has a strong emphasis on the idea that there should be a rule for each situation, not a judgement call. We found that by and large most DMs preferred to have a rule rather than be asked to make an arbitrary decision. We found that players overwhelmingly preferred to have a rule. In my personal opinion, these two factors are related. I think that most DMs just don't do a good job making arbitrary decisions, and they know it. And most players react badly when an arbitrary decision goes against them, and they dislike the experience intensely. In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth. Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.

But, by the same token, the uber-DM who knows every single rule, all Sage rulings, errata, changes in books published later, etc. is also a myth. Just learning where to find a particular rule can be a challenge, much less memorizing them all. The pursuit of a rule for every situation is a chimera - it's simply not possible.

Just to be clear, I support clear rules. Players absolutely need solid rules they can count on - the rules provide the framework within which we make (hopefully) good decisions with (mostly) predictable consequences. The more arbitrary the rules, the less the game revolves around and rewards skillful play. But too many rules creates the exact same situation as too few, as each group/GM uses only the rules they're comfortable with, "winging" the rest because it's too much work to keep track of them.

So the question becomes - how much is too much? What situations really need a rule, and what situations can be left to gaming groups? IMO, 3E crossed the line where more rules makes the game run less efficiently, not more.

 

[teitan]

Hmmm...why hasn't this "subthread" been bumped to the Toxic Waste forum yet?

[Just thinking out loud...]

rolly cause it ended there maybe???

Jason

 

[ThoughtBubble]

To me, it's not so much an issue of mechanics. The d20 mechanic is indeed simple: roll a d20, add the modifiers. The problem, for new players, is coming up with everything which goes into the modifier. The ability and level-based modifiers (BAB, saves) are easy. Skill modifiers are a bit tougher, as you need to thumb through the PHB and figure out how you want to spend them. Then there are synergies. And feats. And conditional modifiers (seems to me way more than 1E). So while the mechanic is streamlined, the devil is in the details. Then there are AOOs., etc... It's alot for new players, even if you have an experienced player/DM to help out. I imagine it's much worse for brand new, never played RPGs folks with no guidance. It was much easier in the 80's with the Basic set(s). WotC has obviously recognized this. (Witness the new basic set.)

Agreed. It's especially true in my case. See, I migrated away from D&D a little while ago (my players have a nasty pre-conception of D&D that makes it less fun). I'd like to run a secondary game, and we're all familiar with D&D, but the investment all around just turns out to be a little too much. I like the system, I like the game, I'd like to play it some, but I simply can't. The "prep in less than two hours" thread was partially motivated by this. The other motivation is that I want something where I can hands someone the standard array, have everyone pick a class, copy down a few numbers, and go. Skills are great and I love feats, but it's just more complex than I'm angling for at the moment. Heck, spell selection is pushing it. If there was only some way to automate it. Theme packs maybe?

So D&D is too complex for the situations where I want an exceedingly simple to set up game.

'Course, discarding a little behind the scenes, and following some advice in here, I might be able to do it, assuming the start could be dealt with correctly.

 

[Belegbeth]

... What I would HATE to see is a separate "Basic D&D" product line emerge again. When TSR released Basic D&D I think they really splintered their market. Those of us who'd been playing Advanced ignored all the Basic stuff, and as the Basic line kept expanding it reduced the impetus of Basic players to "migrate" to Advanced. At least that's my impression of what happened. It got very complicated to explain to people that Basic D&D was actually a completely different game that didn't necessarily lead to Advanced D&D...

The problem with this argument is that the B/X (and later RC) version was so much better than AD&D!

Seriously, there was a demand for both a "rules lite" and a "rules heavy" version of the game. The "rules lite" version could act as a gateway/stepping-stone for the "rules heavy" version, or it could suffice for those players who were happy with it.

The problem with DnD right now is that there is no "rules lite" version. And I don't mean a "rule lite" intro package (like that stupid "The Adventure Begins Here" boxed set), but a distinct separate version of the game for those DMs (and players) who don't care to read two long books in order to grasp all the variables that might come into play in their games (and that might affect their campaign and adventure design, etc.).

Once you have mastered all the details of the 3.x rules they seem very intuitive and simple, but achieving mastery can be tedious and time-consuming (and even with mastery there are always spells and feats that you fail to take into account when designing adventures, etc.).

I am not criticizing 3.x DnD here -- I am running a fun campaign right now, with many variants from UA, house rules, etc. -- but merely pointing out the need for an equivalent to the old B/X rules. During the 80's not everyone had the time or inclination to move onto ADnD -- and I am sure that the lack of a B/X equivalent today has driven many potential players away from the hobby.

 

[frankthedm]

THAC0 kept the riff-raff out!

Damn straight!

Third Edition, everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM

true, true!

 

[Sir Elton]

]Third Edition, everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM[

true, true!

Well, I like to GM/DM 3rd Edition. Actually, I like Troupe Style play myself.

 

[Emiricol]

The problem is that I disagree with your opinion

But to the topic in general - D&D was like a breath of fresh air after D&D of any stripe. I never looked back, nor did most of the people I knew at the time who played.

Having a separate "lite" line is a mistake - TSR proved it, and if it made sense financially, WoTC would have already done it.

On the other hand, other than spell descriptions and equipment costs/descriptions I can pretty much play without the books. I mean, the 1D20 mechanic is pretty darn simple.

The problem with this argument is that the B/X (and later RC) version was so much better than AD&D!

Seriously, there was a demand for both a "rules lite" and a "rules heavy" version of the game. The "rules lite" version could act as a gateway/stepping-stone for the "rules heavy" version, or it could suffice for those players who were happy with it.

The problem with DnD right now is that there is no "rules lite" version. And I don't mean a "rule lite" intro package (like that stupid "The Adventure Begins Here" boxed set), but a distinct separate version of the game for those DMs (and players) who don't care to read two long books in order to grasp all the variables that might come into play in their games (and that might affect their campaign and adventure design, etc.).

Once you have mastered all the details of the 3.x rules they seem very intuitive and simple, but achieving mastery can be tedious and time-consuming (and even with mastery there are always spells and feats that you fail to take into account when designing adventures, etc.).

I am not criticizing 3.x DnD here -- I am running a fun campaign right now, with many variants from UA, house rules, etc. -- but merely pointing out the need for an equivalent to the old B/X rules. During the 80's not everyone had the time or inclination to move onto ADnD -- and I am sure that the lack of a B/X equivalent today has driven many potential players away from the hobby.

 

[babomb]

You know, I'm the only person in my group who fully understands the rules for AoOs. And I'm the only one who knows any of the grappling rules at all, much less the rarely-used (in my group) sunder, bull rush, and trip rules. Most of these guys have been playing since 3e came out (and a few before that). One of them had to look up the rules for psionic DCs (or ask me) almost every time he cast, er... manifested.

Of course, I memorized most of the rules for 3e before it even came out, thanks to Eric Noah's site.

 

[Belegbeth]

Having a separate "lite" line is a mistake - TSR proved it, and if it made sense financially, WoTC would have already done it.
...

Do you have ANY evidence to support this claim? At the height of DnD's success -- the early 80's -- both the B/X and ADnD lines were well supported by TSR. The decline of DnD during the 90's lacked a separate B/X line.

The claim that if something made sense financially, WoTC would be doing it now, is pretty dubious.