Where D&D goes bad

[Jürgen Hubert]

<rant mode>

I like playing and running D&D. However, I like D&D the most in its "pure" form - the three Core Rule books, and maybe the additional rules from a Campaign setting (such as the FRCS). Sometimes including rules from an optional book (for example, the Sanity rules from Unearthed Arcana for a horror game - or even the full-fledged Psionics rules from the Expanded Psionics Handbook) might makes sense - but only if the campaign calls for it. I think all of these rules should be established at the beginning of the campaign and additional rules should, if possible, only be made when the old ones are proven to be insufficient.

However, I recently acquired a new gaming group whose members are into these optional rules books with great enthusiasm. They are all reading Unearthed Arcana, Complete Whatsit, and Masters of the Hinterwoods with great enthusiasm, and taking notes. Their character ideas include alternate core classes, new prestige classes, and weirder things. And I just don't get the attraction in this.

Don't get me wrong - I'm going to allow all these. For one thing, they seem to be primarily interested in creating interesting characters, and not in power-gaming. For another, they seem to be having fun - and that's the main thing.

And finally, just because they are using all these optional rules for their characters, it doesn't mean that I have to do the same for the NPCs and monsters. I will be sticking as close to the core rules as possible for those.

But still, it mystifies this. The D&D core rules are a moderately complex rule set that meshes fairly well together - and all those optional books only add unnecessary layers of complexity in my eyes. Sure, they might allow you to tweak your character exactly as you want - but what for?

If I wanted to create characters that are fine-tuned exactly the way I want, I'd rather play GURPS - which does it faster and better.

</end rant mode>

So, does anyone else here feel the same way about these optional rule books, prestige classes, and so on?

 

[Li Shenron]

IMHO a RPG game like D&D is so complex that you could have endless gaming opportunities with just the core books. It is a good idea however to consider using 2-3 variants every time you start an entire new campaign, so to make each campaign Different (with a capital "D"). It's not a must, each campaign is going to be different even without variants, but they can help...

However I generally advocate the use of FEW variants at a time. Here I am talking about serious variants, such as many of the ones from UA, or the entire psionics system, not just feats or prestige classes from a supplement, and not little house rules. These serious variants have serious consequences, often unpredictable, to D&D complexity

PC material is another thing. It doesn't change how the game works but it definitely changes how the game feels. Allow a prestige class for a character and you have introduced a new group of people in your world. Allow a weird material and you'll have a market for it, new exotic weapons and you need someone who crafts them... As a DM I try to take this positively, like it's a help from the players to make our setting richer. But it's true that often players may choose something which shifts the setting to an unwanted direction.

Also, we all gamers are often freaky consumist. We always want more new stuff (we actually believe we NEED more new stuff) to make the latest fantastic wizard, and yet we haven't perhaps even tried to play a simple rogue or fighter. Now THAT would be a different character, but still we look for the latest PrCl, which at the end doesn't even satisfy us 100% and we ask the DM to allow a variation of it...

 

[Ranes]

I totally agree with both of you but I can't hang around here any longer. I want to finish reading Races of Stone and place an order for Frostburn.

 

[Akrasia]

The core rules are more than enough. The only rules variants I like in UA are those that are either flavour-based (without adding complexity), or those that actually simplify the game.

I care more about story, characters, and plot. Extra feats, PrCs, etc. just seem so "video-gamey" to me.

 

[Steverooo]

So, does anyone else here feel the same way about these optional rule books, prestige classes, and so on?

I feel that way about PrCls, yes. When I start a game, I specifically state that all PCs must be PHB races and classes, only, and PrCls will have to be worked out (with me) after the game starts. In general, I don't use them, at all.

Then again, I do have some new rules that I use to help PCs customize, and do new things that I think their characters should be able to, so I am less averse to that than new classes. Sometimes the rules don't allow PCs to do things that I KNOW I can do, so I have to "invent" a way to do it, in game... For example, I know that I can set a snare (even a complicated one with a bent tree limb) in just a few minutes, with nothing more than a roll of snare wire and a knife. Now look at the "Trapmaking" rules in the DMG... To make a CR 1 trap requires one week's time and 1,000 GP (IIRC)! So, I made setting snares, covering pits, and setting simple deadfalls a Wilderness Lore/Survival check, and concealing it an opposed Hide check. It works well enough.

 

[Robbert Raets]

Sometimes it's easier to let the game designers to the mechanical innovations for you.

 

[Pinotage]

I certainly agree with what you've said. I prefer to stick to the Core Rules simply because I believe they've been playtested and discussed enough (where balance is an issue) that you've got a very comprehensive and balanced set of rules to work with.

I don't believe that the Complete books or most other supplements nearly got the same treatment that the Core Rules did. and I'm reluctant to 'accidentally' step into a pile of balance poo!

Now, I do however, like those books. I like some of the ideas, some of the crunch and some of the interesting things you can do with them. But, I reserve them as DM only tools. What I mean is that I can throw the PC's against a certain opponent with a given Complete Warrior feat, and if I see that it's balanced, I'll allow that feat at a later stage. So those books get the DM treatment first before going to the players, so I can make sure they're balanced. Call it playtesting, if you like.

Pinotage

 

[Darklone]

Pinotage hit it pretty well. I do allow many books, don't allow many prestige classes, but usually I end up working with the corerules, one/two setting books and perhaps a bought adventure.

Players seem to be happy... and the ones who would extensively use the extension books usually ask for exactly the broken combinations, so it's a nonono.

 

[Celtavian]

re

D&D would get boring real quick if they didn't have alot of options for the game. There are many game systems that are better than the D20 system. The big advantage of D&D is all the options from support products. D&D has one of the most lackluster combat systems of any game I have ever played. D&D's combat system is akin to video game combat where you just "Click and swing" with a few available alternatives. Other systems have more interactive combat systems where attackers actually oppose each other rather than just hope that you roll low enough not to strike their Armor Class.

I am hoping the 4th edition of D&D builds a more interactive combat system that allows parrying and dodging, and doesn't focus so much on Armor Class inflation to prevent hits. That would really jazz the system up.

 

[diaglo]

So, does anyone else here feel the same way about these optional rule books, prestige classes, and so on?

i like D&D in its pure form too.

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.