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

[Crothian]

Every time one of these threads comes up (and there are a lot of them, enough to indicate...something),

Right, but there are too many variables. It can indicate a bad DM or bad players. It can indicate that the play style of the group doesn't fit D&D. It can be just someone complaining and trolling. D&D is seen as a rules heavy game especially with the explosion of seemingly rules lite games these days. So, maybe D&D now a days is being written for D&D fans more so then a general audience.

It could mean there are plenty of people trying to take the square peg of D&D and fit it into a round hole. I think D&D's biggest fault is it is not for everyone.

 

[Crothian]

Your game of choice.

PHB
PHB II
DMG
DMG II
MM

two of which actually aren't core books. :\

 

[JoeGKushner]

"Know Thy Rules." Who are you? Moses? When I have some time to memorize five core books and 78 options, I'll be sure to do that.

Well, one of the things that I've heard a lot of, is how much simplier older editions were. I think that in some cases, because of the different subsystems in them, that's nonsense and that it was just the length of time that people played them, that they came to know those rules.

Now people have a ton of options and don't actually you know, stick with a single system for more than a handful of games citing things like complexity and comparing it against 20 years of memories of a game system that they probably memorized. For exmaple, if you still know what Thaco menas... you've memorized a rule.

 

[Azul]

I've seen occasional gaming sessions like that, but usually my players won't argue too much about it when I decide to handwave to keep things moving. Obviously, I expect players to be familiar with the rules involved in their normal tactics. When they do something odd but that I know is in the rules, I unleash a few players on the PHB to find the details. Within 1 minute, I'll almost always have one of them reading out the relevant text.

If the action in need of rules clarification doesn't have any major impact on the next player's action, I get that next player to tell me what they are doing and then go back to the player with the now clarified issue. We'll resolve that and get moving. If we cannot move forward without that clarification, I'll grab a book myself and try to speed things up.

If it takes more than a few minutes, I'll make an ad hoc ruling and declare that we'll look for the relevant rule (if any) after the game. Usually the ad hoc rulings aren't argued much. However, on nights where I'm tired (i.e. not the best ad hoc calls) and/or one of my rules-geeks is feeling argumentative (they have bad days too), we'll usually argue a bit until the other players interrupt us with a "can we get on with it?". Typically, this will quickly be followed with either my original ad hoc ruling or a compromise (if the arguing player raised a good point).

 

[Akrasia]

.... If you're going to claim that minis limit growth of D&D players you may as well go on to claim that Bono's haircut limits the sales of U2 albums.
You can argue with success, but you look silly when you do it.

Quite simply, your personal preference is at odds with the market.
Stating what you prefer is one thing.
But trying to overwrite the overall market reality with your limited experience is just an exercise in denial.

I'm sorry, but this is painfully unclear. It is both illogical, and a fine example of poor rhetoric. What precisely is your point?

D&D has always been the predominant game in the RPG industry. That has never changed, and is certainly true now.

I fail to see how that fact is incompatible with the fact that the rules of 3e pose a barrier to many new players (not all, of course, but many).

Nothing in your reply has shown why my original point is untrue or incorrect.

It is interesting to note that the old 'D&D Basic Set' sold a full one-million copies in its final year of publication (1989). It sold an average of 1 million copies every year throughout the 1980s. During its run, that basic set provided a very easy 'entry way' to new players. Nothing comparable exists now (the 3e Basic Set is not a full game).

 

[Akrasia]

... EDIT: As further proof contrary to D&D discouraging people from entering the hobby, look at games like Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades and the Mongoose Publishing d20 variants. If D&D ran so many people off, instead of simply being the favorite whipping boy for people who've got a burr on about the system, none of these games would have been possible.

This isn't "proof" of anything. All it shows is that 3e D&D, for a variety of reasons, occupies a dominant position in the RPG industry (as D&D has always done), and that some companies like Mongoose and Green Ronin want to take advantage of that fact. C&C is something of an exception, since it is being deliberately marketed at people who dislike 3e (and instead want a 'rules lighter' FRPG, or prefer some version of pre-3e D&D).

 

[Templeton580]

two of which actually aren't core books. :\

You are correct; I just checked WotC and the II's are listed as "Accessories." See? I'm not unreasonable, I was mistaken and everything.

It could mean there are plenty of people trying to take the square peg of D&D and fit it into a round hole. I think D&D's biggest fault is it is not for everyone.

I don't think that's a fault; things made for everyone aren't usually much good to anybody. And D&D is obviously great for a lot of people. Not me, though.

 

[Akrasia]

The rules really are not that complex. I've taught a nine year old to play and adults. I seems to me that some people are just to lazy to learn the rules and then they complain the rules are to complex.

I've taught lots of people to play too. The core ideas are not that complex. Things get bogged down with all the modifiers that arise during play, the need for a battlemat, running NPCs (all with different feats, skills, etc.), and so forth.

ALso, eliminating the D&D magic system gets rid of about 50 percent of the 'complexity' IME.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think that's a fault; things made for everyone aren't usually much good to anybody. And D&D is obviously great for a lot of people. Not me, though.

Which is good as not everyone can realize the game they are playing is not for them so they continually hit their head against it.

 

[Jim Hague]

This isn't "proof" of anything. All it shows is that 3e D&D, for a variety of reasons, occupies a dominant position in the RPG industry (as D&D has always done), and that some companies like Mongoose and Green Ronin want to take advantage of that fact. C&C is something of an exception, since it is being deliberately marketed at people who dislike 3e (and instead want a 'rules lighter' FRPG, or prefer some version of pre-3e D&D).

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding - D&D retains market dominance because it does attract new players, and thus brings in new revenue. GR and Mongoose used the influx of gamers back to 3e and a coherent rulesset to put out some excellent games (bringing in more gamers), and though they might market against D&D, C&C has benefitted from the market surge of new gamers as well. If you disagree, that's fine; we really can't go further, since neither one of us has access to actual numbers.

I do offer that D&D 3.0 brought me and half a dozen others back to D&D, and through that to games like Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft and other d20 variants. One thing you can't argue with is results.