Realism vs Simplicity in 3.5E

[MerricB]

Browsing on Sean K. Reynold's boards, I came across this quote from him related to the 3.5E Weapon Size issues:

When it comes to designing a game:

<REALISM ------------------- SIMPLICITY>

The more realistic the game becomes, the more bogged down with rules it becomes, and the longer it takes to resolve anything. The 3.0 designers understood that, and deliberately chose to err on the side of simplicity. The 3.5 designers chose to go the other way.

http://p082.ezboard.com/fseankreyno...sageRange?topicID=1706.topic&start=31&stop=35

Did I miss something here? I thought that 3.5E was (in general) simpler and clearer to understand than 3E.

(The main example of this having to do with how monsters are designed in 3.5E compared to 3E).

Cheers!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

This is about as relevant as the time he ripped on a poster for refering to her character as a Sorceress (D&D doesn't use gender-titles) and refering to her magic as "sorcery" (it's all arcane). I stopped paying attention to his rants long ago.

 

[Crothian]

I have actually found 3.5 to be simplier and flow a bit better then 3.0 so I'm not sure what exactly he is refering to

 

[Zappo]

That view is a bit simplicistic (heh). There are other factors. For example, realism beyond a certain point isn't even desirable for D&D.

Also, making a game more realistic doesn't necessarily make it more complex. And making a game more complex doesn't necessarily make it less usable. This is where good design comes into play. 3E is more realistic than 2E (I'm an elf and I'm no longer stuck doing the same job for 800 years! Yay!), and it's quite more complex (feats, skills, combat maneuvers...), but it is arguably easier to use.

As for the specific 3E vs 3.5E, I don't get what SKReynolds is alluding to. Seems to me that the changes weren't so heavy as to suggest a change in the designer's mentality. Some of the changes were towards complexity (DR), some towards simplicity (monsters).

 

[Piratecat]

I detest 3.5 weapon sizes; they're a good example of needless overcomplication, in my opinion. They taked about implementing them in 3.0 but the playtesters balked. Conveniently enough, that's what Sean was referring to.

 

[coyote6]

Isn't this specifically referring to weapon size rules? To wit, saying that a halfling is at -2 to attack with his human buddy's shortsword is somewhat more "realistic", and less simple -- you now have to keep track of the size of all weapons, especially those found lying around the Great and Terrible Monster's lair. In 3e, a shortsword is a shortsword; whoever has proficiency with "shortsword" can use it, no problem. In 3.5e, one of the halfling or the human will not find the weapon especially usable.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I detest 3.5 weapon sizes; they're a good example of needless overcomplication, in my opinion. They taked about implementing them in 3.0 but the playtesters balked. Conveniently enough, that's what Sean was referring to.

I honestly can't see how 3.5 weapon sizes are more complicated than 3.0 weapon sizes.

 

[Crothian]

I honestly can't see how 3.5 weapon sizes are more complicated than 3.0 weapon sizes.

I agree. I've found the weapons sizes to be easy and make sense.

 

[MerricB]

I honestly can't see how 3.5 weapon sizes are more complicated than 3.0 weapon sizes.

Nor I.

Well, possibly, but only because the 3E weapon size rules were full of holes.

Even with the house rules SKR talks about in that thread, I can still have an elf wizard (proficient in longsword) wielding a ogre's longsword (a greatsword dealing 2d6 damage) with no penalty.

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

I have actually found 3.5 to be simplier and flow a bit better then 3.0 so I'm not sure what exactly he is refering to

The weapon size rules perhaps? (Edit: i.e., After reading subsequent posts: I agree with Pkitty.)

Most of the stuff that is simpler in 3.5 isn't simpler because the way the rules function changed all that much, but because they explain it better (AoO.)