Tell me that D&D 3.0/3.5 isn't really like this

[Akrasia]

.... I like 3.5 alot more than, say, C&C or Tru20 or other lighter, simpler games because the rules are there. They are, by and large, LOGICAL. They flow from the core mechanics of the game. They're not that difficult to learn, and what you can't learn you can surely guesstimate based on how the system works. ...

Point of clarification: the rules 'are there' in both C&C and True20. Those games are both internally logical and complete. Their mechanics are just more general and abstract -- and thus simpler.

The fact that you prefer a more detailed game like 3e does not mean that 'lighter' alternatives lack 'logic' or 'completeness'.

 

[Crothian]

This situation happens in a lot of games when people don't know the rules. It happens in CCGs, board games, sports.,..anything when people don't know the rules. It has a simple solution though, learn the rules. If you don't know how to play the game then you probably shouldn't be playing the game.

 

[Altalazar]

All rules are optional. Rule 0.

 

[Jim Hague]

*gasp!* A thread denigrating d20 on RPG.Net? Never happen. Nope, never.

It honestly sounds (as others have posted) like a player issue and not a system issue. The lesson here is know thy system. The second lesson is beware bias.

D&D's not more complicated than RPG.Net Darlings like Riddle of Steel or Exalted, and yet you rarely see threads in this vein concerning them.

 

[delericho]

Actually, in the Revised book I think it's handled under "reducing someone to zero wounds." (seriously!)

I didn't see it, although you might be right. Anyway, that's where it should be - we never see a limb cut off in a situation that doesn't end the fight, and it's better as a plot point anyway.

They also covered it in a recent Star Wars Q&A column with Gary Sarli with the Obi-Wan and Anakin fight.

LOL, I love the sheer number of mistakes in that example!

First up: the move described only provokes one attack of opportunity, per the Attacks of Opportunity examples in the SWRCR. Second, even with Combat Reflexes, Obi-Wan could only make one attack of opportunity on a single opponent in the round. Third, although we don't know Anakin's Tumble check modifier, I would not be remotely surprised if it weren't high enough that he wouldn't even have to roll - the DC is only 15, after all. (He's not moving through Obi-Wan's space, he's moving a good distance over it.)

Really, what they should have said is something along the lines of: George Lucas isn't bound by the d20 rules, or something similar. In any event, the removal of multiple limbs, as opposed to just one, isn't much of a stretch.

Edit: So you know what I'm talking about: The example.

 

[Krypter]

I hate to disagree with all these fine ENWorld regulars, but D&D 3.x does encourage rules-lawyering and endless looking-up of obscure modifiers, complex feats and esoteric rule sub-systems (psionics, epic, &c.). Even Gary Gygax and Monte Cook have said as much. A good DM can overcome that complexity, but it will slow down a mediocre DM and/or group of players.

Shadowrun had this problem too. It's a problem that derives from injecting too much miniature wargaming into original D&D (yes, ironic, I know). D&D 2E may not have been nearly as consistent as D&D 3E, but that's beside the point because there are simpler and easier systems out there.

I'm firmly of the belief that the biggest barrier to the growth of dungeons and dragons is the unnecessary complexity of the existing miniatures-cum-wargaming rules.

 

[diaglo]

But the problem above is with the group, right? Not the system, right?

Sigh. I need a pep talk. Tell me something to cheer me up.

nope. that pretty much is what i've experienced with the newest editions since 2000.

my hat of d02 knows no limits.

next session this sunday.

 

[Jim Hague]

I hate to disagree with all these fine ENWorld regulars, but D&D 3.x does encourage rules-lawyering and endless looking-up of obscure modifiers, complex feats and esoteric rule sub-systems (psionics, epic, &c.). Even Gary Gygax and Monte Cook have said as much. A good DM can overcome that complexity, but it will slow down a mediocre DM and/or group of players.

Got quotes? How about some page reference numbers for this claim? You're stating opinion as fact, and that's never good.

Shadowrun had this problem too. It's a problem that derives from injecting too much miniature wargaming into original D&D (yes, ironic, I know). D&D 2E may not have been nearly as consistent as D&D 3E, but that's beside the point because there are simpler and easier systems out there.

2E was incoherent as all get out. Am I supposed to save vs. spells, wands or death for that? And again - can you back up your opinion here with facts?
If anything, 3/3.5 streamlined a lot of the rules from previous editions, and as has been pointed out before - comprehensive does not equal kludgy or slow or complex.

 

[BryonD]

I'm firmly of the belief that the biggest barrier to the growth of dungeons and dragons is the unnecessary complexity of the existing miniatures-cum-wargaming rules.

Right, cause all those other RPGs are just growing rings around D&D.....

not

 

[Akrasia]

...
I'm firmly of the belief that the biggest barrier to the growth of dungeons and dragons is the unnecessary complexity of the existing miniatures-cum-wargaming rules.

I too have found this to be a common barrier to entry for new players, especially in my age group (30+). People with full-time jobs often find 3e to be too time-consuming to learn (even people who played an earlier version of D&D years ago).