It is worth remembering one of the reasons for AD&D - it was to standardise the rules so that players from different games could interact together and have a shared understanding of basic matters like "how combat works". In the days of oD&D, this didn't exist, due to a mass of house rules - because the rule set was seriously incomplete.
For a game you just play with your friends, there is no need for a baseline of the rules system. Any new player can be inducted into the vagaries of your system, and the fun can continue.
However, the moment that people from different games get together - in conventions, tournaments and other forms of organised play - then you need to know what the rules are. Especially if, like the Giants or Slavers series, you are playing in a tournament where mastery of the game is important.
In AD&D, you could be pretty certain of the basics of combat - spellcasting, melee combat, ranged combat. The one area where it fell down (and this was a serious flaw) was in the arcane and contradictory explanation of the initiative system. Thus, many tournaments I saw used their own initiative system - though I do think that such were standardized more often than not due to an article in The Dragon.
Because D&D is, at its heart, a game of combat, it is in the combat system that most of the standardisation must take place. Thus, in successive iterations of the system, we have seen combat get described in clearer and clearer details. Confusing features have been discarded where possible.
But what about Attacks of Opportunity? I hear you exclaim. Indeed. Although AoO have always been in the game to some extent (running away from combat nets a free swing in AD&D 1e), AoOs exist in their current form to get away from another problem: the "roll every turn for initiative" system.
I've seen the way the old initiative system described in two ways:
a) Each player describes their actions, then rolls for initiative (modifying as necessary) and then acts in the order of the roll.
b) Spellcasters declare if they're casting, then initiative is rolled, and non-spellcasters declare when it's their turn.
Frankly, I don't think option b is workable - it ignores too many features like charging, which were called out in the 1e initiative system, or the personal initiative modifiers of 2e.
So, you end up in the situation of the DM having to remember what each PC is doing, then working out the initiative order, and resolving actions. If a spellcaster was hit before a spell was completed, it was ruined.
The difficulties of working out the initiative order every round were simplified in 3e, but the revised system introduced AoOs to adapt for the "ruined spellcasting" rule. AoOs were then expanded for other purposes. Is the resulting system still simpler than 1e's initiative system? I think so, though I know some will disagree.
So: you have a clear combat system. Movement in combat, especially with miniatures, was lifted from the Player's Option books and adjusted.
Basic Combat in 3e is simple. However, what about the special manuevers? What happens when you want to grapple someone?
Because such actions will turn up in play, and they will turn up in Organised Play, standardisation is, again, required. And so the special manuevers in combat are broken down into easily resolved rules. The DM of the home game (and perhaps the OP game) is still free to make up rules for these situations, but most are likely to use the printed rule because it's probably no more complex than any rule the DM might think up.
One will notice that the skills in D&D are much less defined: combat uses and common adventuring tasks are described, but most skills are left up to the DM to adjudicate.
Thus, the basics of the system are described in a fairly simple form - and the options may get slightly more complex.
However, the resolution system is only half the game - if that. Far more important are the actors in the game - the PCs, NPCs and monsters.
Players are going to want abilities that distinguish their PCs from other PCs. This is natural. It is not a problem, because, for the most part, the PC can keep track of the abilities.
It is the abilities on the part of the monsters that cause the problems, as many more monster abilities will be used in a session than PC abilities, or at least available to use, the DM needs to know far more of the options to the game than may be feasible.
We actually saw some fallout from this in 3.5e: several monsters were simplified in the monster manual, losing various spells and special abilities because they added no meaningful abilities to the game, only noise. Honestly, if you have a creature that can cast Melf's Acid Arrow at will, does it really need Acid Splash as well?
NPCs also possess this problem, but magnified, as they are built as the PCs are. Where having 20 abilities for a PC is fun and managable, having so many for an NPC is a pain.
AD&D solved this problem in two ways: Monsters were asymmetric to the rest of the game, they were only meant to be used as Monsters, and had only the very basic information about them. And PCs were limited in what they could do - and very uncustomisable.
However, the drawback of this was a system with much fewer options. The ability to customise the game without changing the rules was extremely limited. One of the best features of 3e, monsters with classes, was only done in an extremely ad-hoc fashion.
I'll emphasise here that the asymmetrical approach of 1e is a perfectly valid way of having a game. Many people (maybe most!) don't actually need the power of 3e. It's like using Microsoft Word: the program has a lot of functions, but most do people use most of them? No!
It's worth noting that 3e allows the simple use of its system, like MS Word does: just don't change the stats in the Monster Manual. Unfortunately, its NPC system took a beating with the loss of the pre-generated NPCs of 3e. (I prefer the new format, but that's because I customise my NPCs - it isn't so great for other people).
As I understand it, C&C has a better core system than 1e, but maintains the asymmetrical monster approach and the simpler PCs. (I'll reserve judgement on how it handles special combat options until I see it). This sounds a valid approach to the game. Of course, it has given up part of what makes 3e so attractive to many people.
Conversely, it doesn't overwhelm the DM or players with options, which can be a great drawback of 3e. Not a drawback for me, though!
So, there you have it: my views on the choices between simplicity and the complexity fostered by more options and choices in the game. Hopefully, you'll find it of some interest.
Cheers!
For a game you just play with your friends, there is no need for a baseline of the rules system. Any new player can be inducted into the vagaries of your system, and the fun can continue.
However, the moment that people from different games get together - in conventions, tournaments and other forms of organised play - then you need to know what the rules are. Especially if, like the Giants or Slavers series, you are playing in a tournament where mastery of the game is important.
In AD&D, you could be pretty certain of the basics of combat - spellcasting, melee combat, ranged combat. The one area where it fell down (and this was a serious flaw) was in the arcane and contradictory explanation of the initiative system. Thus, many tournaments I saw used their own initiative system - though I do think that such were standardized more often than not due to an article in The Dragon.
Because D&D is, at its heart, a game of combat, it is in the combat system that most of the standardisation must take place. Thus, in successive iterations of the system, we have seen combat get described in clearer and clearer details. Confusing features have been discarded where possible.
But what about Attacks of Opportunity? I hear you exclaim. Indeed. Although AoO have always been in the game to some extent (running away from combat nets a free swing in AD&D 1e), AoOs exist in their current form to get away from another problem: the "roll every turn for initiative" system.
I've seen the way the old initiative system described in two ways:
a) Each player describes their actions, then rolls for initiative (modifying as necessary) and then acts in the order of the roll.
b) Spellcasters declare if they're casting, then initiative is rolled, and non-spellcasters declare when it's their turn.
Frankly, I don't think option b is workable - it ignores too many features like charging, which were called out in the 1e initiative system, or the personal initiative modifiers of 2e.
So, you end up in the situation of the DM having to remember what each PC is doing, then working out the initiative order, and resolving actions. If a spellcaster was hit before a spell was completed, it was ruined.
The difficulties of working out the initiative order every round were simplified in 3e, but the revised system introduced AoOs to adapt for the "ruined spellcasting" rule. AoOs were then expanded for other purposes. Is the resulting system still simpler than 1e's initiative system? I think so, though I know some will disagree.
So: you have a clear combat system. Movement in combat, especially with miniatures, was lifted from the Player's Option books and adjusted.
Basic Combat in 3e is simple. However, what about the special manuevers? What happens when you want to grapple someone?
Because such actions will turn up in play, and they will turn up in Organised Play, standardisation is, again, required. And so the special manuevers in combat are broken down into easily resolved rules. The DM of the home game (and perhaps the OP game) is still free to make up rules for these situations, but most are likely to use the printed rule because it's probably no more complex than any rule the DM might think up.
One will notice that the skills in D&D are much less defined: combat uses and common adventuring tasks are described, but most skills are left up to the DM to adjudicate.
Thus, the basics of the system are described in a fairly simple form - and the options may get slightly more complex.
However, the resolution system is only half the game - if that. Far more important are the actors in the game - the PCs, NPCs and monsters.
Players are going to want abilities that distinguish their PCs from other PCs. This is natural. It is not a problem, because, for the most part, the PC can keep track of the abilities.
It is the abilities on the part of the monsters that cause the problems, as many more monster abilities will be used in a session than PC abilities, or at least available to use, the DM needs to know far more of the options to the game than may be feasible.
We actually saw some fallout from this in 3.5e: several monsters were simplified in the monster manual, losing various spells and special abilities because they added no meaningful abilities to the game, only noise. Honestly, if you have a creature that can cast Melf's Acid Arrow at will, does it really need Acid Splash as well?
NPCs also possess this problem, but magnified, as they are built as the PCs are. Where having 20 abilities for a PC is fun and managable, having so many for an NPC is a pain.
AD&D solved this problem in two ways: Monsters were asymmetric to the rest of the game, they were only meant to be used as Monsters, and had only the very basic information about them. And PCs were limited in what they could do - and very uncustomisable.
However, the drawback of this was a system with much fewer options. The ability to customise the game without changing the rules was extremely limited. One of the best features of 3e, monsters with classes, was only done in an extremely ad-hoc fashion.
I'll emphasise here that the asymmetrical approach of 1e is a perfectly valid way of having a game. Many people (maybe most!) don't actually need the power of 3e. It's like using Microsoft Word: the program has a lot of functions, but most do people use most of them? No!
It's worth noting that 3e allows the simple use of its system, like MS Word does: just don't change the stats in the Monster Manual. Unfortunately, its NPC system took a beating with the loss of the pre-generated NPCs of 3e. (I prefer the new format, but that's because I customise my NPCs - it isn't so great for other people).
As I understand it, C&C has a better core system than 1e, but maintains the asymmetrical monster approach and the simpler PCs. (I'll reserve judgement on how it handles special combat options until I see it). This sounds a valid approach to the game. Of course, it has given up part of what makes 3e so attractive to many people.
Conversely, it doesn't overwhelm the DM or players with options, which can be a great drawback of 3e. Not a drawback for me, though!
So, there you have it: my views on the choices between simplicity and the complexity fostered by more options and choices in the game. Hopefully, you'll find it of some interest.
Cheers!
.
