D&D 4E 4E - more rules or less?

[Hairfoot]

Without getting caught up in the potential intricacies of a 4th edition, my question is simply: should the next edition of D&D have more rules than 3.5, or less?

Many, including ex-wargamers like myself, appreciate the comprehensive miniature-combat rules, but find the skill-or-rule-for-everything premise of 3.5 a bit inhibiting.

Would you prefer the next edition to be a bit more...streamlined? If so, in which regard: combat, skills, or stats/saves?

 

[Shemeska]

Less rules.

More room for DM interpretation should be pushed in the presentation of whatever ruleset is used.

Minis should be entirely optional, not 'required'. If you like them, use them, but the automatic suggestion that they're a required part of the game is, IMO, detrimental to other aspects of the game, and the tone of the game itself. Suggest them as one option, not a default assumption, and everyone should be happy.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I don't mind the overall complexity of the rules. But there is one thing that needs to be seriously addressed in a new edition:

The speed with which you create NPCs or alter monsters. As of now, it takes up far too much time.

 

[delericho]

I presume we're talking about the core rules?

My answer is that the current volume of rules is mostly fine. But there are several areas where the rules are badly explained, needlessly complex, or just bad. These should be addressed.

There are also a couple of areas where a slight increase in complexity in the core would both open a much wider range of options for play, and might well lead to a significant reduction in non-core elements. In these areas, I am not averse to such a change. One notable example would be the use of Talent Trees (from d20 Modern) to allow you to build "a Ranger with a bit more Favoured Enemy stuff" without the need for a whole PrC to do this later.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I think it will and should remain largely the same, but with a few areas streamlined due to the several years they've had to playtest the current rules.

 

[greywulf]

Less Rules!

Stick the miniatures-level stuff (5' steps, AoO, diagrams of How To See Around Corners, etc) in a supplement where it belongs.

 

[Sammael]

Same level as right now. As a DM, I prefer having the rules laid out in front of me so I can change them or ignore them, than having to come up with rules on the spot.

 

[Thanee]

Less special rules, more streamlined, same complexity.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ghendar]

Less, less, less

Rules "lite" is better, imo but then again I prefer a more 1st ED "fly by the seat of my pants" style of dm'ing.

 

[Gold Roger]

Many rules need to be stremlined.

The general amount of rules should stay the same, but the rules need to be "reduced in size". For example, I think we could do with far fewer conditions and there should be far fewer types of named boni (the stacking rules are fine in concept, but there are just to many different named boni, so it becomes a major pain).