Roleplaying since the 80s and I'm really tired!

[Aeolius]

Has the OP seriously played nothing but D&D for thirty years without even looking at the myriad other tabletop RPGs out there? Seriously?

That's not so difficult to believe. I started with Basic, then Expert, then Advanced (1e). I experimented with Traveller and Gamma World but only for one-shots. Then it was on to 3e/3.5e. When 4e came along, I looked at PF and downloaded some of the rule books but have yet to use them. Since 1995, when I started running games exclusively online, I have run four campaigns; a 1e PbP (Into the Land of Black Ice), a 1e chat-based game (Penance of the Damned), a 1e/3e PbP (Beneath the Pinnacles of Azor'alq), and my current game, a 3.5e chat-based game (Heirs of Turucambi) that I started in 2007.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Has the OP seriously played nothing but D&D for thirty years without even looking at the myriad other tabletop RPGs out there? Seriously?

Not sure how you got that impression, but that's obviously my fault.

I've dabbled with other systems, of course. Stormbringer. Gurps. Others. Most recently, I tried Shadowrun (4e) for the first time. But for the most part, D&D has been my primary game of choice. Like so many other players, it was my entry point into the RPG hobby and has been the standard by which all other games are measured. I hope everyone can understand why that is because, as with any other debatable topic, explaining that could be a whole other subject for discussion.

And to be fair, I have asked myself why I stuck with it for so long. The answer was fairly simple. I was already well-versed and familiar with the settings, the specifics, and the broad scope of rules (no matter what edition) that go with it. Trying Shadowrun for the first time, I eventually hated the fact that, after four weeks, I was still needing to look up even the most fundamental aspects of the game because I lacked the familiarity with setting and scope of the rules. I want to play a game without feeling like I need to invest more time reading up on it. And we were sticking with just the core book!

I know there are games out there that have depth and exploration without the need for clunky/complex mechanics. And somewhere within every RPG ever made is a fundamental game that can be explained, taught, and enjoyed without insisting on the need for 300+ page manuals to do so. Core products need to provide a complete experience with mechanics that are simple and easy to learn, while supplemental materials should be made to enhance that core product. If you expect non-gamers to get into this hobby, give them something that is fast and easy to enjoy. Then they can decide for themselves if they want to invest in more game with more opportunities than just options.

 

[Kharon]

Jacob it was great to see this thread and the fact that others out there are as frustrated as our gaming group has become. Our group came together in the early 1990's and has wandered back and forth between gaming systems for 20 years now. I started playing at the age of 10 with a copy of the third edition of Chainmail. Things have moved a lot since then and I too have complete sets of all the books from basic thru 3.5 and Pathfinder as well as numerous other gaming systems but our group always comes back to our core campaign that I have been running since 1992. The characters may have changed but the world is the same. One I drew up by hand origionally (i am a cartographer by trade) and later imported into Campaign Cartographer. There is a discussion right now in the group if we should shift the game into pathfinder but to date that is unresolved. 4th edition fell flat on its face with our group and we never went past picking up the base book set.

As for the fact that the 3.5 books now comprise 2 full shelves on a bookcase and the supplements an additional 2 shelves well I agree it would be nice if we could have the depth and experience without the need for all the mechanics but in all of our explorations of other games which litter my shelves we have yet to find one that we really enjoy. The closest was probably Savage worlds but even that died after about 6 months.

Well here is to keeping trying new games!!! Huzzah!!!

Kharon

 

[Nellisir]

Has the OP seriously played nothing but D&D for thirty years without even looking at the myriad other tabletop RPGs out there? Seriously?

As Aeo-"I do it underwater"-lius said, it's not that hard. I've looked at other systems, but never found one that was interesting and had a group interested in playing it. My time is limited, and I can tell the stories I want to tell with D&D. So why waste it forcing my players to play something they don't want to tell, and learn a system they're not interested in, to scratch an itch I don't have?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I find people weird, too. They seem to have a simple answer for everyone else's problems or opinions because, for whatever reason, it doesn't apply to them. So let's see if I can help you to understand why it might still be a problem for people who might not be so weird.

First of all, I'm assuming you have a bias for 3rd Edition since you only mention your experience with it. I played it as well, so I can agree that it wasn't difficult to ignore the extraneous or supplemental material that was truly considered "optional". Heck, 2nd edition was even easier; they had sourcebooks that had the title "Option" in it! (i.e. Player's Option - Combat & Tactics, Campaign Option - Council or Wyrms, etc.)

Fourth Edition, however, was a different story. WotC (Hasbro) was smart, but they were only thinking of themselves. See, there was no longer a set of three books to define "CORE" of the game because everything was considered "core". So every book or supplement had something for everyone! PHB1 was *not* acceptable to stand alone, unless you were fine with cutting out traditional options for characters, like half-orcs, gnomes, bards, and druids. (That's the short sample list, btw.) Later on, they decided on a new approach to produce the "Essentials" line of TEN "all-you-need" products as the new core line. Yet, it was unsatisfactory as they attempted the ever-tricky line of introducing a whole new design philosophy without trying to make all the previous products invalid or obsolete. Ultimately, it was not a very good plan.

All that aside--and I must apologize for the forthcoming tone, but --what makes you think that "people like me" need to listen to people like you who believe we don't already do what you do, that we aren't capable of deciding for ourselves what we want or don't want, or that anything you do may not be anything anyone else wants to do? You said it yourself, "I am just sad they don't churn out more in the category I like." Everyone's 'category' is different, my friend. Some people get what they want, while some wish they could have more. You are just basically telling me if I would be happier if I were just... well, YOU.

So what I will take from this is that YOU are happy with the game of your choice, which is great! Your game is still supported strongly with a great fanbase, and I may yet decide to return to it someday and be as happy as you are. But it seems you don't care for the next edition, or even the previous one (ie 4e), so I don't expect you can even relate to what I said in my original post. I don't normally waste time responding to negative comments, but it is important for me to show everyone else why comments like yours might be offensive to someone else.

PS I actually used Red Hand of Doom for parts of a 4e campaign! Still my favorite adventure in any edition! Game on!

EDIT: And for the record, I did not intend to single blackbrrd out because there are a few other similar responses in this thread. Everyone take their share accordingly.

No problem getting "singled out", I did write that post to show a completely different view from what you presented. I am currently playing 4e (as a player) and have DM-ed two different 4e campaigns (short ones).

Sure 4e was a bit bland with just the PHB and I agree that adding a few books to make it have some more width and depth will probably make it better. At the same time there is no need for you to buy the 10 essential books at all. Actually you don't have to buy any of them.

Even if there are around 20-30 books for 4e that are "core" you as a player - or dm don't have to go along with that. Personally, I think it's just too much "stuff" and it detracts from my game. The reason I went for just PHB/DMG/MM for my 3e game wasn't that I didn't want it to complicate and clutter up my game. I had access to basically every book since two of my players buys just about every book that gets published for DnD.

It seems that you feel you have to buy every book that gets published - well you don't. Get the 2-3-4 whatever amount of books you feel comfortable with and stop there. I am currently playing 4e and none of the other players have any grasp on the character creation process. There is just too much information. The DM has some grasp of it, but not great.

In my view, 3e was pretty smart with the limited number of core classes and a large number of prestige classes. I think 4e messed that up with its jumble of 20-40 core classes. In addition, 4e is really really really verbose when it comes to presentation and I am not enjoying that aspect of the game. The entry into the game is just too big, and presenting it all as core is messy.

... At the same time, I do have a free will and I won't put up with it and I am going to limit the resources available for character creation for my next campaign. I am doing it to get focus back to the role-playing aspect of character creation and back from the mechanical aspect. If there is a player that has a concept that won't work with that subset of rules, I will most likely just house-rule it, just as I did with my 3e Red Hand of Doom campaign.

Conclusion:
I think 4e can be a bit messy and 20-30 "core" books is too much. Due to that I will be limiting the books used in my game. I will probably use 3-5 of the books. A bit more than in 3e, but that's mainly due to 4e being very verbose.

If any of the players feel their Druid or whatever is a bit limited due to few options, I am going to have some fun giving away some house-ruled bonuses. An example from my 3e game was the wizard that got the ability to spontanous convert spells into summoning/conjuration spells.

 

[Elf Witch]

I actually meant the total karma, including the spend one.
Anyway, 5E is out soon, maybe you this will bring the mage back in line.

I don't remember I am sure I have it written down. Alas all my gaming stuff is in storage. I lost my home and am renting a very small room. Which has showed me the importance of PDFs. While I still love a printed book the PDFs have made my life simpler.

 

[haakon1]

interesting original post. Quoting the parts that ring true to my experience/feel on this.

I've been playing living with this game for about three decades.
. . .
I'm tired of learning how to deal with new systems since they all have flaws, too.
. . .
Nor do I need a character system with so many choices and options ... You don't need one million options available just so you can make the right one.
...
Yes, I can write out a character sheet by hand. I've been doing that probably since before a lot of gamers on these message boards were born. Doesn't mean I don't want to, especially with as much detail that is needed to fill out a functional character sheet
...
the true "feel" of any DnD game (to me) ... is a group of people, sitting around a table with make-believe characters and stories, collaborating to tell stories of adventure, action, suspense, and glory! It is about people having fun, not digging in rulebooks to find some obscure detail, or arguing about how all characters can be no better or worse than anyone else's, or whining about when/how their character is going to stand out
. . .

 

[Jacob Lewis]

In my view, 3e was pretty smart with the limited number of core classes and a large number of prestige classes. I think 4e messed that up with its jumble of 20-40 core classes. In addition, 4e is really really really verbose when it comes to presentation and I am not enjoying that aspect of the game. The entry into the game is just too big, and presenting it all as core is messy.

... At the same time, I do have a free will and I won't put up with it and I am going to limit the resources available for character creation for my next campaign. I am doing it to get focus back to the role-playing aspect of character creation and back from the mechanical aspect. If there is a player that has a concept that won't work with that subset of rules, I will most likely just house-rule it, just as I did with my 3e Red Hand of Doom campaign.

And I agree with this. In fact, that is exactly one of my points!

I don't understand why you feel the need to tell me the most obvious advice--like "you don't have to buy any of them" because that never occurs to anyone who possesses "free will" and has decided not to "put up with it"--but it seems to me you can relate to my perspective more than you want to admit. I'm not looking to rally support or start a revolution. I'm just looking for people in the same boat and tell them its ok to stand up for how you feel about it. Welcome aboard!

 

[Blackbrrd]

And I agree with this. In fact, that is exactly one of my points!

I don't understand why you feel the need to tell me the most obvious advice--like "you don't have to buy any of them" because that never occurs to anyone who possesses "free will" and has decided not to "put up with it"--but it seems to me you can relate to my perspective more than you want to admit. I'm not looking to rally support or start a revolution. I'm just looking for people in the same boat and tell them its ok to stand up for how you feel about it. Welcome aboard!

My original point was more about why you felt you needed to start a thread on this subject. You do seem to be agreeing with me here that you can just drop all the extra supplements you really don't want or need?

I really appreciate a lot of the changes 4e added:
- No save-or-die
- Attack rolls and non-AC defences instead of saving throws
- 55/45 saving throws instead of durations
- Death at negative 50% instead of a flat number
- Death after failing death saving throws instead of bleeding out 1hp at a time
- Interesting "spells" for melee characters
- Encounter powers
- Healing surges
- Second wind

That they also introduced a incredibly verbose way of writing the classes with completely seperate powers for each class and adding twenty or so extra classes is something I didn't appreciate as much, but I don't quite see the point of complaining about having too many options.

When it comes to your rant about the character sheet being big in 4e, it's only because you print the whole power descriptions. If you had done the same with a 3e spellcaster with the spells you could use (especially a cleric or druid), you would get a 10x higher page count. The result of this is that there is very little time spent with the books in 4e, much lower than in 3e, since in 3e you could have to consult the books if you didn't know all the 2-300 hundred often used spells by heart. (Yeah, I did actually know many of them, but that isn't really anything I would give 3e credit for).

Basically, every edition of D&D has it's up and downs. Which one you end up playing usually has nothing to do with if it's better or worse than the other, but more about your play style and subjective preference.

5e looks to be more of a mix of the previous editions instead of a pure evolution and this probably partially due to some of the issues you have mentioned. It looks like they want to shed some of the weight they added with 4e. Except for the non-scaling attack bonuses and defences, I really don't like the character generation so far and the reports from assorted play-testers on this forums do mention that the "math" doesn't really add up too well so far. I have no idea if I will like the finished product.

 

[innerdude]

Let's take a step back. How about the Basic Edition (or BECMI series) of DnD?

From an entry-level, or new player perspective, you had everything you need to play in one box. A single booklet contained enough rules, monsters, and guides for both players and DMs to enjoy the first few levels of play. There was even an adventure module to get you started. Do we really need all 20-30 levels of play right from the start? I'd argue that you don't. Long term campaigns are hard to maintain. Many groups barely make it past a certain point. And most people may not care to play past a certain point. They want something more casual. So why make them buy more than they can use? It should be enough to get people interested, try it out, and decide for themselves if they want more. If you give players a good, solid and complete game before reaching its "end game" level, then let them decide for themselves if they want to invest in the "next" stage (or tier) of the game.

The 4th edition approach really failed in this regard. I wasn't even interested enough to look until PHB2 came out a year after its release. Why? Because the game felt like it was only half done. Where was the half-orc and the gnome? Where was the bard, the barbarian, and the druid? How could this be a current DnD game with those iconic pieces missing from the start? And why do I need everything to get my campaign to level 30 (or even 20!) right away? New game means I should be taking some time with the basics, which starts at the lowest level tier. Get me to level 10 for now and let me enjoy it. By the time my group is ready to move beyond (i.e. decide if we want more from the game), then we should see the next book coming out to take us into the next stage of the game.

It may be hard for some people to believe, but not every campaign or group needs to reach the maximum level of play to be enjoyable. There *should* be allowance for casual gamers to enjoy the same game, and many stay away from it because it is specifically catered to the more dedicated and hardcore crowd. You want new players in the hobby? Lighten the load for them. Just because the game system is capable of carrying a group for months and years in the same storyline doesn't mean that should be the expectations of all.

Wizards/Hasbro has this idea that many people don't play the game because they haven't marketed it more towards them. Marketing has nothing (well, almost nothing) to do with it. People look at it and see dozens of books around a game table and think to themselves "Do I really need to buy all this just to play a game?" And gamers can argue or explain that all they really is one or three Core books all you like behind your stack of "optional" material. You know they're thinking to themselves, "So why don't any of you have just those books??"

Dominion is the perfect example of this. The original complete game works perfectly by itself. The add-ons are wholly optional, though if you're a fan of the game the aaditional strategies make the core even more fun.

At $44.95 a pop for a large dominion set, you'd think there's a model there for D&D to follow.