Pig Champion
First Post
I already do something similar, although I don't use skill lists.
Reducing Options to Increase Fun
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
I already do something similar, although I don't use skill lists.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
If WotC presented a book just like that for those who want it, yeah. Making the DM do the work and research by wading through the rules glut to compile a list for players to themselves wade through hunting for what's available defeats the goal of avoiding rules glut.
IronWolf
blank
Valid points.
When I DM I typically list a set of approved books and then a note that I will look at other items from other books, but it needs to be approved first. I am fairly lenient, I just like to have some control over what is allowed into the game before it becomes a free-for-all that I feel could become unwieldy. I say yes to things more than I say no. In fact I think wacky races is the thing I say no to the most in reality.
the Jester
Legend
A good approach to the "I don't have that splatbook" problem is to vet any feature that a pc wants to take individually before allowing it.
For instance, in 3e I didn't have Dragon Magic or any of the Races of... books, but if a player had wanted to take a feat from one of them, I'd have allowed it or not after reading it. Then I'd want a copy of it on hand in case I need it- again, someone has to own the book, and if you're the one using it, it better be you, because if you don't have it and the guy who does is missing I'm going to have to wing rulings and I'll "assume the worst" in this case (responsibility is on the player to have the material). Obviously, the best way to handle this is to make a copy of the feat or whatever and give it to me so that I have it at hand as needed.
That said, fewer options certainly speed things up if nothing else.
For instance, in 3e I didn't have Dragon Magic or any of the Races of... books, but if a player had wanted to take a feat from one of them, I'd have allowed it or not after reading it. Then I'd want a copy of it on hand in case I need it- again, someone has to own the book, and if you're the one using it, it better be you, because if you don't have it and the guy who does is missing I'm going to have to wing rulings and I'll "assume the worst" in this case (responsibility is on the player to have the material). Obviously, the best way to handle this is to make a copy of the feat or whatever and give it to me so that I have it at hand as needed.
That said, fewer options certainly speed things up if nothing else.
Particle_Man
Explorer
Actually, for 3.5 they did. PHB II has rules in the back for making characters, and except for detailed lists of gear you can use it to, for a large number of classes, choose one of three choices for feats, and then just go with their choices for spells, skills, etc. The class already determine ability scores, race, skills (prioritized and maxed out), gp for gear (and approx. costs for "the weapon", "the armor", etc. by level).
Magic Item Compendium even fills the "gear" hole a bit, by simplifying the "shopping for magic items" for created high level characters.
Of course for characters starting at level 1 it is not an issue.
I believe that D&D Essentials is an attempt to do this for 4e, but don't have the details on it.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Not at all what I'm talking about. Saying someone can go to the back of a few add-on books to the core rules is not the same thing as presenting just a book with nothing but simple choices, yet that are fully compatible at all levels and at power parity with the expanded rules universe found in everything else.
Personally, I've gamed on both extremes of the spectrum, and have been involved in or studied artistic movements at both ends as well.
My take: Restrictions and freedom from them both have merits, but whichever you use should make sense.
When I GM, I tend to err on the side of inclusion. Even so, I've also set boundaries in the interests of fun. For example, my 3.X campaigns tend to be wide-open- just come to me first- but when I run RIFTS, I actually have a list of approved O.C.Cs and R.C.Cs (complete with blurbs describing what their essential natures are) for each book included in the campaign's source material...and there are NO exceptions. With HERO, I tend to let the inmates run the asylum, but ask that if you come up with anything out there- defined as "possibly outside the genre conventions of the campaign"- it needs prior approval. And even something denied may be reworked into something analogous that conforms to the campaign's boundaries.
My take: Restrictions and freedom from them both have merits, but whichever you use should make sense.
When I GM, I tend to err on the side of inclusion. Even so, I've also set boundaries in the interests of fun. For example, my 3.X campaigns tend to be wide-open- just come to me first- but when I run RIFTS, I actually have a list of approved O.C.Cs and R.C.Cs (complete with blurbs describing what their essential natures are) for each book included in the campaign's source material...and there are NO exceptions. With HERO, I tend to let the inmates run the asylum, but ask that if you come up with anything out there- defined as "possibly outside the genre conventions of the campaign"- it needs prior approval. And even something denied may be reworked into something analogous that conforms to the campaign's boundaries.
Hussar
Legend
Fair enough, but, such book completely loses appeal to those who actually want less restrictions and more choices.
Wouldn't it be easier to have all the choices available and then add a page saying, "Here's how to make quickplay characters" than to produce two completely different games?
All I was originally suggesting in that if you want to run later edition D&D as quickly as say, Basic D&D, it's not that difficult. In 3e, yank out the AOO rules, grapple rules, and trip rules (which didn't exist in BD&D anyway), write the class progression from beginning to end with no choices and you're done.
Other than the time to create the classes, this actually wouldn't take a whole lot of time. As was mentioned, the class progressions are done for you in 3.5 edition in the PHB2. 4e might be a bit trickier, but, meh, it can be done.
ExploderWizard
Hero
It is much easier to build a simple game from the ground up than to deconstruct a more complex game.
The entire mode of play for simpler systems is different from a game such as 3.5 or 4E and those differences go farther than character options.
Larger rulesets feel out of place when many of the options that are presented with them are removed.
I think there's more to it than simply removing option from a more complex game. It is equally about kinds of options and how they interact with the rest of the system and how they come out in play.
Let's take for example Power Attack, which I think was a "problematic" option in 3.x and became a "good" option in Pathfinder. Previously, PA gave the player options *every time he rolled to hit* and in so doing required the player to do a whole bunch of math -- and likely non-intuitive math because the kinds of characters likely to use power attack also had chosen a number of other options that complexified (word?) PA. In Pathfinder, by contrast, PA becomes a much simpler option.
I think I made a mistake in the subject of this thread in that I should have said "rules and options" instead of just "options" because I was thinking rules = options (which may not be intuitive to others). A good illustration would be the difference between 2E's "called shots" and 3E's combat maneuvers. They do the same thing, with similar mechanical requirements. However, the 2E called shot is a single rule with a lot of room for interpretation, where the 3E combat maneuvers are a collection of precise rules than, IME, tended to a) drag play to a screeching halt and b) be ultimately bad options without support from other choices (ie feats). IMO, the 2E was is infinitely superior: it is easier to adjudicate for the GM and more versatile for the player -- win-win.
Let's take for example Power Attack, which I think was a "problematic" option in 3.x and became a "good" option in Pathfinder. Previously, PA gave the player options *every time he rolled to hit* and in so doing required the player to do a whole bunch of math -- and likely non-intuitive math because the kinds of characters likely to use power attack also had chosen a number of other options that complexified (word?) PA. In Pathfinder, by contrast, PA becomes a much simpler option.
I think I made a mistake in the subject of this thread in that I should have said "rules and options" instead of just "options" because I was thinking rules = options (which may not be intuitive to others). A good illustration would be the difference between 2E's "called shots" and 3E's combat maneuvers. They do the same thing, with similar mechanical requirements. However, the 2E called shot is a single rule with a lot of room for interpretation, where the 3E combat maneuvers are a collection of precise rules than, IME, tended to a) drag play to a screeching halt and b) be ultimately bad options without support from other choices (ie feats). IMO, the 2E was is infinitely superior: it is easier to adjudicate for the GM and more versatile for the player -- win-win.
