# Is D&D too complicated?



## Henry (Jun 2, 2004)

***Removed to correct problem***


----------



## SemperJase (Jun 3, 2004)

In another post, Ryan Dancey was quoted as saying:


> I do not believe that the core D&D books bring people into the hobby.
> ...
> The D&D intro box is the one product I can conclusively demonstrate had a direct impact on sales of the whole D&D product line




WotC recognizes that 970+ pages of rules are a barrier to entry. Most people (me included) need software to write up a character. There are just too many calculations to get them all right without something to make sure you have all the bonuses and appropriate modifiers. 

Dancey essentially admits D&D is too complicated by showing the necessity of a boxed set. It pretty much the only _product_ that gets new people into the hobby. Can anyone learn D&D without someone else demonstrating the game? 

It seems the hobby is likely to be crushed under the weight of rules.

It really is no wonder that computer games are growing while pencil and paper games seem to be declining.


----------



## haiiro (Jun 3, 2004)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> It really is no wonder that computer games are growing while pencil and paper games seem to be declining.




I see the first part, and agree with it -- but I'm not sure I see the second part. From where I sit, d20 has revitalized the pen & paper gaming industry over the past couple of years. (That's just my layman's opinion, though, backed up by no data apart from my own observations.)

What do you have in mind when you say the P&P side of things is declining?


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 3, 2004)

If people can go out, buy a set of books about a kid and his friends, the series become immensely popular, and they start doing RPGs about him, I don't see how a nearly popular RPG as D&D should have any problem. 

My feeling is that gamers themselves are not inclusive enough to get the RIGHT people involved. By that I mean most of my peers back in high school were pretty darn snobby about who'd they allow in. It's still true now even though mostly its because the people I game with aren't people I'd hang around with legally and in a very public place playing D&D. (Mostly because I don't wish to put in jail for someone else's crimes.)


----------



## Psion (Jun 3, 2004)

What Ryan says is the books are too much for beginners.

Sales right now are largely driven by long term players, not beginners. I don't think it's too complicated for those who play it regularly. Just those who are not familiar with the hobby.

Which makes sense to me.


----------



## Krieg (Jun 3, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> It's still true now even though mostly its because the people I game with aren't people I'd hang around with legally and in a very public place playing D&D. (Mostly because I don't wish to put in jail for someone else's crimes.)




Heh, now that sounds like a WVU alum if I've ever heard of one.


----------



## The Madhatter (Jun 3, 2004)

Computer RPGs (many times) have more than 970+ pages of rules. All the rules aren't presented when you first start the game. Case in Point: Neverwinter Nights. It's a great PC game that's based largely on 3.0 rules. The manuals are e and they don't even explain spell effects. You are expected to buy the Bradygames manual if you want to know the numbers. 
I think this is where the boxed set comes it. It spoon feeds you concepts, not really rules, so that you may play the game. We have many different modifiers to your d20 attack roll, but only one concept. d20 + modifiers Vs. AC = success/failure. 
WOTC's minis are contributing to getting people into the hobby. Who hasn't been inspired by a well crafted mini? I know of at least two young men that thought minis were cool beans, and then they found out that a whole (new and unusual) game was attached to them.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2004)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> It seems the hobby is likely to be crushed under the weight of rules.




No, it won't.  My evidence for this is simple - the rules have been complicated since 1978.  The rules now are actually simpler and more unified in concept than they were at that time.  Much of the extra page-count nowadays is in explication of the rules so that you don't get confused.

If the complicated rules didn't kill things back in 1978, they won't kill things now.


----------



## JeffB (Jun 3, 2004)

Absolutely the game has become too complicated, IMO. There has been no "bridge" product like the Basic/Expert sets for years, and there really needs to be one. A product that gives the you the whole experience but in a friendlier, less rules intense way.

The game has become too complicated for me as it is...The rules bloat of even just the core books has driven me to the point where I just don't enjoy running 3.X, and haven't played in awhile.

I'm very much looking forward to C&C from the Troll Lords. I'm hoping it will give me a set of fairly flexible but simple rules that remain true to D&D's roots/themes, and allows me to convert with relative ease both the best of the old D&D and the best of the new D&D/D20 products. A tall order to fill for sure, but it sounds very promising so far.

Had I been introduced to the game w/ the current PHB, I'd likely never have stayed in the hobby.Way too intimidating and complicated..and this is coming from someone who started with the brown books, and the original basic set.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 3, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Heh, now that sounds like a WVU alum if I've ever heard of one.



More like a townie that knows too many people with similiar habits as the college folk. Also that said people are often suppliers TO said college people. So yeah I'm pretty much against college towns.


----------



## Torm (Jun 3, 2004)

D02 is compliated and simplest at the same time for not plaing newbies. My hat of D02 know no limit!

There, I believe I have now used it correctly.  

Seriously, though, I don't believe I know anyone who came to play RPGs or other similarly detailed wargames without being "brought into the fold" by someone else. I had D&D and FASA Star Trek gaming materials and West End Games' Star Wars stuff LONG before I ever played anything like that - to me, by myself and not having played them before, they were just neat books I had found at yard sales or been given by relatives who thought that just because I liked Star Wars, I would know what to do with them. And I've brought other people into the gaming community that certainly would never have bought a D&D book if they hadn't been taught the game FIRST.

I find it hard to believe anyone, on their own, would buy a D&D starter pack first and get into the gaming community that way. At least, it would seem to me that it would be RARE.


----------



## Krieg (Jun 3, 2004)

A streamlined/simplified "entry" D20 product is a wondeful idea.

Will it make a huge impact bringing in "new blood"? Probably not. (See Torm's last paragraph above.)



			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> More like a townie that knows too many people with similiar habits as the college folk. Also that said people are often suppliers TO said college people. So yeah I'm pretty much against college towns.




LOL

FYI my mom is a Mountaineer alum. Luckily my grandfather and grandmother fled north to Buckeyeland while she was in college and she followed upon graduation.  

(PS- On a totally unrelated but weird tangent, I have a great uncle who swears on his life that he saw the Mothman in '66!)


----------



## kamosa (Jun 3, 2004)

It isn't that they are too complicated, its that they are on a quixotic quest to be perfect and handle everything and it makes the rules verbose and pedantic.  

At some level more detail becomes less helpful.  When I have to keep track of 8 billion things just to play one monster against one PC, we've crossed the state line on being less helpful.   Esentially they've Gurpsfied the rules.  

One of the problems I always had with GURPS was that they would take simple concepts and make them horribly convoluted.  So, in the end, you spend less time playing and more time exercising the rules.   It's one of the main reasons D&D succeeded and so many "perfect & percise" roleplaying systems are in the "Take me for free" bin at the FLGS.   In D&D you had a streamlined system that could quickly determine combat, quickly create characters and the GM could quickly create the bad guys.   Those days have been drug out into the street and shot dead.   

Now it takes me hours to figure out all the feats, skills, exact stats, etc for every monster (lord knows you can't be caught without knowing the Wisdom bonus for a slug or it will drag the game to a halt the first time someone casts a spell at it).   The only saving grace is that the party takes 3 times longer to do anything in 3E, so I have to prep less material per session.   As a result the games I've played in have had a much greater percentage chance of being boring as heck.   Gee, we spent 3 hours figuring out whether or not the Paladin could actually climb the rope while in plate armor after getting hit by the shadow, what a fun time...

HMMMMM, how did I get off on that rant.   Anyway, I don't think it's the complication that keeps people out.  It's the size of the rules and their ability to always be in the way of having a good time.


----------



## JimAde (Jun 3, 2004)

That page count (970+): I assume that's the core books.  But how much of that is actual rules?  The Monster Manual has very few rules.  Just a big list of monsters.  The Player's Handbook is IIRC about half spell list.  Plus there's the big list of feats and big list of equipment.  Not many actual rules.  Even the DMG has a lot of examples, explanation and a huge section of magic items.  

As a new player, the only rules you have to know are the ones that apply to your character: Combat mechanics, spell casting (if you're a caster), how to do saves, and maybe the weight and movement rules if you care.  Plus anything that's particular to your class(es).

The problem may be that it LOOKS like you have to know 1000 pages of rules to play.  That's where a boxed set comes in handy.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 3, 2004)

Considering the weird stuff that goes on in this state (Charlie Manson being raised here, the Mothman, our own UFO cults, the "mountain" militias and of course the vast lots of car parts that people use to get money) I'm not suprised.

I have nothing against WVU personally...just in terms of an RPG town, there's a lot left to be desired.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jun 3, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> What Ryan says is the books are too much for beginners.
> 
> Sales right now are largely driven by long term players, not beginners. I don't think it's too complicated for those who play it regularly. Just those who are not familiar with the hobby.




It may not be too complicated to learn _eventually_, but it also isn't _easy_. Every single group I've played with has disagreed on one or more significant rules (What exactly do SR and DR affect? What happens when a creature grapples? How does a particular feat work?) And let's not even start in on things like alter self, polymorph, and a druid's wildshape ability...

IMO, the designers of this edition tried to anticipate all the situations/circumstances that could come up in play, then crafted rules for them using a few basic core concepts. The fact that the core concepts are pretty simple doesn't stop the game from being awfully heavy on rules. Add in the mostly subtle changes in 3.5, and it's impossible (for me, at least) to play a game without constantly referencing the rules, or ignoring them altogether - in which case, they must not be terribly important, so why have them?

Sorry to rant, but this thread has touched on my only significant disappointment with 3E - it's too much WORK to learn how to PLAY.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 3, 2004)

Conversely, you have people snobby about the games they play. "I'm not going to play D&D - it's a nerd game!" 

I do feel that D&D needs a Basic Game, and possibly even an Intermediate game as well - consider how Magic: the Gathering does it.

It has a Starter Set, which just teaches you the rules with a limited set of rules.

It has the Core Set (8th Edition, "Advanced" level), which gives you much more variety, but leaves out a lot of the more troubling mechanics and concepts (like Trample and Protection from X).

It has the Expert Sets: Mirrodin, Darksteel, etc., which give you everything. 

Although there is a comparison with the Stage I, Stage II and Stage III ideas from the GAMA presentation (see links below), a pertinent question is whether or not Stage II is too much of a step upwards.

Personally, I don't think it is so much the level of rules in the Core Books that is a problem, but the number of options being overwhelming.

*Links to the different Stages of D&D:*
Stage I: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=80863
Stage II: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=80868
Stage III: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=80862

Cheers!


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jun 3, 2004)

I don't find it too complicated at all.  I can whip up a character now in less than a half hour.  The hardest part is choosing the feats.  I've used a few software programs for character creation, but I like the old fashioned way best. Some of my group use a program, but it's just not my thing.  The rules can be daunting for a beginner, sure.  But the d20 system streamlines the actual playing mechanics so much that some folks I know play now when they before they refused, because they found previous editions confusing.


----------



## dren (Jun 3, 2004)

I don't think the rules are what makes or break players getting into the hobby. For the most part players only need to buy the one book (obviously the players handbook) to play the game, everything else is really at the whim of the storyteller.

Sure, there are lots and lots and lots of supplemenmtal books a player can buy, but ultimately that is for more seasoned players. To get them hooked they need 1. the PhB; 2. a good DM; 3. a place to play...everything else is gravy. 

The rules aren't too complicated, they are extremely simple. Roll a d20; the  higher you roll the better. 3/6 basic rules (to hit, saves, and skills) are based on rolling the one dice.  Damage, spells and feats add a little more flavour, but can easily be described so players may not have them memorized but understand them. If you have a DM and one good player, you can learn the basics in a half hour to an hour. Thousands of us learned this way... thousands more will too.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jun 3, 2004)

Ah, for the complexity of 1st/2nd edition. Remember, THAC0 kept the riff-raff out!


----------



## Torm (Jun 3, 2004)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> Dancey essentially admits D&D is too complicated by showing the necessity of a boxed set. It pretty much the only _product_ that gets new people into the hobby. Can anyone learn D&D without someone else demonstrating the game?




Seems to me that if ANY product they have is a "gateway product"   , its the miniatures game, rather than the boxed set. I can easily see kids buying those as toys, and then learning more about the pieces and how to fight them against each other - the basics of rollplaying, if not roleplaying. But Wizards is really missing the boat getting those stocked almost exclusively in with the other RPG\CCG products, rather than getting at least some of them stocked in, for example, the toy department at Wal-Mart.

Speaking of which, I've frequently though somebody missed something good when it came to the Tech Specs on the backs of Transformers packages. They look like somebody was trying to make an RPG, but never finished the job....


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> Anyway, I don't think it's the complication that keeps people out. It's the size of the rules and their ability to always be in the way of having a good time.




What's that rule I'm always hearing about? Rule 0? If you don't like something, change it, right?



			
				kamosa said:
			
		

> The only saving grace is that the party takes 3 times longer to do anything in 3E, so I have to prep less material per session. As a result the games I've played in have had a much greater percentage chance of being boring as heck. Gee, we spent 3 hours figuring out whether or not the Paladin could actually climb the rope while in plate armor after getting hit by the shadow, what a fun time...




Now that, my friend, sounds like a personal problem. I don't see the general D&D ruleset causing problems like that to groups I've played in. I'm sure (read: I hope) you're exaggerating those figures, though.



			
				kamosa said:
			
		

> In D&D you had a streamlined system that could quickly determine combat, quickly create characters and the GM could quickly create the bad guys. Those days have been drug out into the street and shot dead.




That's because 2e encouraged the DM to just make stuff up. The new edition now has plenty of creation rules (apparently more than you care for) for those people who hated the inconsistensies caused by other editions. It's still very easy to guess or invent what you need if you don't like to be so precise. Don't know the wis stat of that slug? Make one up and go. They're not all the same, just like humans aren't all the same.

The feats and skills and everything are there for greater customization of your characters, something I and many other players I'm sure are very glad for. Having been an avid player of 2e and 3.x, I can safely say that 3.x is the easier system to learn and teach and is much more streamlined overall. I really had to chuckle at the comment about those days being gone; because in 2e you couldn't safely guess at what a given monster's abilities should be or what kind of saving throw it should have, or the difficulty, etc, etc, etc.

I'll admit the system takes some getting used to but in the end is still the best edition so far.


----------



## teitan (Jun 3, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> (PS- On a totally unrelated but weird tangent, I have a great uncle who swears on his life that he saw the Mothman in '66!)




I got another 25 stories on this one sitting at my Mom's because I GREW UP in the Gallipolis/Point Pleasant area! I helped write the 25th anniversary book on the Silver Bridge for River Valley High School in Cheshire, Ohio and had to interview people who were alive and in the area then and my special focus was the Mothman!

Jason


----------



## cimerians (Jun 3, 2004)

I agree with Dancey and SemperJase to a point. The game is complicated, but its always been that way. The difference IMO between now and 1978 is this:

- Eliminate rules "back then" and it didn't matter too much unless you were a rules freak. You also had the Basic set rules to back you up in these cases.
- Eliminate rules "now" and you better make sure you know what your doing or it will unbalance things.

The advanced game was ALWAYS complicated, that is actually what we are playing now minus the word Advanced. I've been in official playtesting before 3rd edition came out and even at that time the old staff at TSR was planning on making AD&D "simpler" by not only standardizing the 20 sider but removing the aforementioned advanced word from the name.

I for one wish WOTC today would release a LEGITIMATE basic version of the game that stood on its own without the need of the "advanced" Core books. Without that support its up to experienced players to provide the bulk of the introductory lessons of the game to interested new players. Granted there are those brave souls who dive right in to the core books albeit few indeed than what we would like to see.


----------



## teitan (Jun 3, 2004)

dungeonmastercal said:
			
		

> I don't find it too complicated at all.  I can whip up a character now in less than a half hour.  The hardest part is choosing the feats.  I've used a few software programs for character creation, but I like the old fashioned way best. Some of my group use a program, but it's just not my thing.  The rules can be daunting for a beginner, sure.  But the d20 system streamlines the actual playing mechanics so much that some folks I know play now when they before they refused, because they found previous editions confusing.




Well that makes me spit my milk all over my monitor thank you very much, LOL. Honestly I remember being able to create NASTY NPCs ont he fly in 1e and even 2e (were NWPs for NPCs important at all? LOL) with minimum time. I can't do that in 3e which bugs the pee out of me, but I like the level of detail at the same time... weird.

D&D does need a Basic set, but not so stripped down like the Adventure Game was stripped down, it needs to have complete rules for up to such and such level and a decent collection of feats and spells. Newbies can pick up the box and get an idea of what next and I could even conceive of doing the whole game that way. What I would like to see though is 4e as a SINGLE book like D20 Modern with an expansion for more monsters that is optional. Make a core book as complete as the Rules Cyclopedia... and release a Basic set just before hand. I think what is keeping Billy Kid from gaming and only encouraging gamers already in the hobby is that 90 dollar buy in tag and the proliferation of RPG prices. Sure we will pay the prices but a new guy won't. The lack of official adventures doesn't help either...

Jason

Jason


----------



## teitan (Jun 3, 2004)

I actually find my games in 3e run much smoother and faster than 1 or 2e, faster than just about anything except M&M and Maybe the new WOD game (that looks pretty f'in quick).

J


----------



## artent (Jun 3, 2004)

*re*



			
				MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> Ah, for the complexity of 1st/2nd edition. Remember, THAC0 kept the riff-raff out!



I played that game for years.....and I'm still fuzzy on how Thac0 works


----------



## jerichothebard (Jun 3, 2004)

artent said:
			
		

> I played that game for years.....and I'm still fuzzy on how Thac0 works




Me too.  I would roll my d20, add my bonus, and look at the DM.  "Did I hit?"  This for like 10 years.  I'm surprised they kept me in the party.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 3, 2004)

I feel that while there is more prep time involved with 3.x, the game runs smoother and faster than in 1e/2e.

And I find character generation a breeze if I know what basic type of character I wanna play.  I could roll up a level 20 cleric or wizard with feats and spells and magic items accross many books in no time.  The MOST time consuming part of the whole process is buying equipment.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 3, 2004)

The big difference is in how much you have to learn before you reach that point - or to realise you don't actually have to learn that much!

There are a lot of things in the D&D rulebooks you don't actually need to play a game, though they do add a lot to an established game. However, a new player doesn't normally realise that they're rather optional.

Cheers!


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 3, 2004)

teitan said:
			
		

> Well that makes me spit my milk all over my monitor thank you very much, LOL. Honestly I remember being able to create NASTY NPCs ont he fly in 1e and even 2e (were NWPs for NPCs important at all? LOL) with minimum time. I can't do that in 3e which bugs the pee out of me, but I like the level of detail at the same time... weird.




The key to playing 1e and 2e was to not go looking for rules you thought you could wing. Because chances are that whatever you were looking for was either
a) Not there
b) There three times and different each time.

The key to 3e is to not go looking for rules that people know, and to look up rules that noone knows. Chances are there will be someone in the group who knows each rule, and running with what they remember is a great way to keep the game moving.

The key with either one is to not get bogged down about who's right on their rules interpretation/invention. Pick the best sounding one and run with it, and look it up properly later. Or not if you're playing 1e/2e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2004)

Speaking from experience, there are many games more complicated than D20.  My personal fave, HERO, is pretty darn complex.  Then there's Rolemaster (AKA Rollmaster).

On the other hand, SJG/Metagames once had an RPG line called Melee/Wizard/In the Labyryinth.  Only 3 stats- pick a race, a weapon, go adventuring in 10 minutes.  Get entire party killed.  Adventure again 7 minutes later.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see a D20 Lite, but with a little work, a decent DM could initiate a complete novice in D20 with minimal fuss.  I've done so in the recent past.  You assist the player in creating the PC they envision, and have experienced players in the group to help the noob get his/her feet wet.  Be patient.  Don't concentrate on the rules as much as the feel of the game.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 3, 2004)

I find that the only part of the 3rd ed game that is complicated is the combat system unless you are playing with miniatures. Its all 5' steps, move actions, full attacks, AoO's... etc, which is easier to get your head around with mini's. But if you don't use them, it can make combat tougher to get your head around and remember it all.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> It isn't that they are too complicated, its that they are on a quixotic quest to be perfect and handle everything and it makes the rules verbose and pedantic.




For my money, this is the nub of the issue. The basic premise of the d20 system is laudably simple, but the actual game isn't for the very reason outlined above.

To take a simple comparison, 2nd edition Runequest by Chaosium c1977 Had a simple and cohesive system which while more complex than D&D of that era added welcome aspects of "realism" to the game, all without bogging anything down. They didn't try to lock down every rule for every circumstance, but the basic general rules were incredibly easy to extrapolate to new circumstances.

Cheers


----------



## WCrawford (Jun 3, 2004)

I'm of the opinion that the rules are probably a bit too simplistic. I never saw the point in 'reducing the barrier' to the average person, as the average person isn't going to play the game anyway.

Besides, as I look around the USA, I've determined that the 'average person' is a frickin' moron.   Most RPG players are so much better than the 'average person' (intellectually) and I'd rather associate with them than the 'average person'.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jun 3, 2004)

dungeonmastercal said:
			
		

> I don't find it too complicated at all.  I can whip up a character now in less than a half hour.  The hardest part is choosing the feats.  I've used a few software programs for character creation, but I like the old fashioned way best. Some of my group use a program, but it's just not my thing.  The rules can be daunting for a beginner, sure.  But the d20 system streamlines the actual playing mechanics so much that some folks I know play now when they before they refused, because they found previous editions confusing.




But do you use every available WoTC source, or just the core rulebooks?  *Everything* about 3rd edition started out as a great idea that has been perverted and convoluted - both by WoTC and by 3rd parties.  Take a look at the D&D Rules Tracker (if it is still available) - I have a copy that I've been faithfully updating as new source material becomes available.  Just as an example - all of the official WoTC publications (Core and FR), not including any web enhancements, Savage Species or Ghostwalk, and including the old Psionics Book but not the new one (I don't have it yet) - there are 2328 feats.  Let me reiterate - *2328 feats*  Now, I have to caveat that by stating that I haven't done any consolidation (i.e. some of those feats are reprinted through multiple books, and some are superceded by later books.)  The PHB alone has roughly 110 feats.  While actually creating a character may only take you 1/2 hour, how long do you spend *deciding* what choices you want to take?


----------



## diaglo (Jun 3, 2004)

jerichothebard said:
			
		

> Me too.  I would roll my d20, add my bonus, and look at the DM.  "Did I hit?"





still works the same in the newer editions. you still have to ask the DM if you hit.

the only reason in older editions you didn't know if you hit was... Dex or Magic or unknown bonus that the opponent may of had... thus altering his AC... still the same way in the newer editions.


----------



## Chacal (Jun 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> It isn't that they are too complicated, its that they are on a quixotic quest to be perfect and handle everything and it makes the rules verbose and pedantic.




I agree. 
The second problem is that designing an incremental (and consistent) way to learn the game while playing is quite a difficult task. 

Now the burden is on the DM's shoulders.
In the first games we played, we didn't try disarms, sunders, even flanking at first, and AoO would happen only for some cases.

Having guidelines on what's needed and what can be introduced later is important for the new DM


Chacal


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 3, 2004)

The Madhatter said:
			
		

> Computer RPGs (many times) have more than 970+ pages of rules. All the rules aren't presented when you first start the game. Case in Point: Neverwinter Nights. It's a great PC game that's based largely on 3.0 rules. The manuals are e and they don't even explain spell effects. You are expected to buy the Bradygames manual if you want to know the numbers.
> I think this is where the boxed set comes it. It spoon feeds you concepts, not really rules, so that you may play the game. We have many different modifiers to your d20 attack roll, but only one concept. d20 + modifiers Vs. AC = success/failure.
> WOTC's minis are contributing to getting people into the hobby. Who hasn't been inspired by a well crafted mini? I know of at least two young men that thought minis were cool beans, and then they found out that a whole (new and unusual) game was attached to them.





I think this is a decent point.  Most computer games these days let have in their manuals on about page 3 or 4, after the installation instructions, a bit about "For those of you who don't like to ready manuals, click the *Tutorial Mission* to learn the basics of the game.  I think there are merits to an introductory boxed set, but maybe what we really need (and perhaps this is the intention of the boxed set) is a tutorial game.

BTW, nice icon Madhatter...


----------



## Torm (Jun 3, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> *raises hand*
> 
> Actually, there's me.




Yer lyin'! Its plain to see to anybody here that you _obviously_ went back in time and taught yourself!

Now STOP that!


----------



## Henry (Jun 3, 2004)

_Brought this down to it's more correct place - Ignore Torm's allegations of time travel; it won't be perfected for another 17.172 years, until after Gary Gygax's Head becomes President._ -HL




			
				Torm said:
			
		

> Seriously, though, I don't believe I know anyone who came to play RPGs or other similarly detailed wargames without being "brought into the fold" by someone else.




*raises hand* 

Actually, there's me.

I bought the Erol Otus Cover Red Box (Purple Box? Time faded the thing) of the Tom Moldvay edited version of D&D basic rules. I was DM, I helped the group (my four cousins) create their first characters, and we adventured in White Plume Mountain - at 1st level. Had the rules been as expansive then as they are now, I doubt I would have either (a) bought them  or (b) learned to play. There's something to be said about a $20.00 entry product that gives you the basics, eliminates a lot of complexity, and sets you out there with a sample dungeon and a mission. As it was, they riddled past the Sphinx, got killed by a green slime, and we started over again. They got to the ghouls and died again, and so on...

I still plan to buy S.T. Cooley Publishing's  OGL-Fantasy Lite Basic Player's Guide some time to see if it's the kind of thing I need to recommend to beginners, but it sounds like it.

There is a PREVALENT need for an attractive, introductory package that doesn't include 5' steps. If WotC's new D&D box set does the trick, then great. If they don't, but Cooley's does, then great. if neither fit the bill, then the search goes on.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 3, 2004)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> Dancey essentially admits D&D is too complicated by showing the necessity of a boxed set. It pretty much the only _product_ that gets new people into the hobby. Can anyone learn D&D without someone else demonstrating the game?



Certainly, for most potential players, D&D is too difficult to learn -- and requires too much of an expenditure -- to be worth the effort.  Many people who might enjoy the game if introduced to it (by a veteran who already owns the books) won't ever enjoy it, because they're not going to drop $90 and read 1000 pages on a lark.


			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> WotC recognizes that 970+ pages of rules are a barrier to entry. Most people (me included) need software to write up a character. There are just too many calculations to get them all right without something to make sure you have all the bonuses and appropriate modifiers.



There's an important distinction between being too complicated (and expensive) to draw in new players and being too complicated for veteran players.  While D&D could certainly become more elegant and streamlined -- witness the improvements from 1E to 3E -- many, many gamers revel in the complexity.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> It isn't that they are too complicated, its that they are on a quixotic quest to be perfect and handle everything and it makes the rules verbose and pedantic.



kamosa, we may disagree vitriolically on LM/GNG, but that was hella well said.  I like how the rules are consistent enough that I can _ignore them_ and handwave things into a playable whole, because the underlying concepts are consistent.

It also amazes me that WotC has produced no less than 4 d20 games that are complete in one book (CoC, Star Wars, Wheel of Time and d20 Modern -- am I missing any others?) and yet D&D still requires three core rulebooks to essentially give you the same information. 

Less information in many ways, as the D&D core books include no setting info, as the other books do.  Of course, the encyclopedia-like nature of the magic items sections, monster sections and spell sections help drive turning D&D into a massive set of tomes vs. the other books.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 3, 2004)

One assertion that always seems to go unchallenged in these discussions is the "I used to make up NPCs all the time but it's impossible in 3E."

Poppycock.

Stuff and nonsense.

You want to make up an NPC? What the frilly heck is stopping you?

I don't know about everyone else, but when I make up an NPC on the fly, I do something like this:

DM: He attacks! He rolls a 15. Um, your AC is... 21, so that's (insert very quick estimation of what BAB a character of this likely class at this likely level is going to have) a hit. He does (another estimation of a damage bonus) 8 points of damage.

(quickly jot down "AB +6 ish, dam +2 ish" so that future attacks are more or less consistent)

On we go. Somebody casts a spell, so I make up a Fort save. Characters move around the battlefield so I decide if he has Tumble or maybe Spring Attack.

This is how I did it in OD&D. It's how I do it now. What is so magic about 3E that other people can't do this?


----------



## Awakened (Jun 3, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Is D&D too complicated?




No.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2004)

Ah, barsoomcore.  How did I not guess that you'd chime in and explain _my_ method better than I do even?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> How did I not guess that you'd chime in and explain my method better than I do even?



I've been watching you. Secret cameras. Alert agents everywhere. Don't bother trying to escape.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 3, 2004)

barsoomcore, that's what I do as well. However, I'm not sure that "No, because I ignore most of the rules" is the same thing as a plain "no" 

I feel for a new GM who's trying to start with 3.x -- those of us who've been in the hobby a while understand things well enough to know what to keep and what to leave out, but how does a newbie make those kinds of decisions?


----------



## francisca (Jun 3, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> One assertion that always seems to go unchallenged in these discussions is the "I used to make up NPCs all the time but it's impossible in 3E."
> <snip>
> This is how I did it in OD&D. It's how I do it now. What is so magic about 3E that other people can't do this?



I agree with you to a large degree.  On the fly, it is no different than under OD&D.  I used to try to sit and flip through the book in-game and make "proper" NPCs in 3E.  It quickly became discouraging because I felt bogged down in options.  At some point, I either said "the hell with it" or just got a better feeling for the rules, and started winging it for alot of NPCs, just like the old days.  I also stopped griping about the complexity of creating NPCs under 3E on this board around the same time.  But, I  sense that a lot of folks on these boards don't like winging NPCs to any degree, decrying it as ad-hocery and too arbitrary.

Now here is the disagreeing part: When I sit down to create an NPC that will be the cornerstone of the campaign, it does, in fact, take much longer to do under 3E than 1E or basic/expert (I have no 2E experience to speak from).  This is simply because there are a lot more aspects of an NPC/PC that can (maybe even need to) be accounted for.  Under 1E and B/X I spend a lot of time detailing major NPCs anyway, so it's not like I hate the time-consuming aspect.  It's just a less number crunching intensive experience with the older editions.  In my experience, detailing the fluff takes the same amount of time in any edition, but the crunching and tracking feat chains, etc..under 3E does take longer than 1E, simply because there are so many more options.  So on the balance, it's a "pick your poison" kind of proposition.

What really annoys the hell out of me is the idea that you can't do certain things under the old editions, such as slapping some rogue/thief levels on a Kobold.  Most of these arguments boil down to: You can't because there aren't any rules to do so.  I don't feel limited in that way.  To me, there is no reason why you can't thumbnail a "move silently" stat right onto an Orc or an Ogre for that matter.

Now, I'm not trying to convince anyone that 1E is better than 3E.  I like 'em both.  I play them both.  I'm just saying that I never felt shackled the same way others have.

Oh, and I mostly agree with you.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 3, 2004)

Some good points, and I agree that fully statting out an NPC under 3E sure FEELS like more work. I'm not sure that it is, but it feels that way. I think part of it is I used to say, "Ogre Mage, hurray" and basically be done with it.

Now it's "Ogre Mage, hm, what if I give him a few levels of barbarian? Oh, and so then what do his stats become while raging? Let me leaf throug Oriental Adventures and see if there's some cool feats, hey, Ki Shout, that sounds like fun..."

I mean, if you're winging it, you're winging it, right? It doesn't make much sense to say, "Winging it is harder in 3E" if you think when winging it you need to stick to the rules. Or maybe people are using different definitions of "winging it" than I am.

What I like about 3E is how it takes all the stuff I used to do anyway (like francisca says) and provides me with rules for how to do it and keep some idea as to how tough I'm making my challenges, so I can provide appropriate encounters for my party.

That in no way makes me feel shackled or forces me to use those rules. But it's nice to have them. You know. For when I have the time.

The ultimate expression of that is the "Monsters Handbook" from, um FFG, I think. It's one of my favourite books, but essentially it's all about "how do you make sneaky orcs or tougher kobolds?" It discusses the impact of various changes and provides you with an excellent set of guidelines for modifying or creating monsters.

None of which says I can't just make up any old thing I feel like and throw THAT at my party. Because I can, and heck, I do it all the time (yeah, yeah).

I don't have much sympathy for people who claim "There's too many rules, I can't do what I want." Ignore the rules you don't like.

Now, as for the originating post, is D&D's complexity inhibiting market penetration? I wonder.

Part of the ATTRACTION of D&D (and RPG's in general) is that they're hard to learn. People like being challenged, and I know for a fact that if the rules of D&D had been as simple as, say, Go Fish, I wouldn't have given it a second glance. That said, there's probably a sweet spot where challenge-seekers and rules-averse players converge -- and I suspect the Player's Handbook is very near to that spot.

If it weren't there would be some other product there making huge sales. There's certainly no shortage of products out there at varying levels of complexity. I agree with the poster who said that very few people are going to buy the game without encouragement, regardless of its perceived complexity. It's too strange a concept to explain in a single eye-catching display for impulse buying -- you have to be brought to it somehow. I read a magazine article and went out and bought the game when I was like eleven and taught myself to play but I was already an SF&F fan so I was pretty well-prepped for it.

I'm not convinced that a simpler game would bring in more players. I don't think it's the complexity of the rules that keeps people out -- it's the complexity of the concept.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2004)

Back when I started gaming, the fanciest computer game we had were Atari 2600's, and D&D and Traveller were the only RPGs in town.  We had to walk 20 miles in the snow past ravenous flying mountain crocodiles just to buy a single d12-and when you got to the store, you had to fight other gamers to the death just to purchase it, 'cause the store policy said there could be only one!  AND WE LIKED IT THAT WAY!  

Gave us more time to read books and get into RPGs.

THAT'S the real trouble these days- too many consarned computer games eatin' up people's time and attention spans.

These newbie gamers' eyes start glazing over once you show them the second chapter of a game's player's manual.


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 3, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> *raises hand*
> 
> Actually, there's me.



Me too.  I was in a used bookstore once at the age of 7 and saw the Basic Set, and bugged my dad to buy it.  He didn't want to, but when we got home, he asked my mom and she said, "buy it."  When we went back to get it, it had already been sold.

A few months later, when I saw the (Blue 1983) Expert Set at the local drugstore, I said, "it must be mine!" or words to that effect - then picked up a couple of adventure modules at the local KayBee Toys (my first module was DA1 - Adventures in Blackmoor and my second was B6 - The Veiled Society) a month or two later.

I've been hooked ever since. 



> I still plan to buy S.T. Cooley Publishing's  OGL-Fantasy Lite Basic Player's Guide some time to see if it's the kind of thing I need to recommend to beginners, but it sounds like it.
> 
> There is a PREVALENT need for an attractive, introductory package that doesn't include 5' steps. If WotC's new D&D box set does the trick, then great. If they don't, but Cooley's does, then great. if neither fit the bill, then the search goes on.



Henry, check your Private Messages... you've been evangelizing this so long, I figure you need to look.

No, my product doesn't include 5' steps.  I don't know if it's attractive, but I think I pared the rules down as best I could.  In retrospect, it needs a few more "hand-holding explanatory" sections for beginners to go along with a very condensed ruleset... it's not perfectly beginner-friendly, which means I need to revise it to be so (it's nice to look at it after being "away from it" for a bit, I can see its weaknesses) - but as far as a simple, workable ruleset goes, I still think it hits the mark.

You have (some) Feats, you have simplified skills, and you have simple combat (one move action, one standard action) that's mostly "slug-it-out until someone drops" with some classic cinematic wrinkles (e.g., disarm) thrown in.  You have reduced spell lists and low-level support.  You DON'T have multiple attacks, Attacks of Opportunity, and other stuff that can confuse newcomers.

--The Sigil


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That in no way makes me feel shackled or forces me to use those rules. But it's nice to have them. You know. For when I have the time.



I was grossly unclear.  I never felt that I was shackled by a lack of rules for 1E, not shackled by 3E's rules.  Well, maybe shackled to my desk while thumbing through multiple books


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 4, 2004)

In my experience, it's only as complicated as you make it.  I play in one campaign where the rules are so strictly enforced that gameplay suffers terribly, and there is virtually no room for house rulings or leeway in any situation.  This DM ran us through (which one, the Forge of Fury?), and still considered the Roper across a 10-foot underground river to be EL 10 (Its base CR), even though it could reach us anywhere in the room with its tentacles, while we could do nothing but fire ineffectually without jumping across, risking being swept away to certain death.  It won initiative, dragged the tank across the water, and nobody could even get near the thing to free the tank from the Improved Grab (read "broken ability").  Luckily, the Bard, in his single wisest play decision ever (Wis 9, complete buffoon) attempted to bargain with the thing and succeeded.  The DM's argument that the EL wasn't ridiculously high was that "well, you could bargain with it, so that brings it back down", which she cited as an option suggested in the adventure text.  The problem with this standpoint, IMO, is that this option should already be factored into the CR of the Roper, as its availability is not restricted to the confines of that specific situation.  Therefore, I argued, the EL should be increased due to the large terrain advantage in favor of the Roper.  It's just very difficult to get some people to improvise, even though guidelines are set out in the books, and it is only fair to adjust certain rules as the circumstances demand.  

Anyway, in this campaign, even though most of the players are fairly rules-savvy, we often find ourselves having to backtrack when we later realize that a given action couldn't have been taken, especially with regard to monsters, as it can be difficult to ascertain every aspect of a given monster's abilities on the fly.  The rules, however, must be followed verbatim in this game, and it drags things out and causes a lot of hard feelings among the play group, especially between this DM and myself, as I am quick to point out when I have been slighted by an "illegal" action on the part of a monster, or the (perceived) objectively illogical nature of a given rule.  I have been justified many times over, as several of my suggestions were actually implemented in the 3.5 conversion, those same suggestions which had previously caused hours of heated debate.  Conversely, I also point out when players declare "illegal" actions, etc., as that's just the way this campaign has been run, and I prefer not to "cheat".  To this DM's credit, however, she is extremely adept at roleplaying NPCs, and there are upsides to ensuring that the rules are followed.  I enjoy her game immensely despite my gripes with certain aspects of it.

On the other hand, I have played in campaigns where the DM was very good at improvisation on the fly and very reasonable about tweaking rules for the sake of fun.  In my opinion, open-mindedness is the only way to approach the role of the Dungeon Master when your goal is to provide the most enjoyable game possible on all sides of the table.  Some people will surely disagree, but I can tell you that from my experience (about 13 years), I have found the most fun in games where the DM was less of a rules cop (especially with one particular DM- amazingly creative and animated), and I feel that this statement would be supported by everyone in my play group who has participated in any of his major campaigns.

I will submit, however, that the sheer volume of the regulations on every aspect of the game is rather immense in 3.0/3.5.  I know several grizzled veterans who have trouble remembering how much they are actually allowed to perform in a round, although it seems fairly simple to me.  I just have a capacity for logic, however, and can usually correctly intuit or infer most rulings without having to refer to the books, so I don't feel justified in criticizing these players for their inability to retain or apply previously gained knowledge, especially given the magnitude of the adjustment from 2e to 3e.  Some players in my group (all intelligent people, all of whom know perfectly well how to add) still have trouble accurately calculating their total attack rolls when the total bonuses are not explicitly written on the sheet and circled in red.  Regardless of this fact, though, the rules for calculating whether an attack hits or not are far simpler under the new rules (or more straightforward, at least), and it helps to know exactly how many things you can do in one round, as arguments can be avoided simply by looking a given action up on the chart.


----------



## Corinth (Jun 4, 2004)

You misunderstand the point of the Roper encounter in _The Forge of Fury_: There are encounters other than those balanced for the intended PC groups, and when it's a mismatch that disfavors the PCs then the PCs ought to run.  Not all encounters are there for the PCs to beat.


----------



## kamosa (Jun 4, 2004)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> In my experience, it's only as complicated as you make it.  I play in one campaign where the rules are so strictly enforced that gameplay suffers terribly, and there is virtually no room for house rulings or leeway in any situation.  This DM ran us through (which one, the Forge of Fury?), and still considered the Roper across a 10-foot underground river to be EL 10 (Its base CR), even though it could reach us anywhere in the room with its tentacles, while we could do nothing but fire ineffectually without jumping across, risking being swept away to certain death.  It won initiative, dragged the tank across the water, and nobody could even get near the thing to free the tank from the Improved Grab (read "broken ability").  Luckily, the Bard, in his single wisest play decision ever (Wis 9, complete buffoon) attempted to bargain with the thing and succeeded.  The DM's argument that the EL wasn't ridiculously high was that "well, you could bargain with it, so that brings it back down", which she cited as an option suggested in the adventure text.  The problem with this standpoint, IMO, is that this option should already be factored into the CR of the Roper, as its availability is not restricted to the confines of that specific situation.  Therefore, I argued, the EL should be increased due to the large terrain advantage in favor of the Roper.  It's just very difficult to get some people to improvise, even though guidelines are set out in the books, and it is only fair to adjust certain rules as the circumstances demand.
> 
> Anyway, in this campaign, even though most of the players are fairly rules-savvy, we often find ourselves having to backtrack when we later realize that a given action couldn't have been taken, especially with regard to monsters, as it can be difficult to ascertain every aspect of a given monster's abilities on the fly.  The rules, however, must be followed verbatim in this game, and it drags things out and causes a lot of hard feelings among the play group, especially between this DM and myself, as I am quick to point out when I have been slighted by an "illegal" action on the part of a monster, or the (perceived) objectively illogical nature of a given rule.  I have been justified many times over, as several of my suggestions were actually implemented in the 3.5 conversion, those same suggestions which had previously caused hours of heated debate.  Conversely, I also point out when players declare "illegal" actions, etc., as that's just the way this campaign has been run, and I prefer not to "cheat".  To this DM's credit, however, she is extremely adept at roleplaying NPCs, and there are upsides to ensuring that the rules are followed.  I enjoy her game immensely despite my gripes with certain aspects of it.
> 
> On the other hand, I have played in campaigns where the DM was very good at improvisation on the fly and very reasonable about tweaking rules for the sake of fun.  In my opinion, open-mindedness is the only way to approach the role of the Dungeon Master when your goal is to provide the most enjoyable game possible on all sides of the table.  Some people will surely disagree, but I can tell you that from my experience (about 13 years), I have found the most fun in games where the DM was less of a rules cop (especially with one particular DM- amazingly creative and animated), and I feel that this statement would be supported by everyone in my play group who has participated in any of his major campaigns.




Nice post, I think this summerizes what I believe as well.

The main problem I have is that I find the rules in 3E much harder to improvise around than in previous additions.  This is because every ability and rule is so intertwined that it is really hard to start hacking off the parts of the system you don't want to play with.

Example IMHO, the improved fighter feats are broken.  I don't think improved grapple and great cleave and improved trip add much to the game and represent a fairly serious imbalance within the parties I've seen.  Hey, it's just my opinion, but one that is shared by most of the people in my group.

So, we decide to take them out.  Now we have to balance out how the fighter class is balanced because now all of it's extra feats have no where to go.  So, now we are balancing the classes as well as removing things we don't want to play with.  After much negotiation we decide that the fighter gets some bonuses in other places.  

Now we start to play and I come across a monster with Improved Trip.  Doesn't seem fair to leave this in for every monster if we took it out for the players, so we start twinking with the monster feats to make them fair for the players.  Blah, now I am balancing out monsters, classes, and feats.

Then my mage casts something like Evards Black Tentacles... we read the description and it is making opposed grapple checks.... which we took out.  Ack, now I have to redo the spells....Ackkkk


It just seems like the system is well designed to pile stuff on to it, but poorly designed to take stuff out of.   Unlike 1E and 2E where you could easily ignore much of the extra rules, 3E makes you play with them.    For some this is no problem, but for other groups this represents a substantial increase in the number and scope of the base rules used.


----------



## teitan (Jun 4, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> One assertion that always seems to go unchallenged in these discussions is the "I used to make up NPCs all the time but it's impossible in 3E."
> 
> Poppycock.
> 
> ...




And there goes Balance out the window plus a million other things and a bag of chips. Sure you can do it... but should you? In OD&D and AD&D I would just assign a level and USE THE FRICKING SAVING THROW CHART on my DM's Screen for that information, throw in a magic item or two and randomly determine money and if he had spells I would just cast spells keeping track of how many he used as compared to the class chart in the PHB just so I didn't use too many... 3E offers too many tactical and balance options to be able to do that on a lark and create an NPC that doesn't overpower my players or is underpowered.

Jason


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jun 4, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> It just seems like the system is well designed to pile stuff on to it, but poorly designed to take stuff out of.




Did anyone else think of Microsoft when reading this post?


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 4, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> You misunderstand the point of the Roper encounter in _The Forge of Fury_: There are encounters other than those balanced for the intended PC groups, and when it's a mismatch that disfavors the PCs then the PCs ought to run.  Not all encounters are there for the PCs to beat.




True, the PCs could have fled, but that doesn't change the fact that, if the PCs were to decide to stand and fight (the only time when the EL really applies), the difficulty of the encounter would be increased by the specific terrain and layout of the room, and thus the EL should be adjusted accordingly (according to the _Dungeon Master's Guide_).  In our specific situation, flight was only a last resort, as a character would have had to be abandoned, which is generally the last tactic employed by the party in question.  If the Roper hadn't gotten a surprise round due to its natural difficulty to identify as a threat (again, part of the CR, no problems here), then yes, the party could and would have fled.  The creature's CR, however, does not provide for non-negotiable surrounding terrain.


----------



## teitan (Jun 4, 2004)

I may have been a little harsh on that one but I am one of those DM's who likes to be prepared and I like to keep it fair and consistent with the classes for my players, even in 1e or 2e I could do that but I also used the rules for my ad hocing of NPCs, I can't really do that in 3e because of the skills and feats etc. involved and I don't want to give my NPCs too many feats y'know...

Jason


----------



## kamosa (Jun 4, 2004)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> Did anyone else think of Microsoft when reading this post?




Where do you want to Hack today?


----------



## Henry (Jun 4, 2004)

teitan said:
			
		

> And there goes Balance out the window plus a million other things and a bag of chips. Sure you can do it... but should you? In OD&D and AD&D I would just assign a level and USE THE FRICKING SAVING THROW CHART on my DM's Screen for that information, throw in a magic item or two and randomly determine money and if he had spells I would just cast spells keeping track of how many he used as compared to the class chart in the PHB just so I didn't use too many... 3E offers too many tactical and balance options to be able to do that on a lark and create an NPC that doesn't overpower my players or is underpowered.




I can't say as I've ever seen it that way. My experience with the previous systems was that no attempt at balance was made when comparing classes level for level, not even with the core books; Fighters were woefully unprepared next to rangers and paladins. Balance was instead attempted through different XP charts. When that one stricture was changed, EVERYTHING had to be balanced one class for another, and it couldn't be thrown back onto the XP charts to make up for any slights. 

But then, you had monsters of equivalent hit dice, but VASTLY different challenges (Ghasts and Ankhegs being two good examples - ghasts were worth more XP but easier to kill!) so really the problem has not changed much.

All of the things you mentioned I still do - guesstimate from the class spell charts, etc. and balance suffers just as much as any other edition - which is to say, if it does suffer, it's by roughly the same amount.

Heck, the new variables for monsters and NPC's should be a DM's friend, not his enemy! I was more likely to get called on incorrect stats in previous editions than now, because the players knew the rules inside and out! Nowadays, who can know why the ghoul spellcaster had 5 magic missile spells instead of four? Maybe he had a feat, or a higher intelligence, or maybe he used a higher level slot! In the old days, none of these things were recommended or even suggested; a DM could come up with them,  but they didn't readily suggest themselves except to experienced DM's.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 4, 2004)

As far as statting out an NPC, it's basically no more complicated than 2e save for one minor detail: skills.  Skills, especially for advanced, non-spellcasting characters, are by far the most time-consuming aspect of creating statistics.  My advice is to simply choose a few applicable skills and just stick some ranks in them.  How many NPCs are actually going to make Profession (gigolo) or Alchemy checks during combat?  I'm assuming that these posts are referring to quickly creating NPCs to combat the characters, such as Bandits or whatnot.  Also, there are some utilities available on the net to randomly generate NPCs (check the eNWorld homepage for a link to Jamis Buck's RPG Generators), and I believe that eTools is also capable of producing similar results.  These programs will generally allow you the option of creating NPCs in stat block format, so that you can include several on the same page.  If you get some wierd results for spell choices or whatever, just make changes as you see fit, swapping on a 1-for-1 basis.  Of course, Magic Items cause more adjustments, but hey- what can you do?  *shrugs*


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Heck, the new variables for monsters and NPC's should be a DM's friend, not his enemy! I was more likely to get called on incorrect stats in previous editions than now, because the players knew the rules inside and out! Nowadays, who can know why the ghoul spellcaster had 5 magic missile spells instead of four? Maybe he had a feat, or a higher intelligence, or maybe he used a higher level slot! In the old days, none of these things were recommended or even suggested; a DM could come up with them,  but they didn't readily suggest themselves except to experienced DM's.



Well, one of the things 3E purports to do is to standardize these sorts of things, for better or worse:

(Preface all of this with "In my opinion,")
For the better: 
1) Rookie DMs have some guidelines and are less likely under or over challenge the players.  Of course, this is dependent on the CR and other assorted ratings being close to reasonable for the character party.
2) DMs are encouraged to create interesting opponents.  They are encouraged because they have the backing of the rules, which at least make an honest attempt at balance by providing a CR and how to recalculate it as you add templates, etc...  Without a rule in print, many DMs (especially those who didn't play previous editions) don't want to do this sort of thing.  You have to worry about that Kobold standing in the back of the room now (well, at least more often than in 1E).  Is he casting a spell?

For the worse:
1) If you do it by the book, as many players and DMs insist, you cannot wing it unless you have a good portion of the ruleset memorized, or have incredibly good organization and can quickly find the info you need.  Without what amounts to "instant access" to the particular rule/feat/skill, etc.. the game will bog down while you flip pages.  Either way, the DM must spend a lot of extra time before or during the game to locate, memorize, or organize all the materials.  There is no getting around it.  there is simply way more info to process than in previous editions.
2) Astute rules-oriented players can guess what sort of power their opponents are wielding, because they can consult the same rulebooks as the DM.  To me, this changes the game to a resource management problem, rather than a game of heroic adventure.
3) If you deviate from the rulebooks to keep your players off balance, you will probably run afoul of a good portion of 3E players because of your ad-hockery and disregard for game balance.

So, there is the give-and-take as I see it.  In 1E, you had to trust the DM not to screw you.  An inexperienced DM who tinkers with creatures by adding spellcasting, etc.. can realy hose the players bad.  But come to think of it, so can a 3E DM.  But at least with 3E, the players can point to the rule book and say that a particular encounter had too high of CR, etc...  (Yet another example of how 3E is player-oriented, rather than DM-centric.)


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> As far as statting out an NPC, it's basically no more complicated than 2e save for one minor detail: skills.  Skills, especially for advanced, non-spellcasting characters, are by far the most time-consuming aspect of creating statistics.




Since I've gotten my hands on Unearthed Arcana, I've been using "maximum Ranks, Limited Choices" method for NPC skills (The Sigil uses this in his OGL Fantasy Lite as well.)  Basically, each class gets a number of skills equal to: (it's skill points per level) + Int Mod  The skill check for class skills is then: d20 + (level + 3) + ability mod + misc mods.  Cross-class is the same, but with (level + 3)/2, rounded down. 

The effect is that the NPC has fewer skills, but they are maxed out.  For me, usually one 2 or 3 skills really matter for the encounter, so this really, really has helped both in prep time, and for winging it.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> Since I've gotten my hands on Unearthed Arcana, I've been using "maximum Ranks, Limited Choices" method for NPC skills (The Sigil uses this in his OGL Fantasy Lite as well.)  Basically, each class gets a number of skills equal to: (it's skill points per level) + Int Mod  The skill check for class skills is then: d20 + (level + 3) + ability mod + misc mods.  Cross-class is the same, but with (level + 3)/2, rounded down.
> 
> The effect is that the NPC has fewer skills, but they are maxed out.  For me, usually one 2 or 3 skills really matter for the encounter, so this really, really has helped both in prep time, and for winging it.




I haven't gotten to check out _Unearthed Arcana_ yet- good book?  Is that the one from Malhavoc Press, or the one from WotC?  One is Arcana Unearthed, and one is Unearthed Arcana, I believe.  Confusing.

Anyway, yeah, that's basically what I meant anyway.  If you just stick to combat-pertinent skills and stick a reasonable number in there, it cuts your preparation time way down.


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> I haven't gotten to check out _Unearthed Arcana_ yet- good book?  Is that the one from Malhavoc Press, or the one from WotC?  One is Arcana Unearthed, and one is Unearthed Arcana, I believe.  Confusing.
> 
> Anyway, yeah, that's basically what I meant anyway.  If you just stick to combat-pertinent skills and stick a reasonable number in there, it cuts your preparation time way down.



Unearthed Arcana by Wotc, and it has proven useful.  I'm using 3 or 4 things out of it, which is more than most d20 books I've bought.


----------



## zodiki (Jun 4, 2004)

3rd edition is very complicated, but I think most gamers can handle it. The one thing I have noticed is that since D&D has so many rules, and 99% of them make sense, many players and DMs expect there to be a rule in the book for every situation. When there isn't and there has to be some interpretation, a large discussion breaks out. It's as if the rules belong to both the players and the DM and there has to be some sort of concensus reached on every point. That's fine, but at what point do the rules take over the game, at what point is form more important than function?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2004)

*A modest proposal*

What if, instead of doing a stripped down version of 3Ed/3.5Ed...

perhaps there should be a good shakedown adventure with pregenerated PCs from a variety of classes.

For $15-20, you get an adventure that takes a party of pregens through multiple character levels, has plenty of pointers for the DM (because he might be a novice, too).  There would be a pregen PC from each PHB class and race (perhaps a few different combos), and some selected ones from OA, Savage Species, XPH, etc., each crossreferenced with the appropriate pages in the relevant rulebooks.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jun 4, 2004)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> But do you use every available WoTC source, or just the core rulebooks




No, not everything.  I know there's a staggering number of feats out there, and I do own a lot of the WotC stuff, all the Dragon mags, and a few third party publications, as well as many I've gleaned from the web (and boy, let me just say a LOT of those STINK..anyway). I have at my disposal a LOT of feats.  But, I'm such a geek that I'm always just picking up one of these sources and thumbing through it, whether watching tv, on the phone, or in "the office".  When I go to make a character, I've got a pretty good idea where the which feat I want and where it is, so I can find it pretty quickly.

I will also add this, regarding rules knowledge and game play. I played in a DC Heroes game (From Mayfair Games) from 1988 to 2000, and really only knew the rules that applied o my characters.  I didn't need to know the entire ruleset to play and have an absolutely terrific time, in what is probably my favorite experience as a player (not a DM).  Having said that, I echo the sentiments of some I've read here that a player really only needs to know enough to play his or her character, and just a basic grasp of movement types and combat options are necessary.  A good DM will be patient enough to help them along where needed.


----------



## MonsterMash (Jun 4, 2004)

As someone who'd been away from D&D and RPG in general I did find that 3e did seem to be heavy on rules and making an effort to try to cover everything. I've started running a campaign this year and initially I was going 'oh my god look at the prep required', but I've got round it by creating generic NPC stat blocks I can use, e.g. war1, war2, exp1, and so on with a bit more willingness to wing an encounter like I did in the old days. 

But to bring in new players I'd definitely say something less hefty looking and pricey would help. For novice players and DMs its hard not to get mesmerised into going: 'we must follow all these rules as they are written' rather than knowing how to go ok, just use a will/fort/ref save, DC whatever.


----------



## Henry (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> For the worse:
> 1) If you do it by the book, as many players and DMs insist, you cannot wing it unless you have a good portion of the ruleset memorized, or have incredibly good organization and can quickly find the info you need.




Agreed; if I had to memorize every spell, skill, and feat out there, I'd go nuts. I'm not that good of a comput-- excuse me, DM.



> 3) If you deviate from the rulebooks to keep your players off balance, you will probably run afoul of a good portion of 3E players because of your ad-hockery and disregard for game balance.




I've decided I'm leading a sheltered life; I am the worst rules lawyer I know.  Most players I've ever run into never protested what I did with the rules, at home or otherwise, and it surprises me.

The only time I saw a complaint was at a home game when I actually changed a basic game rule on the fly, and I agreed, because the most basic game rules every DM should set beforehand and not change mid-stream. (I thought it would be more dramatically appropriate for someone making a reflex save to actually MOVE out of the range of the effect. I still do, but I shouldn't have changed my handling of it after the session started.)



> So, there is the give-and-take as I see it.  In 1E, you had to trust the DM not to screw you... But come to think of it, so can a 3E DM.  But at least with 3E, the players can point to the rule book and say that a particular encounter had too high of CR, etc...  (Yet another example of how 3E is player-oriented, rather than DM-centric.)




I agree, but I don't let players worry me who crunch numbers to the extent of worrying about CR's and EL's. The players in my games are GOING to run into things that are above their ability; knowing when to retreat and re-think a challenge is a learned skill, not a given, and no better way to learn than by example.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

The rules have definitely become too complicated.  I think it has caused problems.  I know that I have experienced a lot of trouble with the rules and how they have changed my game and my group.  The game has changed into little more than a tactical wargame.  When I have expressed my concerns over how the rules have changed the group, people begin to question why I play DnD, as if a tactical wargame is the only way to play the game.

For me, it seems like 3e has forced a hardline division between gamers.  My group has divided along the lines of rules/tactical oriented versus roleplay/story oriented.  

No balance exists between the two sides.  The rules oriented players dominate the game as they dominate combat.  If the roleplay oriented gamers want to compete, then they are forced to delve deep into the rules or get left behind.  

Game rulings cannot be made on the fly.  If a GM does not have ADVANCED rules knowledge, then the players do not trust him.  You are fair if you use the correct rule, while unfair and arbitrary if you do not take the time to find the correct rule.

Rules discussion dominates our game.  If not discussing a tactical problem, then people sit and discuss "builds" etc even if the GM is trying to keep the game flowing.  

The half of the group that does not have advanced knowledge of the rules usually remains quiet during rules discussion and if someone does speak up or disagree with something, then a long speech takes place detailing why this rule makes things balanced and how it integrates into the game.

There is no middle ground.  There is no compromise.  You either "build" "optimal" characters or spend combat being ineffective.  Once this annoys people with good builds, then they begin making suggestions about how to build the character better.  Choices that make sense for the character but are less than optimal are met with disdain.

Now, I truly enjoy the time spent with my friends.  I would not trade that experience for anything.  Some of them simplely enjoy the rules and work to gain an optimal knowledge and I do not blame them for it.

This is the fault of 3e and how it is PRESENTED.  The three core books would not be so bad if every book that followed did not enforce the idea that rules are god.  If a book such as Complete Warrior did not contain so many class and feats, and had more balance between crunch and roleplay, then there would be some argument that crunch should not be the focus of the game.  

WOTC has made it understood that crunch is the method by which the game is played.  They have made it understood that the players should EXPECT a game of strict rules that leave the GM little more than a mediator or servant.  Their focus is on players and what they can continually give players to sell books.  Player empowerment, GM restriction.

Are the rules too complicated?  Hell YES.
Barrier to entry? Yes
Why? Too many rules and how the heck can a group of kids want to learn the game since not one of them would want to GM for the game.  

Motto: Third Edition, everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM.

Cathartic Rage ended.

End of Line.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The rules have definitely become too complicated.  I think it has caused problems.  I know that I have experienced a lot of trouble with the rules and how they have changed my game and my group.  The game has changed into little more than a tactical wargame.  When I have expressed my concerns over how the rules have changed the group, people begin to question why I play DnD, as if a tactical wargame is the only way to play the game.
> 
> For me, it seems like 3e has forced a hardline division between gamers.  My group has divided along the lines of rules/tactical oriented versus roleplay/story oriented.
> 
> ...




Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Fusce iaculis tempor neque. Duis ac justo vel risus lobortis elementum. Ut vulputate neque sed eros. Nulla sit amet elit. Praesent et elit. Sed eu orci. In vehicula lacus eget tellus. Maecenas at felis quis neque vestibulum bibendum. Nunc vitae nisl at lorem adipiscing luctus. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec pellentesque. In nulla tortor, pellentesque a, cursus eget, ultricies a, tortor.

Proin ligula wisi, porta in, aliquam at, sollicitudin nec, est. Nulla egestas, diam eget ultricies mollis, ante orci tincidunt pede, sed eleifend ante arcu id quam. Maecenas a mauris a ipsum accumsan rhoncus. Cras eget urna. Nulla id lacus quis ante fermentum varius. Ut scelerisque ipsum eu nibh. Duis commodo. Vivamus vulputate eros sit amet enim. Mauris convallis. Pellentesque mauris neque, interdum eget, ullamcorper quis, sagittis a, libero.

Aenean at lorem lacinia metus vestibulum pharetra. Nulla bibendum odio sed ipsum. Ut neque ligula, vestibulum non, accumsan sit amet, vulputate quis, urna. Aenean nec lorem. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Cras nibh. Curabitur sollicitudin. Cras laoreet, lorem et bibendum mollis, mi dolor varius nisl, sit amet scelerisque nisl dui at mauris. Curabitur pellentesque. Ut feugiat arcu eu ligula. Donec nibh magna, volutpat nec, imperdiet nec, viverra congue, lorem. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Fusce vestibulum vulputate sem. Maecenas id augue eget est pharetra viverra. Nam dapibus mollis enim. Integer viverra sapien ac mi. Cras at urna quis ligula nonummy fringilla. Nullam odio est, dictum et, aliquam sed, imperdiet eget, nibh. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae;

Sed sit amet dolor. In ultricies. Nullam quis mi quis diam varius ultricies. Mauris ac ante id lacus posuere iaculis. Aliquam et turpis in ipsum rutrum ornare. Vestibulum in magna. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In vel dolor. Maecenas pede wisi, auctor aliquet, aliquam in, fermentum quis, dui. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; In at sem sed leo tincidunt egestas. Nam fringilla nibh eget wisi. Nulla facilisi. Aenean mattis, elit ac bibendum dictum, dolor arcu laoreet risus, in consequat eros wisi ac ligula. Donec sit amet libero. Sed sit amet dolor. Cras suscipit, sapien a scelerisque cursus, nibh wisi varius magna, in aliquet eros nibh sed lorem. Quisque aliquet tempus est.



> Cathartic Rage ended.




Standard rant reply included.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Standard rant reply included.




We can always count on hong for meaningless drivel and dubious sense of humor.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> We can always count on hong for meaningless drivel and dubious sense of humor.



 Insert generic snappy retort.


Hong "bored now" Ooi


----------



## Psion (Jun 4, 2004)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> there are 2328 feats.  Let me reiterate - *2328 feats*  Now, I have to caveat that by stating that I haven't done any consolidation (i.e. some of those feats are reprinted through multiple books, and some are superceded by later books.)  The PHB alone has roughly 110 feats.  While actually creating a character may only take you 1/2 hour, how long do you spend *deciding* what choices you want to take?




It's really not that complicated.

My blanket rule - PHB feats allowed, let me know if you want to use anything else.

The players usually do not sift through a stack of books to pick their feats when creating a character. Usually the only way a player ends up with a feat from another book is if:
They were reading a book at home and saw a feat that interested them, and remembered it for when they made a character.
They ask the DM if there is a feat that does something they are interested in doing.
They look through a specific book that pertains to their character class.

They do not sift through 2000+ feats when creating a character.


----------



## Psion (Jun 4, 2004)

> Most players I've ever run into never protested what I did with the rules, at home or otherwise, and it surprises me.




I've had players complain when I have implemented a rule correctly and they though I got it wrong. Silly players.

My current group of players has NEVER questioned my rulings. Why is simple: we work as a team to get the most out of our game and get the experience we want, instead of trying to play it like we are adversaries.


----------



## Torm (Jun 4, 2004)

Thinking more on the subject, I think that, from the experienced DM aspect of it, the game is far too well _defined_, rather than too complicated. I recently lost a regular player because I, as a DM, as well as our other DM, wanted to do things to our campaigns for flavor that went against a strict reading of the core books. And I'm not even talking about BIG things - things like a shop having Potions of Cure Light for 70gp when the DMG said they were 50gp were an issue with him.

There are a lot of things I like about 3E (R.I.P. THAC0), but I almost think that some of its advantages (very well defined rules, for example), may actually be hindrances to certain aspects of storytelling and ROLEplaying. Rule 0 sounds like a cop out to some people, but it may actually be the most important rule in the book.


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> My current group of players has NEVER questioned my rulings. Why is simple: we work as a team to get the most out of our game and get the experience we want, instead of trying to play it like we are adversaries.



Once again, Psion brings the focus right back where it belongs.


----------



## Torm (Jun 4, 2004)

I just looked at my last post and it struck me as funny - TORM doesn't like playin' by the RULES!


----------



## Henry (Jun 4, 2004)

Torm said:
			
		

> And I'm not even talking about BIG things - things like a shop having Potions of Cure Light for 70gp when the DMG said they were 50gp were an issue with him.




I'm sure to have an interesting talk this weekend.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> barsoomcore, that's what I do as well. However, I'm not sure that "No, because I ignore most of the rules" is the same thing as a plain "no"



Really!       I better step up my security.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

teitan said:
			
		

> And there goes Balance out the window plus a million other things and a bag of chips. Sure you can do it... but should you?



In my case, yes, absolutely I should.  The game is fun that way, both for me to run and for my players to play.  It wouldn't be otherwise.  Balance?  My players seem to be appropriately challenged.   Sounds like balance is fine to me.


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> I agree, but I don't let players worry me who crunch numbers to the extent of worrying about CR's and EL's. The players in my games are GOING to run into things that are above their ability; knowing when to retreat and re-think a challenge is a learned skill, not a given, and no better way to learn than by example.



I'm fortunate enough not to have to worry about it either.  The guys I play with are way more interested in having fun than bickering about rules.  When I make a rule gaff, discuss, fix, then move on.  

However, I have been in the FLGS a few times and seen some tirades about how the NPC should be out of magic missles, that item costs too much, etc..  I've also had others relate similar stories too me.

Same thing happened in 1E of course, but it seems to me that 3E "backs" the player more.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> Same thing happened in 1E of course, but it seems to me that 3E "backs" the player more.



To bring the whole discussion full circle, that's ironically to facilitate new players.  Or more specifically new DMs.  I've read (a Monte Cook blog or some such?) that one of the design strategies of 3e was to allow play almost without a DM so that new groups can get started without some experienced showing them how.


----------



## Psion (Jun 4, 2004)

> And I'm not even talking about BIG things - things like a shop having Potions of Cure Light for 70gp when the DMG said they were 50gp were an issue with him.




He'd go nuts in my game. I think fixed prices for anything are whacked, especially in a psuedo-medieval economy. I definitely bring to bear concepts like buyers' and sellers' markets, cost of distribution, and so forth.

AFAIAC, prices in the DMG are a _starting point_ only.


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> To bring the whole discussion full circle, that's ironically to facilitate new players.  Or more specifically new DMs.  I've read (a Monte Cook blog or some such?) that one of the design strategies of 3e was to allow play almost without a DM so that new groups can get started without some experienced showing them how.



Yep, I know.  And I don't object.  3E does in fact limit the impact of poor DMs because everything is so well defined.  In theory (and practice) experienced DMs and groups are going to hack the ruleset anyway, so except for handing them an axe to grind ("the system is too defined and dumbed down for newbie DMs") there is no downside.  (Note that I'm not grinding that axe.  I moan a bit about how long it takes to craft a high level NPC, but I see the wisdom in the idea of defining most of the situations a DM will face.  There is a price however:  $90 and about 1,000 pages.)

Hell, I've even speculated that someday there will be a DM-less option for D&D.  Take the miniatures game, bundle it with a choose-your-own adventure type of scenario, and you are off.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> To bring the whole discussion full circle, that's ironically to facilitate new players.  Or more specifically new DMs.  I've read (a Monte Cook blog or some such?) that one of the design strategies of 3e was to allow play almost without a DM so that new groups can get started without some experienced showing them how.




Monte Cook said: (from  http://montecook.com/diary3.html ) 



> One thing, for example, that we tried to do was to "take the DM out of the equation" as much as possible. Now this has caused its own share of problems, but the reason we did it was to make the game as easy as we could for new players. If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn.




I think this is the root of almost all the complaints about d20 that have been showing up in recent threads. DMs feeling bogged down by the rules have let this aspect of the game take over the campaign. 

Once you recognize the issue, I think it's easy to fix.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> Yep, I know.  And I don't object.  3E does in fact limit the impact of poor DMs because everything is so well defined.  In theory (and practice) experienced DMs and groups are going to hack the ruleset anyway, so except for handing them an axe to grind ("the system is too defined and dumbed down for newbie DMs") there is no downside.  (Note that I'm not grinding that axe.  I moan a bit about how long it takes to craft a high level NPC, but I see the wisdom in the idea of defining most of the situations a DM will face.  There is a price however:  $90 and about 1,000 pages.)
> 
> Hell, I've even speculated that someday there will be a DM-less option for D&D.  Take the miniatures game, bundle it with a choose-your-own adventure type of scenario, and you are off.




Bad design strategy.  Almost every gamer I know was recruited by a more experienced player.  So, basically, a GM-less game mean a tactical board game with no story.

Thing is, once you remove the GM, then you begin removing the need to have groups.  Isn't finding enough players a bigger barrier to entry and getting a GM?  Of course, once you have a GM-less game, then why not just have a board game that you can play yourself with a choose your own adventure story.  Choose one path and the "story" tells you what monster to put down in order to fight.  It even gives you the tactics of the monster!

Yay?


----------



## Aries_Omega (Jun 4, 2004)

*d20 and me*

I been playing since basic red box D&D and DMing since 1st Edition. My campaign has been through all three and by and far I love 3E. 

It takes longer for a character, but writting up adventures are pretty easy now. That and my house rules book is whiddled down a bit. It has the benefit of 1E in that a DM has alot of pull to do what they want, yet is there is enough codified material that you have a ruling on things like 2E and the math is simpler and things make more sense....ie the THAC0, AC and rolls. A common question I got from new players was something like this "I need an 18 to hit a guy with an AC of 0, but an 8 for a AC 10?? Why....10 is a bigger number then 0".

IMHO 3E is the best thing to happen to AD&D since...since....I dunno since Greenwood? And it is OGL....meaning you can make your own worlds up and publish them....every gaming geek dream right? Or just mine?  

AriesOmega


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Monte Cook said: (from  http://montecook.com/diary3.html )
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not so easy.  It requires tacit agreement from the entire group.  Players may not be willing to give up the power advantage given in 3e.

For me, the wonder of the game has been stamped into the mud in favor of balance and rules.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

Yep, that's what I was remembering.  I think they may have overdone it (see my earlier comment about the other _four_ d20 games WotC has produced in one book that are completely ... complete, for instance) but overall, it's not a bad strategy on the face of it.

And are these hypothetical rules-lawyery players really that common?  I don't know that I've _ever_ played with one, much less having one in my current group.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

Aries_Omega said:
			
		

> I been playing since basic red box D&D and DMing since 1st Edition. My campaign has been through all three and by and far I love 3E.
> 
> It takes longer for a character, but writting up adventures are pretty easy now. That and my house rules book is whiddled down a bit. It has the benefit of 1E in that a DM has alot of pull to do what they want, yet is there is enough codified material that you have a ruling on things like 2E and the math is simpler and things make more sense....ie the THAC0, AC and rolls. A common question I got from new players was something like this "I need an 18 to hit a guy with an AC of 0, but an 8 for a AC 10?? Why....10 is a bigger number then 0".
> 
> ...





It's great if you're a player.  You really have the option to make a character that does things that you enjoy.  In that respect, things are great.

Otherwise, you're a glorified operating system.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yep, that's what I was remembering.  I think they may have overdone it (see my earlier comment about the other _four_ d20 games WotC has produced in one book that are completely ... complete, for instance) but overall, it's not a bad strategy on the face of it.
> 
> And are these hypothetical rules-lawyery players really that common?  I don't know that I've _ever_ played with one, much less having one in my current group.



 I know some people who know the rules in the books off by heart (or close to it). If I was to use the hoary old roll/roleplaying distinction, they'd definitely be way off the roll end of the scale. None of them have had any problems with campaign-specific house rules that aim to provide a specific flavour. They may not like the flavour itself, but that's not the same thing as not liking house rules per se.

It's much more a personality issue than anything else, IMO. That cuts both ways; a stubborn DM can cause just as much grief as a stubborn player. In particular, people with a clear chip on their shoulder about the One True Way of Gaming can easily cause hackles to rise.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And are these hypothetical rules-lawyery players really that common?  I don't know that I've _ever_ played with one, much less having one in my current group.




Very common, although I would not call them rules lawyers.  That implies that they manipulate the rules.  Instead, they just know them very well and can use them to create very effective characters.  

Then, we look at things like the RPGA.  The GM in that game seems to follow a set formula with no wiggle room.  It's like everything is scripted and the GM just runs encounters and feeds pre-generated plots.

And they are very common with people who started with 3e rather than came from other editions.  People who started with 3e have been taught that players deserve access to feats, classes, items and beyond.  They have been taught that strict adherence to the rules is good, while deviation is arbitrary and bad.  They have been taught that deviation from the rules automatically means that the GM will screw them over.


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Bad design strategy.  Almost every gamer I know was recruited by a more experienced player.  So, basically, a GM-less game mean a tactical board game with no story.



As Dancey pointed out, recruitment by experienced gamers is, and probably always will be, the most dominant way to get new players into the game.  However, in the interest of driving revenue, WotC will need to find ways to increase sales, which means tapping those that aren't exposed to experienced players.

And yes, a GM-less game is a tactical board game with no story.  Not only do a lot of D&D groups play it that way already, but look at Mage Knight.  There is obviously a market for that kind of game.  If there exists a similar game which leads to D&D, is that a bad thing?




			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Thing is, once you remove the GM, then you begin removing the need to have groups.  Isn't finding enough players a bigger barrier to entry and getting a GM?  Of course, once you have a GM-less game, then why not just have a board game that you can play yourself with a choose your own adventure story.  Choose one path and the "story" tells you what monster to put down in order to fight.  It even gives you the tactics of the monster!
> 
> Yay?




I don't think finding players is the problem.  There are lots of people interested in other games like CCGs and clicky miniatures who would probably like to play D&D, but don't want to DM because of the time it takes.  Next time I'm in the FLGS I think I'll ask all the guys flopping cards and clicking bases.

And yes, I agree board games and choose your own adenture stories are not D&D, or any kind of RPG.  Just because I look at the gaming market and *speculate* about a strategy does not mean I *advocate* or *like* the strategy.  I'm just wildly guessing what a big company might do to try to make some money.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Players may not be willing to give up the power advantage given in 3e.




Yes, but that's a problem with the players, not the rules.  At the gaming table, all folks must be willing to flex a bit to help others (including the DM)have fun.  If some people refuse to do that, this is not a fault in the rules, it is a fault in their teamwork.

I know such people exist.  However, I agree with Joshua Dyal that their influence and frequency are being largely overstated.  The majority of folks, when presented with a fellow gamer who politely and simply asks, "Could you please stop doing that?  It is making the game much less fun for me," will accede to your request.

But, in the end, if you feel the game's wonder really has been stomped into the mud, there's the simple expedient of playiing a different game, including previous editions of D&D.  If it's so all fired horrible for you, doing something else is an option.  And that's not a "stop playing in my pond" statement.  It's a recognition that you gotta do what you find fun.  If you don't find 3e D&D fun, do something else!  Life is too short to spend on leisure pursuits that hold no wonder for you.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> And yes, I agree board games and choose your own adenture stories are not D&D, or any kind of RPG.  Just because I look at the gaming market and *speculate* about a strategy does not mean I *advocate* or *like* the strategy.  I'm just wildly guessing what a big company might do to try to make some money.




No worries.  I am not trying to pick on anyone.  I understand where you're coming from.  My main issue is the WOTC policies and not with any posters, players etc.  I hate the way they have promoted the game in the last few years.


----------



## teitan (Jun 4, 2004)

zodiki said:
			
		

> 3rd edition is very complicated, but I think most gamers can handle it. The one thing I have noticed is that since D&D has so many rules, and 99% of them make sense, many players and DMs expect there to be a rule in the book for every situation. When there isn't and there has to be some interpretation, a large discussion breaks out. It's as if the rules belong to both the players and the DM and there has to be some sort of concensus reached on every point. That's fine, but at what point do the rules take over the game, at what point is form more important than function?




Except that this is all about NEW gamers. Sure we experienced gamers have no problem with it but Billy Kid might have a lot of problems if he tries to just jump into the game without being taught to play...

Jason


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It's great if you're a player.  You really have the option to make a character that does things that you enjoy.  In that respect, things are great.
> 
> Otherwise, you're a glorified operating system.




Pure and utter claptrap.

An executive summary of the session before last, in my campaign.

The group had just organised for the seizure of the estates of a noble, who'd been exposed as a practitioner of Eeeevil black magic. The estate, including a castle, passed into the ownership of the crown. The PCs were appointed as interim administrators, being the agents on the scene. (One of the players wanted to acquire a keep, a la 1E. This was a nifty way of handling it.)

On their way to the keep, they met a group of soldiers from one of the neighbouring lords who also wanted to claim it. Some roleplaying and one Intimidate check later, they scared off the soldiers, and continued on their way. They had another encounter in a village with some outlaws, ex-followers of the evil noble, whom they quickly dispatched.

Next day, the people in charge of the keep didn't want to let them in. Again, after some roleplaying and more Diplomacy and Intimidate checks, they were persuaded of the error of their ways.

Once in the keep, they explored a bit, and found a secret door leading to tunnels underneath. In the tunnels, they fought some undead, and then a nasty demon. One character nearly died, and another got drained a few levels.

In all that:
- The encounters were done on the fly. In particular, all the monsters in the underground tunnels were chosen on the spur of the moment.

- The Intimidate DCs were done on the fly. (If they'd botched the rolls, they'd still have taken possession of the keep, but some blood might have been spilt.)

- The Search DC to find the secret door was also made up on the fly. (Hint: it helps to know what Search skills your party has.)

- The consequences of bullying your neighbour's soldiers will be determined by me, without the need to consult any rulebook.

Do not project your insecurities on to everyone else out there.


----------



## teitan (Jun 4, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> What if, instead of doing a stripped down version of 3Ed/3.5Ed...
> 
> perhaps there should be a good shakedown adventure with pregenerated PCs from a variety of classes.
> 
> For $15-20, you get an adventure that takes a party of pregens through multiple character levels, has plenty of pointers for the DM (because he might be a novice, too).  There would be a pregen PC from each PHB class and race (perhaps a few different combos), and some selected ones from OA, Savage Species, XPH, etc., each crossreferenced with the appropriate pages in the relevant rulebooks.




Except that brings in WAAAAY too many resources for a newbie. Outside of the resources you are talking about though, SS, OA, XPH etc. what you are describing is the NEW Basic boxed set. IT includes full rules to 3rd level from what I have heard and read in Dragon. Aside from that Savage Species sucked butt.

Jason


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Do not project your insecurities on to everyone else out there.




You know, you almost created a post free of insults, then you caved to the baser instincts.  To be expected, I suppose.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

teitan said:
			
		

> Except that this is all about NEW gamers. Sure we experienced gamers have no problem with it but Billy Kid might have a lot of problems if he tries to just jump into the game without being taught to play...



In all the threads that have come up over the years about celebrity gamers, this is the first I've ever heard that Billy the Kid was a gamer.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You know, you almost created a post free of insults, then you caved to the baser instincts.  To be expected, I suppose.



 Insert generic snappy retort Mark II.


Hong "still bored" Ooi


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> In all that:
> - The encounters were done on the fly. In particular, all the monsters in the underground tunnels were chosen on the spur of the moment.
> 
> - The Intimidate DCs were done on the fly. (If they'd botched the rolls, they'd still have taken possession of the keep, but some blood might have been spilt.)
> ...



Not too different from my last session in terms of style.  In fact, it had to be; I had no idea what the PCs would be doing this session (what I thought we'd spend the session doing they still haven't gotten to.)  In terms of knowing what Search skills your party has, it also helps to have a balanced party.  Although not done on purpose, as near as I can tell, my three players are all fairly well rounded on skill representation.  I have a Ranger-esque character with high wisdom who notices everything (and I'm anal about asking for Spot and Listen checks several times a session) I have a Rogue/Swashbuckler type fighter) who was trained as a spy, and although his wisdom (and WIS based skills) are low, his Intelligence and Search skill (as well as his languages and research abilities) are commensurately high.  The last character is an ex-gladiator straight-up fighter from a race that has damage reduction, Con bonus, and all kinds of other things that makes him very difficult to take down.

Considering that the only magic in my campaign is CoC-style magic, that's about as well-balanced as you can get.  Which means, for a winger DM (and I'm not talking about the 80s big hair rock band -- I've never heard that they play) I don't have to worry too much about them having someone competent at just about any situation I throw at them.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 4, 2004)

As always, 'I can modify the innate tendencies and assumed play style of the ruleset' has little to do with whether D&D is too complicated for current and new players and DMs as a whole. System Still Matters.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

Faraer said:
			
		

> System Still Matters.



Yes, I suppose it still does.  However, one of the benefits, rather intentional or not, of d20's modularity is that it doesn't really matter very much.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 4, 2004)

It doesn't matter so much for the portion of DMs (and to an extent, players) who self-consciously understand how the rules work and the attitudes and tactics they foster, and can then successfully hack the rules and compensate for the aspects of them they don't want. I don't think this is a very big portion.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yes, I suppose it still does.  However, one of the benefits, rather intentional or not, of d20's modularity is that it doesn't really matter very much.




It matters a great deal for newbies and those playing straight DnD.

I will agree with you that d20 can be very modular and incorporate a variety of games and play style.  However, the entry vehicle, DnD, no longer serves as a simple way for new players to learn the game.


----------



## Vindicator (Jun 4, 2004)

teitan said:
			
		

> I got another 25 stories on this one sitting at my Mom's because I GREW UP in the Gallipolis/Point Pleasant area! I helped write the 25th anniversary book on the Silver Bridge for River Valley High School in Cheshire, Ohio and had to interview people who were alive and in the area then and my special focus was the Mothman!
> 
> Jason




Hmmm...why hasn't this "subthread" been bumped to the Toxic Waste forum yet?  

[Just thinking out loud...]


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Not too different from my last session in terms of style.  In fact, it had to be; I had no idea what the PCs would be doing this session (what I thought we'd spend the session doing they still haven't gotten to.)




I'll admit, my biggest failing as a DM is probably lack of prep. I don't mind making up NPCs, both in terms of stats and backstory. I find it hard to come up with a complete, fleshed-out adventure ahead of time, though; at most, I'll have a couple of big encounters in mind and a vague idea of how to steer the party in their direction. I suppose I could use more published modules, but I'm too picky for my own good. There's always something that doesn't work for me, and I end up either throwing it all out or reworking big chunks.



> In terms of knowing what Search skills your party has, it also helps to have a balanced party.




This is true. In fact, after the guy playing the rogue dropped out, I had an NPC join them so as to fill the gap, otherwise they'd be blundering into traps and ambushes like nobody's business. Sometimes niche protection is more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It matters a great deal for newbies and those playing straight DnD.
> 
> I will agree with you that d20 can be very modular and incorporate a variety of games and play style. However, the entry vehicle, DnD, no longer serves as a simple way for new players to learn the game.




I addressed this earlier, maybe you glossed over it.

When exactly did previous editions serve as a simple way for new players to learn the game? Case in point: in an expired campaign we had 2 players completely new to D&D. They were both younger brothers of regular players, and both around 15-16. They picked up on the rules pretty quickly, in a session or two neither of them needed much help. (EDIT: This was a 3.5 game, mind you)

Later in the campaign, as a joke, one of the players asked me to explain THAC0 to the new players. I did so in great detail. They both looked at me like I had something naughty growing out of my forehead. I tried in vain to get them to understand for upwards of 5 minutes and got through to one of them only vaguely in that time. 

Back in the day, I played a 2e campaign for about 6 months with 2 brand newbies and the other 3 players having been in a few games. I later found out that neither of those 2 newbie players understood the rules very well even after the campaign's conclusion. They didn't know how THAC0 worked, only that they rolled a d20 and told me their THAC0 stat and what they rolled.

So really, how is the new edition less newbie friendly? All of my players know how everything works now, and if they don't it's a simple explanation away.


----------



## RyanD (Jun 4, 2004)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> When exactly did previous editions serve as a simple way for new players to learn the game?




The first "D&D" boxed sets were an excellent entry point.  In the early 1980's, TSR sold more than a million of those sets in one year.  They had wide enough distribution that they got D&D into the hands of a significant portion of the people likely to find a hobby in the game.  At no point since that time has the D&D publisher achieved that level of success.

And, not coincidentally, D&D core book sales have never matched the 3-5 year follow on period after those halcyon days in the early '80s.  I feel those two facts are directly connected.

However, the leap from those boxed sets to the core books was tremendous.  1E suffered from a lack of a coherent design strategy.  2E suffered from a desire to take control of the game away from the players and make it reside with TSR for the purpose of building campaign settings and thus novels and software.  3E "suffers" (if you can call it that) from giving players so many tools they are overwhelmed by their options.

3E is, at heart, a very simple game.  The complexity of the game comes from the number of choices that you >could< make.  One of the things that most people don't see about 3E is that at any given time, the number of choices you >can< make is very, very limited.  2E trained a whole generation of gamers to be ultra careful about what choices you make early in a character's lifecycle, because those choices will be determinant throughout the whole of that characters' time in the game.  As a result, 2E players often freeze when confronted with their options at character creation - afraid that a misstep will cost them dearly six months later when they realize that they've trapped their PC into a dead end with no hope of escape (something that happened often with 2E).

3E also has a strong emphasis on the idea that there should be a rule for each situation, not a judgement call.  We found that by and large most DMs preferred to have a rule rather than be asked to make an arbitrary decision.  We found that players overwhelmingly preferred to have a rule.  In my personal opinion, these two factors are related.  I think that most DMs just don't do a good job making arbitrary decisions, and they know it.  And most players react badly when an arbitrary decision goes against them, and they dislike the experience intensely.  In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth.  Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.

D&D is a roleplaying >game<.  It's not improvisational theater.  Games have rules, and they are supposed to be played by those rules.  I think that part of the perceived "complexity" of 3E comes from people who would prefer free-form roleplaying, rather than a "game" experience.  Confronted with rules for the game, these people withdraw, citing "complexity" when their real complaint is against "rules at all".

The other thing that 3E does pretty convincingly is define the game in terms of "classic heroic adventure".  D&D is the game where you fight monsters, take their treasure, and power up.  If you are interested in other kinds of roleplaying, like courtly intrique, economic manipulation, etc. D&D 3E is not a good fit for your interests.  I think this is an improvement, as players now know clearly what they're supposed to be doing in the game, and if they want to do something else, they need to get consensus from the other players and the DM, rather than just assuming that they will get what they're looking for automatically.

The downside is that "classic heroic adventure" is pretty much combat-centric.  As a result, the game is combat-centric, and combat rules are esoteric until you've used them enough to gain mastery.  3E does a terrible job (as does 3.5E) of bringing a new player along gently.  The combat system is presented as "integrated", and there's no provision made for starting with simple combat and moving to more complex combat as people become familiar with the rules.  I think this could be ameliorated via a short "combat for beginners" section that did away with AoO, grappling, charges, reach and threat zones, and presented all actions in combat as full-round actions.  When I teach D20, that's how I teach new players, leaving the more advanced "tactical" aspects of combat for after they understand how to cast a spell, swing a sword, shoot an arrow and run away.


----------



## mearls (Jun 4, 2004)

RyanD said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth.  Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.




I think this is true in some cases, but untrue in others. IME, when a DM "wings it" with the rules, everyone's satisfaction nosedives. As an experiment, I ran a game of the circa-1979 basic set. I found that constantly having to create new rules to fill in the gaps grew tiresome. It's *hard* to come up with rules for hiring men-at-arms on the fly. Even worse, as the players interact with the rules you may have to change them in ways they don't like. For instance, in the game I ran the players tried to send the mercenaries on suicidal attacks. On the spot, I had to make up morale rules for them. The players were annoyed that they couldn't use their NPCs as cannon fodder, since there wasn't a rule against it.

I think the worst thing a DM can hear is "If I knew you were going to make ruling X, we wouldn't have taken actions A, B, and C that got us here."

The strength of a comprehensive rules set, like 3e, is that it avoids those situations. I think the general aversion I've seen to entering a campaign that has house rules, as opposed to taking part in creating those house rules from the standard rules as a base, shows that people prefer predictability and stability of the core rules.

(In other words, I've seen a lot of people who won't enter a game that already has house rules. However, after a few sessions using the standard rules they're open to trying house rules if they feel they have a say in them.)

On the other hand, winging the squishy bits of a campaign (the "fluff") can be a good thing. I've noticed that when a DM improvises, he tends to draw more on how the players react to something than his own view of what's important. For example, the party fights a half-orc assassin that has a colorful, fun personality and a cool assortment of attacks and tactics. The DM who's winging it might pick up on that and give the players a chance to interact with him more, or he might make him a continuing NPC villain. The DM who has plotted his game out might ignore that feedback in favor of moving along with this plot, since the assassin was only supposed to be a side encounter on the way to the haunted citadel.


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> So really, how is the new edition less newbie friendly? All of my players know how everything works now, and if they don't it's a simple explanation away.




I can't speak to 2E, as never played it.  Same with THAC0.  Never understood what was so hard about looking at a freaking chart.  But anyway....

I personally find that the easiest version to teach is the 1980 Basic set.  The manual is 64 pages long, about 20 pages of which is for the player.  The rest is monsters, treasure, etc for the DM.  Much less complicated than handing somebody the 3.5 PHB.  

To me, it's not so much an issue of mechanics.  The d20 mechanic is indeed simple: roll a d20, add the modifiers.  The problem, for new players, is coming up with everything which goes into the modifier.  The ability and level-based modifiers (BAB, saves) are easy.  Skill modifiers are a bit tougher,  as you need to thumb through the PHB and figure out how you want to spend them.  Then there are synergies.  And feats.  And conditional modifiers (seems to me way more than 1E).  So while the mechanic is streamlined, the devil is in the details.  Then there are AOOs., etc...  It's alot for new players, even if you have an experienced player/DM to help out.  I imagine it's much worse for brand new, never played RPGs folks with no guidance.  It was much easier in the 80's with the Basic set(s).  WotC has obviously recognized this. (Witness the new basic set.)


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> For instance, in the game I ran the players tried to send the mercenaries on suicidal attacks. On the spot, I had to make up morale rules for them. The players were annoyed that they couldn't use their NPCs as cannon fodder, since there wasn't a rule against it.




Here's an idea: common sense.  I don't think I need a rule or a die roll that tells me the reaction of an NPC sent on a suicide mission.


----------



## Corinth (Jun 4, 2004)

Ryan's spot-on, as usual, about D&D.

I don't see what the problem is about D&D, either 3.0 or 3.5.  It's the simplest and most intuitive ruleset for the game in its history.  Once you understand the foundation of the rules and master those general concepts, it's very easy to apply that mastery to the specific spot-rules--the specific conceptions--that often come up during actual play and from there it's just as easy to make rulings for those corner cases that come up once in a while where the rules don't handle the situation.  Teaching the game to new players involves repeating that process of acquiring mastery, starting with those basics and moving upward.

I understand that the rules now do most of the work.  Why fight that?  Instead, I use it to my benefit; I let the rules run the game and focus my attention on those aspects of gameplay that requires a human intelligence.  Hell, I can do that and not use any miniatures, and yet I still enjoy the precision and definition that the miniature-friendly rules provides.  I focus upon adventure gaming, with just enough politics & economics to maintain verisimlitude and provide the players--through their PCs--a means to make a larger mark upon the milieu.  (It helps when I go outside WotC products to put rules to that stuff when I need them, and I am very thankful to the third-party publishers for filling that niche.)  Most of the time, however, WotC products are sufficient for all of my D&D gaming needs.

Players, by the way, need only the _Player's Handbook_.  That's only $30 (US), so it's not like this is as expensive as it seems either.


----------



## mearls (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> Here's an idea: common sense.  I don't think I need a rule or a die roll that tells me the reaction of an NPC sent on a suicide mission.




Right. I know that, and you know that. DMs are blessed with plenty of common sense. Unfortunately, players seem to have an appalling lack of it, and they're willing to argue their cases.


----------



## Bards R Us (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> To me, it's not so much an issue of mechanics.  The d20 mechanic is indeed simple: roll a d20, add the modifiers.  The problem, for new players, is coming up with everything which goes into the modifier.  The ability and level-based modifiers (BAB, saves) are easy.  Skill modifiers are a bit tougher,  as you need to thumb through the PHB and figure out how you want to spend them.  Then there are synergies.  And feats.  And conditional modifiers (seems to me way more than 1E).  So while the mechanic is streamlined, the devil is in the details.  Then there are AOOs., etc...  It's alot for new players, even if you have an experienced player/DM to help out.  I imagine it's much worse for brand new, never played RPGs folks with no guidance.  It was much easier in the 80's with the Basic set(s).  WotC has obviously recognized this. (Witness the new basic set.)





I totally agree, thats how it was for me, being a new player and having never played DnD before in the past.  There's not much math involved, the calculations are easy.  Its the all various modifiers that one may forget to include that is the problem.  Creating a dual-wielding character still trips me up.  My first time creating my very first character took quite a bit of time and often need help from the more experienced people in my group.  A short, concise guide to creating a basic character in the PHB would be a HUGE help in that regard.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 4, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> I let the rules run the game and focus my attention on those aspects of gameplay that requires a human intelligence.



Word. You know, if you get the basics, you can practically derive all the more complex situations on the fly anyway.

Player: "I charge straight at the guy, trying to force him off the cliff!"
DM: "Um, okay. Lessee, he gets an attack of opportunity as you move into him, okay?"
Player: "Yeah, that makes sense."
DM: "And then, what? Opposed Strength checks? Let's do that."
Player: "Can I get a bonus for charging?"
DM: "Sure, take the standard +2 charge bonus."

I've just invented Bull Rush. If I don't refer to the books and make it up on the spot, I find that most of the time I end up doing pretty much exactly what the book says. This is the joy of a consistent rule set.

But for me, "winging it" is rarely about making up rules, anyway, so much as it's about making up stat blocks. And that's no harder now than it ever was.

I think you could argue that a simplified character generation system and combat system could ease new player entry. A product that provided those might prove a good seller -- Ryan's statistics on D&D box set sales seems to indicate that's likely.

What I would HATE to see is a separate "Basic D&D" product line emerge again. When TSR released Basic D&D I think they really splintered their market. Those of us who'd been playing Advanced ignored all the Basic stuff, and as the Basic line kept expanding it reduced the impetus of Basic players to "migrate" to Advanced. At least that's my impression of what happened. It got very complicated to explain to people that Basic D&D was actually a completely different game that didn't necessarily lead to Advanced D&D...


----------



## francisca (Jun 4, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> Right. I know that, and you know that. DMs are blessed with plenty of common sense. Unfortunately, players seem to have an appalling lack of it, and they're willing to argue their cases.



Mr. Mearls, had you read any of my other posts, you would *never* had associated common sense with me.    

I guess I can see you point, I too have seen alot of Brian Van Hooses* in my life, and it was pretty cheap of me to pick on one example.  

However,  you can't possibly provide rules for everything.  Where do you draw the line?  Also, at some point, a DM is going to have to set a DC for some check which isn't provided in the DMG.  Isn't that arbitrary and ad-hoc?  The point I'm driving toward is that somewhere, the DM has to make a call.   And the first time won't be the last.  You can try to codify and assign values to every aspect of the game, but at some point, the downside of having so much information will get in the way of playability.  To me, 3E passed that point, but it isn't so far past that I don't play it.  Hell, I like it, despite all my graoning.

However, if Mr. Dancey has research which points to 3E being what most gamers wanted, I'm satisfied that the 3E designers at least made an effort to meet those desires.  Of course, it begs the question: does this preference for more rules , especially in light of Mage Knight and D&D minatures game, change over time?


*For those of you who don't read Knights of the Dinner Table (ok, that one guy), Brian is the consumate rules lawyer, knowing the rules down to the page, column, paragraph, and sentence.


----------



## Belen (Jun 4, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> However,  you can't possibly provide rules for everything.  Where do you draw the line?  Also, at some point, a DM is going to have to set a DC for some check which isn't provided in the DMG.  Isn't that arbitrary and ad-hoc?  The point I'm driving toward is that somewhere, the DM has to make a call.   And the first time won't be the last.  You can try to codify and assign values to every aspect of the game, but at some point, the downside of having so much information will get in the way of playability.  To me, 3E passed that point, but it isn't so far past that I don't play it.  Hell, I like it, despite all my groaning.




Very good point, and this is where the trouble has occured IME.  Players tend to believe that the rules cover everything.  And while these rules cover a great deal of the situations that happen in game, some things will slip through the cracks.  A simple skill DC should not cause a rules discussion lasting an hour or more.  And the rules undergo constant changes. The splat books employ far too many add-ons that change the basic intent of a core rule.  A GM may labor under one assumption, then find out that this feat or class completely breaks what was a firm rule in the core books.  And even if a GM looks over and approves a PrC or feat, there is still a good chance that it can be used to break a core dynamic of the game.

There is just too much!  

And I know that many people restrict the game to core only, but a lot of players feel that restriction alone is arbitrary.  It is a lose-lose situation.

I also have to wonder at Ryan's comment regarding DnD.  I never believed DnD to be a combat tactics game alone and if that is the assumption that was used when writing the game, then they intentionally designed the game to delete RP aspects in favor or a board/ computer game approach, which seems to be a major problem for a lot of gamers on these boards.....


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 4, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You know, if you get the basics, you can practically derive all the more complex situations on the fly anyway. [...] If I don't refer to the books and make it up on the spot, I find that most of the time I end up doing pretty much exactly what the book says. This is the joy of a consistent rule set.



Absolutely.  Of course, I'd love to see the system become even more consistent (e.g., BAB and Saves as Skills).


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But for me, "winging it" is rarely about making up rules, anyway, so much as it's about making up stat blocks. And that's no harder now than it ever was.
> 
> I think you could argue that a simplified character generation system and combat system could ease new player entry.



Simplified character generation -- or more consistent character generation -- could make it easier to "wing" stat blocks.  Ideally, you could make up stat blocks _and they'd be correct by the rules too_.

Most point-based character-generation systems go into far too much detail -- and they have other flaws -- but they have the advantage of making an on-the-fly character typically _correct_, by the rules.  They generally have fewer interdependencies (or those interdependencies only affect point-costs).


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  Of course, I'd love to see the system become even more consistent (e.g., BAB and Saves as Skills).



In other words, d20 would become GURPS?    Although that's something I'd like to see as well, in some ways.  _Mutants & Masterminds_ does that (essentially) already.


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Simplified character generation -- or more consistent character generation -- could make it easier to "wing" stat blocks.  Ideally, you could make up stat blocks _and they'd be correct by the rules too_.



Yeah, but it my case, that theoretical ideal really doesn't matter.  My players don't know the BAB, AC, HP, or even the die rolls that pertain to my NPCs anyway because a) half the time it's made up on the fly and b) it's all behind the screen anyway.  So to me, worrying about whether or not my _ad hoc_ stat blocks are "right" or not seems like a bizarre form of fetishism, at least to a certain extent.  No offense to those who have such a fetish.  

And I'm not particularly impressed by RyanD's response, to be perfectly honest with you.  It seems to me the strength of D&D (and d20 in general) whether this was intentional or not, is the flexibility in playstyles that it accomodates fairly easily.  Since the DMG itself describes many valid playstyles, to come here and say that D&D is really only suited to a combat intensive tractical miniatures dungeoncrawl (paraphrasing a bit) and if you want something else you really should be playing a different game, seems to be counter-intuitive at best, and flat out wrong-headed at worst.  Not only would that alienate a big group of players and drive them to other games, but it's extremely unnecessary.  Rules like the new skill system (new to 3e anyway) and multiclassing, for example, allow the rules to be used to craft interesting characters that have uses outside of combat and the dungeon.  Setting false limitations on what the game engine is capable to doing only serves to set false limitations on who will play it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> A simple skill DC should not cause a rules discussion lasting an hour or more.



It doesn't. Or if it does, you have bigger problems than the RULES....


----------



## RyanD (Jun 4, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I also have to wonder at Ryan's comment regarding DnD.  I never believed DnD to be a combat tactics game alone and if that is the assumption that was used when writing the game, then they intentionally designed the game to delete RP aspects in favor or a board/ computer game approach, which seems to be a major problem for a lot of gamers on these boards.....




I didn't say that.  I said D&D was a "heroic adventure game".  No "RP aspects" were deleted from 3E.  Can you name any?  If anything, "RP aspects" were added to 3E in the form of unlimited multiclassing and prestige classes.  The point you're missing that the 3E was designed with a *game* approach.  Not a "board" or "computer" game approach.  3E was designed to be a game that is played by its rules, not a framework for freeform storytelling.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 4, 2004)

jerichothebard said:
			
		

> Me too.  I would roll my d20, add my bonus, and look at the DM.  "Did I hit?"  This for like 10 years.  I'm surprised they kept me in the party.



I never understood the difficulty some people seem to have with THAC0.

1. Keep adjusted THAC0 noted on your character sheet where you have the rest of the weapon stats noted (damage, speed, range, etc.). Remember that bonuses to hit should *subtract* from THAC0. So if you're a 7th level fighter with weapon specialization, Str 18/14 and a +2 sword, you have an adjusted THAC0 of 10.

2. The AC you hit is equal to THAC0-1d20, with the exception of rolling natural 1s or 20s.

Never was a problem for me.


----------



## kamosa (Jun 4, 2004)

RyanD said:
			
		

> 3E also has a strong emphasis on the idea that there should be a rule for each situation, not a judgement call.  We found that by and large most DMs preferred to have a rule rather than be asked to make an arbitrary decision.  We found that players overwhelmingly preferred to have a rule.  In my personal opinion, these two factors are related.  I think that most DMs just don't do a good job making arbitrary decisions, and they know it.  And most players react badly when an arbitrary decision goes against them, and they dislike the experience intensely.  In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth.  Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.




But in the quest for this goal, the game tries to codify situations that are by their very nature always going to be GM wing it decisions.  The arbitrarty nature of GM decisions is alive and kicking in 3E.  

From setting the DC's for a bluff check to deciding what is really a challenging combat for the party the GM is making arbitrary decisions right and left, even if they aren't "winging it" as say.  However flawed and frustrating GM arbitrary decisions are, they are the heart and soul of the game.  Trying to take them out with over codified rules only packs extra baggage into a bloated rule set. 

So, now time is spent looking up the codified way to justify the GM's decision.   I always knew it was almost impossible for a paladin to swim against the current of a raging river while wearing heavy armor and a full back pack.   Now I have a 10 minute system for determining exactly how hard this is, Thanks!   This bogs down the game and doesn't remove the arbitrary nature of GM rulings from the game.   In the end we just have a slow, arbitrary and harder to grasp system that feels cluncky even to long time players and GM's.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 4, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I never understood the difficulty some people seem to have with THAC0.
> 
> 1. Keep adjusted THAC0 noted on your character sheet where you have the rest of the weapon stats noted (damage, speed, range, etc.). Remember that bonuses to hit should *subtract* from THAC0. So if you're a 7th level fighter with weapon specialization, Str 18/14 and a +2 sword, you have an adjusted THAC0 of 10.
> 
> ...




I know.  I always used to tell my DM, "I hit AC 'X'," and then sit around and watch other people (experienced players) just call out their straight die rolls.  It was fairly simple, although having the numbers run conversely like that was kind of counterintuitive.  IMO, the simplicity of the attack roll/AC system is the absolute number one BEST change made by the new rules.  However, I still constantly watch people roll the die, and if it lands on a 17, they call out, "17!" and sit there waiting for the DM to declare it a hit.  I find it very frustrating that many players don't get involved enough to really develop a working grasp on the rules, simple though they may be.  It took me about 5 minutes to gain a complete understanding of the basics of combat, skill checks, ability score modifiers, and other such painfully simple and straightforward aspects of the game, and I am considered by many to be exceptionally scatterbrained.  All I did was open the books and start flipping...


----------



## kamosa (Jun 4, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I never understood the difficulty some people seem to have with THAC0.
> 
> 1. Keep adjusted THAC0 noted on your character sheet where you have the rest of the weapon stats noted (damage, speed, range, etc.). Remember that bonuses to hit should *subtract* from THAC0. So if you're a 7th level fighter with weapon specialization, Str 18/14 and a +2 sword, you have an adjusted THAC0 of 10.
> 
> ...




I never got that either, or why the new system is so much better.  It is exactly the same system except now you add instead of subtract from 10.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jun 4, 2004)

RyanD said:
			
		

> 3E also has a strong emphasis on the idea that there should be a rule for each situation, not a judgement call.  We found that by and large most DMs preferred to have a rule rather than be asked to make an arbitrary decision.  We found that players overwhelmingly preferred to have a rule.  In my personal opinion, these two factors are related.  I think that most DMs just don't do a good job making arbitrary decisions, and they know it.  And most players react badly when an arbitrary decision goes against them, and they dislike the experience intensely.  In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth.  Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.





But, by the same token, the uber-DM who knows every single rule, all Sage rulings, errata, changes in books published later, etc. is also a myth. Just learning where to find a particular rule can be a challenge, much less memorizing them all. The pursuit of a rule for every situation is a chimera - it's simply not possible. 

Just to be clear, I support clear rules. Players absolutely need solid rules they can count on - the rules provide the framework within which we make (hopefully) good decisions with (mostly) predictable consequences. The more arbitrary the rules, the less the game revolves around and rewards skillful play. But too many rules creates the exact same situation as too few, as each group/GM uses only the rules they're comfortable with, "winging" the rest because it's too much work to keep track of them. 

So the question becomes - how much is too much? What situations really need a rule, and what situations can be left to gaming groups? IMO, 3E crossed  the line where more rules makes the game run less efficiently, not more.


----------



## teitan (Jun 5, 2004)

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Hmmm...why hasn't this "subthread" been bumped to the Toxic Waste forum yet?
> 
> [Just thinking out loud...]




rolly cause it ended there maybe???

Jason


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Jun 5, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> To me, it's not so much an issue of mechanics.  The d20 mechanic is indeed simple: roll a d20, add the modifiers.  The problem, for new players, is coming up with everything which goes into the modifier.  The ability and level-based modifiers (BAB, saves) are easy.  Skill modifiers are a bit tougher,  as you need to thumb through the PHB and figure out how you want to spend them.  Then there are synergies.  And feats.  And conditional modifiers (seems to me way more than 1E).  So while the mechanic is streamlined, the devil is in the details.  Then there are AOOs., etc...  It's alot for new players, even if you have an experienced player/DM to help out.  I imagine it's much worse for brand new, never played RPGs folks with no guidance.  It was much easier in the 80's with the Basic set(s).  WotC has obviously recognized this. (Witness the new basic set.)




Agreed. It's especially true in my case. See, I migrated away from D&D a little while ago (my players have a nasty pre-conception of D&D that makes it less fun). I'd like to run a secondary game, and we're all familiar with D&D, but the investment all around just turns out to be a little too much. I like the system, I like the game, I'd like to play it some, but I simply can't. The "prep in less than two hours" thread was partially motivated by this. The other motivation is that  I want something where I can hands someone the standard array, have everyone pick a class, copy down a few numbers, and go. Skills are great and I love feats, but it's just more complex than I'm angling for at the moment. Heck, spell selection is pushing it. If there was only some way to automate it. Theme packs maybe? 

So D&D is too complex for the situations where I want an exceedingly simple to set up game.

'Course, discarding a little behind the scenes, and following some advice in here, I might be able to do it, assuming the start could be dealt with correctly.


----------



## Belegbeth (Jun 5, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> ... What I would HATE to see is a separate "Basic D&D" product line emerge again. When TSR released Basic D&D I think they really splintered their market. Those of us who'd been playing Advanced ignored all the Basic stuff, and as the Basic line kept expanding it reduced the impetus of Basic players to "migrate" to Advanced. At least that's my impression of what happened. It got very complicated to explain to people that Basic D&D was actually a completely different game that didn't necessarily lead to Advanced D&D...




The problem with this argument is that the B/X (and later RC) version was so much better than AD&D!   

Seriously, there was a demand for both a "rules lite" and a "rules heavy" version of the game.  The "rules lite" version could act as a gateway/stepping-stone for the "rules heavy" version, or it could suffice for those players who were happy with it.

The problem with DnD right now is that there is no "rules lite" version.  And I don't mean a "rule lite" intro package (like that stupid "The Adventure Begins Here" boxed set), but a distinct separate version of the game for those DMs (and players) who don't care to read two long books in order to grasp all the variables that might come into play in their games (and that might affect their campaign and adventure design, etc.).

Once you have mastered all the details of the 3.x rules they seem very intuitive and simple, but achieving mastery can be tedious and time-consuming (and even with mastery there are always spells and feats that you fail to take into account when designing adventures, etc.).

I am not criticizing 3.x DnD here -- I am running a fun campaign right now, with many variants from UA, house rules, etc. -- but merely pointing out the need for an equivalent to the old B/X rules.   During the 80's not everyone had the time or inclination to move onto ADnD -- and I am sure that the lack of a B/X equivalent today has driven many potential players away from the hobby.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 5, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> THAC0 kept the riff-raff out!




Damn straight!




> Third Edition, everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM




true, true!


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 5, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> ]Third Edition, everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM[
> 
> true, true!



 Well, I like to GM/DM 3rd Edition.  Actually, I like Troupe Style play myself.


----------



## Emiricol (Jun 5, 2004)

The problem is that I disagree with your opinion 

 But to the topic in general - D&D was like a breath of fresh air after D&D of any stripe.  I never looked back, nor did most of the people I knew at the time who played.

 Having a separate "lite" line is a mistake - TSR proved it, and if it made sense financially, WoTC would have already done it.

 On the other hand, other than spell descriptions and equipment costs/descriptions I can pretty much play without the books.  I mean, the 1D20 mechanic is pretty darn simple. 



			
				Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The problem with this argument is that the B/X (and later RC) version was so much better than AD&D!
> 
> Seriously, there was a demand for both a "rules lite" and a "rules heavy" version of the game. The "rules lite" version could act as a gateway/stepping-stone for the "rules heavy" version, or it could suffice for those players who were happy with it.
> 
> ...


----------



## babomb (Jun 5, 2004)

You know, I'm the only person in my group who fully understands the rules for AoOs. And I'm the only one who knows any of the grappling rules at all, much less the rarely-used (in my group) sunder, bull rush, and trip rules. Most of these guys have been playing since 3e came out (and a few before that). One of them had to look up the rules for psionic DCs (or ask me) almost every time he cast, er... manifested.

Of course, _I_ memorized most of the rules for 3e before it even came out, thanks to Eric Noah's site.


----------



## Belegbeth (Jun 6, 2004)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> Having a separate "lite" line is a mistake - TSR proved it, and if it made sense financially, WoTC would have already done it.
> ...




Do you have ANY evidence to support this claim?  At the height of DnD's success -- the early 80's -- both the B/X and ADnD lines were well supported by TSR.  The decline of DnD during the 90's lacked a separate B/X line.

The claim that if something made sense financially, WoTC would be doing it now, is pretty dubious.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I never got that either, or why the new system is so much better.  It is exactly the same system except now you add instead of subtract from 10.




Because you do not have to task switch between adding and subtracting.  Because you do not have incongruity between hitting a "higher/lower AC" and a "lower/higher AC" 


I have tried various THAC0 systems, by the book, homebrew roll low, etc. with an extremely numerate play group.  The 3e system is head and shoulders better.


----------



## teitan (Jun 6, 2004)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> Having a separate "lite" line is a mistake - TSR proved it, and if it made sense financially, WoTC would have already done it.




Just not true. The Basic D&D line sold extremely well which is why they tried to keep the Mystara line going when they cancelled Basic. The problem with basic sales occurred when the boxed sets started to go out of print and the lackluster job that was done on the Challenger set. There was almost no indication that the set would lead to the Rules Cyclopedia and the set appeared to be a board game and was a rather unwieldy size, comparable to other board games, but not as compact and bookshelf worthy as the basic boxes. 

Basic was a great product line and was a financially proven success.

Jason


----------



## Taneel BrightBlade (Jun 6, 2004)

To complex? hmm, for newbe yeah, but as said by Torm most people get brought in and helped when they start.  And if you don't get it you can just use the whack things with big sword/axe aproch, (like me, lines: I attack or I kick the door in)
come to think of  it I've been playing for over a year and (if in dungeon) I still do that (but more effectivly).


----------



## Philip (Jun 6, 2004)

3e's concept is fairly simple:

If you do something its: d20 + skill modifier + ability modifier +situational modifier for your success rating (where skill is intrepreted broadly, attack skill is represented by HD or lvl).

This sets the DC for anyone else to counter or avoid. The only real exception is Armor Class.

You can play it just like that, don't look up the monsters, just give them save modifiers of HD/2 + ability modifier. Good warrior races/classes attack at d20 + HD + ability modifier, bad attack at d20 + HD/2 + ability modifier. All the monsters powers work at 10 + HD/2 + ability modifier, you can even let all their spell function at save DC's of 10 + HD/2 + ability modifier. You can play it like that, and it will be balanced.

All the extra rules they piled on top of this increases you options, but also makes it more complicated.


----------



## d4 (Jun 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I never got that either, or why the new system is so much better.  It is exactly the same system except now you add instead of subtract from 10.



i've seen studies (though i don't have anything to point you at right now) that show that subtraction requires more time and mental effort than addition for the vast majority of people.

this means that in most cases, combat rolls can now be determined much faster and with less effort on the part of the person. that's a good thing, because most people don't enjoy doing math -- some even see the math they have to do in adding their attack modifier to their die roll as a necessary evil of the game; something they put up with but don't enjoy. THAC0 was even worse in this regard, because it involved subtraction.


----------



## Theron (Jun 6, 2004)

It's complex, but not overly so.  I've spent twenty-plus years playing and GMing the Hero System, which is often held up as the poster child for complex game systems.  It's just a different skill set to master.

But therein can lie the difficulty.
On the surface, d20 has a very simple core mechanic.  So does the Hero System.  So does WW's Storyteller 2.0 (used in _Exalted_) for instance.  But as a Hero veteran, D&D (and ST) vex me because both are exception-based rules systems.

With Hero, if you want a particular effect, you purchase it with points.  Whether you're creating an elf's low-light sight, a mage's spell to draw life from his enemies, or a warrior's magic sword, mechanically the process to create these effects is the same, and no matter how convoluted the computations might be to figure out the point cost of the effect, the mechanics and the inter-relationships of the various effect never change, no matter how deeply down you drill.

As a result, even though the game is complex, and there are a myriad number of ways to accomplish various tasks, it's reasonably easy for a GM to keep things balanced once he understands a few basic principles and how they inter-relate.  It's not perfect or flawless, and I don't want to paint it as such.  But the consistency goes a long way to making it simple.

With an exception-based game, you don't have a consistent means of constructing effects.  In the case of D&D, you have hundreds of Feats, each of which allow the character an exception to the standard rules in some greater or smaller way (ditto for _Exalted's_ charms).  I've heard more than one person describe this as being similar to the underlying design philosophy of most CCGs, but having never gotten into that end of the hobby, I really can't comment on it; it's not new in RPGs, by any means, just brought to a whole new level with D&D.

With an exception-based games, the inter-relation of the exceptions almost becomes a game within itself.  Each new Feat is a potential game-breaker and must be viewed in terms of Feats it might make more or less attractive, and the ultimate impact it could have on the game.  With so many Feats, so many factors to examine, the potential for things to break down is significantly higher.

Which is not to say that a game like the Hero System is free from game-breaking effects.  I do, however, think they're easier to catch because of the design philosophy of the game.

So, for the purposes of the GMing firm of Me, Myself, and I, D&D is overly complex, because I find extensive exception-based rules systems require me to juggle too many factors as a GM.  As a player, all I have to do is worry about my own character, so it's not nearly such a big deal.  But GMing is what I mainly do.


----------



## teitan (Jun 6, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> 3e's concept is fairly simple:
> 
> If you do something its: d20 + skill modifier + ability modifier +situational modifier for your success rating (where skill is intrepreted broadly, attack skill is represented by HD or lvl).
> 
> ...




Yeah except you have experience with the system and are probably older than 13 which is about the right age for someone to get into gaming. Most people wouldn't approach it that way, especially beginners. While D&D isn't complex in exection as far as the core mechanic, it is complex in the sheer amount of rules and exact approach. No body is debating the core mechanic at all, but the sheer amount of options and the way they affect the game. STacking, that can be complex to someone just starting out. Spells can be complex to someone just starting out. Feats can complicate matters. Until 3.5 we dabted the whole 2 sword thing til the sun came up. SO yeah, the CORE Mechanic is as simple as it gets, its the various implementations that get complex.

Jason


----------



## Psion (Jun 6, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> i've seen studies (though i don't have anything to point you at right now) that show that subtraction requires more time and mental effort than addition for the vast majority of people.




THAC0 also subdivided steps, making for more total operations, and concentrated half of the operations on one person - the DM.


----------



## :: TrigCove :: (Jun 6, 2004)

*Q:* Is D&D too complicated?

*A:* It is neither too complicated nor complicated enough.

Back in the day when I was DMing Basic/Expert, not one of my players ever said, "This game has too many rules!"

We never obsessed over feat chains, skill selection, or bemoaned the class imbalances. We played the game in all of its broken glory, and the game never let us down. 

After much discussion about the type of gaming experience we all wanted, our group recently ditched the 3rd Edition ruleset and has returned to the simpler game. The general consensus was, "I want to play Dungeons & Dragons, not Actuaries & Accountants!" That 'good old days' feeling has been rekindled, and I've never seen the players happier.

I think a lot of groups probably never talk about what type of gaming experience they want to have. Thus, the rules lawyers and munchkins and roll-players and role-players are often found bunched together at the same table, and although they all want to play the same fantasy-based rpg, each often comes away from the sessions unfulfilled due to the group members' vastly differing expectations...

-Cheers-

ps - The guidepost for me as to whether a game's ruleset is too complicated or not is the character creation process. How long does it take to create a character? Keep in mind that most games that have 'classes' have them because it's a way for the new player to man up and get in the game quickly...*because the rules are complicated * 

:: Trig ::


----------



## Indivar (Jun 6, 2004)

*WAY to complex*

Hey there folks. A noob here, so I figured I'd start it off with a bang.

The group I play with has left d20 behind as we have decided it is a good idea taken way to far. Some people just didnt like certain mechanics (flatfooted for example), and other just didnt memorize other minor rules that come up more often than not. People 'winging it' on a rule once in a while would draw all kinds of fire when the rule was looked up and played correctly later.

The best example of why we left it behind is that we had a character in the group that had a ring of jumping. The jumping rules were so heavy that he had to write out A WHOLE PAGE just to handle whenever he wanted to use his ring. This is ridiculous.

Someone in this thread talked about winging an npc in the middle of a fight. Think about that. Memorizing stuff like how many/which feats he might have,(hundreds of choices here), his BAB, what his skills might be (dozens of choices here), what his Stats might be, maybe his spells, ect. This makes my head hurt just thinking about it. To some this may be really easy to calculate off the cuff, but think about all the time one has spent memorizing these little figures that could have been spent working on a decent game setting or memorable encounter. How much time does it take to advance a simple animal up a little for example? It would take a good chunk of time to find the stats for a horse, make him bigger, then maybe slap a template on him. And we all know that if you wing it there will be someone at your table that will bring that up later and turn it into an arguement.

Well the group I play with has switched to Savage Worlds (a core book of less than 150 pages) and havent looked back. Character generation takes maybe 10 minutes. A monster is about the same or less. The lists of hundreds of spells has been cut down to around 20-25, based on the theory that some spells pretty much do the same thing (magic missile and melfs acid arrow both deal damage at a distance). Combat takes half or less of the time and is way less crunchy and a lot more fun.

Anyways I think d20 has become more fluff than stuff.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jun 7, 2004)

RyanD:
I really appreciated your post, and the reply.

They helped me collect my thoughts on the matter (as did many people's posts about complexity and what 3X D&D is best designed for).


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Jun 7, 2004)

D&D is, in fact, very complicated. For someone who picks up the PH and learns the game all by themself, I applaud them (and I think that's quite rare). 

I think D&D would be well served by an introductory rules set (like the old red box) that walks a player through everything. Sort of like choose your own adventure.

For someone to pick up the PH & DMG and be able to run a game, all I have to say is good luck. Plus you need to be able to teach the rules to others and keep them from being bored by all the rules long enough to get them interested. But if there was a walkthrough tools set, then each player could run through it on their own and get a sense for what D&D is all about.


----------



## pogre (Jun 7, 2004)

D&D's complexity is part of its appeal in part. I love to play Bridge. Bridge is great game, because much like D&D once you start learning the details you just realize there is more and more to delve into and enjoy. 95% of Bridge players are taught by other Bridge players. That's not really a problem - Bridge as a hobby/game continues to expand. I think a basic D&D game should do exactly what other posters have suggested - limit choices.

If I was teaching someone how to play bridge - I would teach them exactly two conventions 1 NT reply and short club. The rest of the time I would teach them the core parts of the game - counting Goren points, playing suits, scoring, and board transfer strategies. 

I hope this is the approach the basic rules for D&D take as well: Offer 4 classes - Fighter, Sorcerer, Rogue, and Cleric - give each class limited feat choices and built in skill choices. Let the kids concentrate on the core mechanics.


----------



## BluePantsDude (Dec 4, 2017)

Is That Him
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?90043-Is-D-amp-D-too-complicated/page2
LOL


----------



## stoneagewar3 (Dec 4, 2017)

i ran games for quite a few absolute beginners (9 so far), i don't even show them the books until they ask.
had no problem playing, we now have a few people at lv 5, and none of them has even read the phb.
two newer players are now lv 3, and has just recently asked for source materials that they could read and plan for future levels
sure, playing like this has its own problems, as the players will only be picking spells or feats that sounds cool to them, and they won't really care if that ability is actually good or not, but powerlevel is something a dm should be able to fix, simply by increasing player HP (i double their lv1 hp), and not throw encounters that would challenge their level, but rather their powerlevel (which should be done anyways, if you challenge their level but they are optimized, the encounter just wouldn't put more than a scratch on the players)

i don't really think there are too many rules involved if i can explain most of it in 20 minutes, there are plenty of boardgames that simply can't be played after only 20 min of rule explanation


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 5, 2017)

I'm not sure about D&D but since we started a Pathfinder campaign this year, it's becoming increasingly clear that Pathfinder's a too complicated system for our group these days.

After playing D&D 4e for several years, we've forgotten most of the D&D 3e rules, and when we look them up, they feel way too fiddly and clunky. So we continue to house-rule the system and just hand wave much of the nit-picky stuff (e.g. the action cost of drawing/sheathing weapons).
It doesn't help that our DM doesn't have a good grasp of the rules, so I'm constantly wondering whether I should bother to correct him or not. Also, his preference for railroading is grating on me.

The worst thing is that the players don't have a good grasp of their characters' abilities. I'm playing a Magus myself, and without poring over it for hours after every level-up, consulting forums, reading guides and FAQs, I'd be unable to play this class correctly, either. It's a mess.

I'd really prefer if we switched the system (e.g. to 13th Age), but, alas, our DM isn't interested (yet).


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 5, 2017)

Yes.  But sadly this turns out to be because life and stories and combat and everything else we are interested in also turns out to be complicated, so that we soon find ourselves at a point of irreducible complexity, where to have anything less complex ultimately harms our enjoyment more than the complexity of the process.  It would be great however to be able to automate away much of the complexity so as to focus on the story telling, but so far no one has developed an interface for doing this that is not disruptive to play and is affordable.   So we are stuck with dice and penciled notes.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 5, 2017)

Obviously necromancy is not too complicated!


----------



## Arilyn (Dec 6, 2017)

Umbran said:


> No, it won't.  My evidence for this is simple - the rules have been complicated since 1978.  The rules now are actually simpler and more unified in concept than they were at that time.  Much of the extra page-count nowadays is in explication of the rules so that you don't get confused.
> 
> If the complicated rules didn't kill things back in 1978, they won't kill things now.




In my experience, it is board games which compete for players' attention, and a lot of the more popular board games have complicated rule sets as well.

Ever since the beginning of rpgs, there have been people claiming that the hobby is dying, yet it's stronger than ever.


----------



## CubicsRube (Dec 6, 2017)

Since y'all are replying to a thread from 2004, it's unlikely you're even talking about the same edition..

Indeed necromancy is not complicated enough!


----------



## jimtillman (Dec 6, 2017)

5th edition d&d is many things ..but complicated?  not compared to many rpgs, heck many pathfinder players would argue its to simple


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 7, 2017)

jimtillman said:


> 5th edition d&d is many things ..but complicated?  not compared to many rpgs, heck many pathfinder players would argue its to simple




Not just would, but do. I know several.

I like 5E's reduced complexity... right up to about 10th level, where too much is happening.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> Obviously necromancy is not too complicated!




When practicing thread necromancy, beware - you never know which old posters may return with it...


----------

