Trimmin da fat

[Treebore]

Get rid of AoO's (with the exception of leaving/running from a battle) and nothing but the PH for the players I'd be willing to DM 3E again. There are things from the "Complete" books I would be willing to let them use, but they would have to be happy with me spoon feeding it to them as treasure found as spellbooks or other "arcane lore".

Plus PrC's would only be based on what I want in the current campaign.

There are a couple of rules from UA and PH2 I would also be open to players using.

 

[Felix]

So what exactly are we paying ninety dollars for if everythings a guideline.

You're paying $90 for other people to have done the work of putting rules and monsters together in three hardbound books, along with cool pictures. If you like most of the guidelines, then those guidelines make it into your games as rules. If you like everything but one rule, and you have your house rule for that, would it still not be worth it to pay someone else to print and bind every other rule you like for you?

This type of logic ranckles me because its like saying nothing can be wrong with the game cause it's not a game, it's guidelines.

Your complaint about the CR system in particular was that they provided it, and not a set of guidelines. The CR system is a set of guidelines. I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the game, but rather that your particular complaint about the CR system didn't make sense: it doesn't make sense because you ask for exactly what the CR system is, guidelines, and complain that guidelines arn't provided.

Well if that's the case why did so many players switch from 3.0 to 3.5? Let me guess, not enough guidelines?

Whence the hostility? Did I say something to upset you?

Ok...New question what are the actual rules of D&D and what are "only guidelines".Or is the whole game just guidelines? If I'm playing by the rules what does that entail?

In a particular game, the rules are the guidelines accepted and determined by the participants, with the DM having the most control. To this extent, no rule in the PHB cannot be changed, and the game is specifically tailored to make that kind of customization possible.

If you are playing by the Rules As Written, then by my definition you are using the Core Rules and Eratta. Some people include the FAQ, some exclude Eratta.

But the only thing that really matters is that you play by the rules set by the DM. Because DnD is constructed the way it is, those rules can be many and varied; some games completely unresemble others.

 

[Imaro]

You're paying $90 for other people to have done the work of putting rules and monsters together in three hardbound books, along with cool pictures. If you like most of the guidelines, then those guidelines make it into your games as rules. If you like everything but one rule, and you have your house rule for that, would it still not be worth it to pay someone else to print and bind every other rule you like for you?

Touche. What I guess I'm really getting at is what is unnecessary "fat" in the game, I am really hoping that 4e goes the route of a less rules intensive D&D to start with and modularity where you can add the complexity. I think its easier than deconstructing things to make them simpler. When I say what am I paying for I mean it in the sense of what is the actual game and what are guidelines. What is standard D&D?

Your complaint about the CR system in particular was that they provided it, and not a set of guidelines. The CR system is a set of guidelines. I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the game, but rather that your particular complaint about the CR system didn't make sense: it doesn't make sense because you ask for exactly what the CR system is, guidelines, and complain that guidelines arn't provided.

I feel its excess rules that don't do what they are suppose too. Why? because the nature of a rpg is individualized to the point that I can't see it being regulated with any more certainty by these rules than saying hey...just use common sense and guesstimate. So do we need them?

Whence the hostility? Did I say something to upset you?

No, and I'm truly sorry if I came off that way. I do get a little peeved at the answer to almost any question concerning rules bloat or extra rules etc. in 3.5 being don't use em if you don't want to their only guidelines. Like I said before wouldn't it be easier to start with a simpler game and let those who want more complexity add it on with supplements. Also isn't there a time when there is actual rules bloat. There has to be a point(maybe even now) where things break down due to an inability for all possible outcomes of infinitely increasing substructures of a rule system to function as a balanced whole?

In a particular game, the rules are the guidelines accepted and determined by the participants, with the DM having the most control. To this extent, no rule in the PHB cannot be changed, and the game is specifically tailored to make that kind of customization possible.

Any game can be done like this. What I'm trying to figure out is what rules are necessary for it to still be D&D to majority of people and what rules are not.

If you are playing by the Rules As Written, then by my definition you are using the Core Rules and Eratta. Some people include the FAQ, some exclude Eratta.

Thank you, but see above let's take this a little deeper.

But the only thing that really matters is that you play by the rules set by the DM. Because DnD is constructed the way it is, those rules can be many and varied; some games completely unresemble others.

I totally see what you're saying, and upon reflection feel like my original post didn't exactly communicate what I was actually looking for.So here goes... What rules can be trimmed from the current version of D&D and it still be considered D&D by majority of gamers.

 

[Felix]

I feel its excess rules that don't do what they are suppose too. Why? because the nature of a rpg is individualized to the point that I can't see it being regulated with any more certainty by these rules than saying hey...just use common sense and guesstimate. So do we need them?

I for one would rather WotC provide a CR system because it provides a baseline for me to apply my common sense to (eg, Drow will be more of a challenge in the Underdark), and it saves me the time from having to work out how challenging an encounter will be using "common sense".

They could have a void in the rules and say, "Do it on your own", but though they do provide a simple mechanism for designing encounters, I still have the option of doing it on my own. I'd rather they have it and I discard it than they not provide it and me not want to come up with my own challenge system for 200 monsters by myself.

Like I said before wouldn't it be easier to start with a simpler game and let those who want more complexity add it on with supplements. Also isn't there a time when there is actual rules bloat. There has to be a point(maybe even now) where things break down due to an inability for all possible outcomes of infinitely increasing substructures of a rule system to function as a balanced whole?

Sure, there is that point. Whether we've reached that point is a whole other question.

Frankly I'm not interested in the Complete Scoundrel's "Tricks". I'm happy with the skill and feat system as it is, and don't really want it more complicated. So I'm going to leave that out, though I do like some of the effects skill tricks provide.

But it seems like that is what you want: "simpler game ... complexity with suppliments".

Any game can be done like this. What I'm trying to figure out is what rules are necessary for it to still be D&D to majority of people and what rules are not.

...

I totally see what you're saying, and upon reflection feel like my original post didn't exactly communicate what I was actually looking for.So here goes... What rules can be trimmed from the current version of D&D and it still be considered D&D by majority of gamers.

I think you may want to work from the other way around. Instead of asking, "What can we get rid of", you might have better luck with, "What does DnD need". Firstly, that seems to be the question you're acutally asking, and secondly that will lead people to post what they like instead of what they dislike, and that generally leads to happy threads.

And happy threads come from ENWorld.

Top 5 things my DnD game needs to be DnD for me.

Mideval feel and setting, complete with castles, dungeons, ale and whores.
Variety of races: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Orcs, Goblins, Gnolls, etc.
Monsters: Dragons, Manticores, Hydras, Rust Monsters, Oozes
Multiple and diverse character roles and abilities working as a team. "The Party".
Dice mechanics including a d20.​

Most of those are flavor, and the "Dice mechanic" doesn't care too much about the specifics. Which is to say that for me, I could take or leave any particular rule in the game as long as the flavor of the game remained, and I would still consider it "DnD".

 

[delericho]

We drop:

Encumberance (armour still reduces speed, and provides an armour check penalty)
Favoured classes
Monk and Paladin multiclass restrictions
Recording of values less than 1 gp (that's not really a rule, though, just a simplifying assumption - that by 2nd level characters have so much wealth that quibbling over coppers adds nothing)

I'm inclined to this unarmed strikes should no longer provoke attacks of opportunity, and perhaps should be able to do lethal or non-lethal damage at the characters whim (and without penalty). They remain a rather sub-optimal choice of 'weapon', so what's really gained by adding that small complexity?

I would definately advocate the game reducing the number of named bonus types that are available, with seven striking me as a good (but totally arbitrary) number of types. Additionally, the game designers should strongly resist the temptation to add new bonus types whenever it suits them. (Oh, and I'd probably ditch the 'Dodge bonuses stack' exception, too.)

Drop inexpensive spell components. They just don't add enough to the game to be worth the effort IMO.

I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that leap out at me.

 

[GlassJaw]

What's with all the anti-AoO vibes? They really aren't that difficult and provide balance to many other actions and abilities in the game.

 

[Dykstrav]

I've seen alot of people knock attacks of opportunity and grapple checks as being overly complex. I personally don't feel that way, I think they're pretty clearly written and leave no real ambiguity (the problems come when DMs try to apply too much logic to the game). I know from experience that alot of players get very confused with these parts of the game. I'm in favor of simplifying these rules if doing so speeds up play.

In general, I'm a big advocate of simplifying things to one roll. For example, could we have the damage of an attack be based on the results of your attack roll, and weapons simply provide a fixed bonus to damage? Could we reduce the damage of spells to a single die?

I'd also like to see the NPC classes go away, except perhaps for the adept and aristocrat. It just doesn't make sense to me for humans, elves and dwarves to all be 1st-level commoners or experts instead of just 1-HD humanoids.

 

[jmucchiello]

What rules can be trimmed from the current version of D&D and it still be considered D&D by majority of gamers.

Technically, all of the them. When I ran a Fantasy HERO game, some of the players still called it D&D. And to an outside (non-RPG) observer, the only difference they would have noticed was that there were only d6s when we used the HERO rules. That and the books had changed. But content of the session, style of play, etc. were identical.

I've also run D&D with no rules. Complete DM fiat. Players had no character sheet. No concept of classes, no numbers. They just declared what they were doing when I asked and I described the result. Again, that game was really no different from many other D&D games I'd run. The only real difference was the level of uncertainty about how likely any particular outcome was going to be.

You can name any specific rule and say "I don't think this rule is needed for D&D" and I'll bet you can find someone else who will say you are crazy and that rule is the foundation of what makes D&D D&D. Lots of folks seem to want to ditch AoOs but I've been using a system like the current AoO rules for the last 20 years and without it, combat is less tactical and thus less D&Dish. To me. Mention Elves and you get posts by folks who will say they haven't had Elves in their games as long as they remember.

They only constant to D&D is no two DMs really play by exact same set of rules. How can ou distill that down to an absolute core set of rules without alienating some of your player base?

And finally, "a majority of players"? So if 51% of D&D players say it stays and 49% say "But I never use that rule" the 49% are no longer playing D&D? You might want the condition of your question be more than a majority. What rules fall into the 80th percentile of D&D players perhaps?

 

[GlassJaw]

I've also run D&D with no rules. Complete DM fiat. Players had no character sheet. No concept of classes, no numbers. They just declared what they were doing when I asked and I described the result. Again, that game was really no different from many other D&D games I'd run. The only real difference was the level of uncertainty about how likely any particular outcome was going to be.

That's not D&D. That's let's sit around and make up a story. I could see doing that if everyone was drunk maybe.

D&D is a fixed ruleset that is known by all the players, a universal way to determine the outcome of actions (dice), and immersion into a character and a story (role-playing).

 

[RFisher]

I've seen your system and think it's real slick. I think if I were to introduce some youngsters or newbies to the game, your system would be a great jumping off point for getting into the game. It's like the new Basic Set. And I mean that in a good way.

Yeah. M20 is cool.

In a similar vein is a little gem called Dungeon Squad. It was created by a guy who found that D&D wasn't capturing the interest of some people he was trying to introduce to the hobby.

What I'm trying to figure out is what rules are necessary for it to still be D&D to majority of people and what rules are not.

I've gone down that road a few times. Especially when I'm trying to understand primordial D&D. The trouble is I can't even decide for myself when it stops being D&D. I've been tempted to run a minimalist game with little more than HD, XP, oD&D spells, monsters, & magic items. Something between TWERPS & oD&D.