Is Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 too Comprehensive?

[MadMaxim]

A friend of mine is all about building his own systems and he's extremely tired of d20, because he thinks it's too comprehensive. He doesn't think that there's any room for creativity in the form of combat maneuvers and that it's all summed up into strange little rules that require a ton of feats to pull off successfully. I seriously disagree with him, it always comes up when we're talking. I know very well that D&D isn't THE game for everything, but seriously, do you think that D&D is too complicated to be creative in?

 

[Faraer]

Of course not, as lots of people are creative 'in' D&D. But the precedent of all these little rules does encourage the idea that you need them to do stuff, and the system's complex intralinking makes inventing those rules non-trivial. And for DMs and players who prefer to improvise and roleplay that stuff rather than have the rules micromanage it for them, all those combat rules and detailed subsystems are just superfluous.

 

[Samnell]

It's not too comprehensive at all.

 

[Ranger REG]

Not comprehensive at all. Like Costco coudn't even stock all the variety of peanut butters from domestic and international companies in the world.

 

[Warlock75]

I fear the comprehensiveness.

 

[Starman]

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. There's lots of systems out there. I'm sure he can find one to suit his likes.

Me, personally, I love d20 and don't find it at all too stifling.