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

[Mark CMG]

Most game systems that use a count-down style shot clock (e.g., Console, Feng Shui, Arduin Adventure, etc) make allowances for simulatenous action (i.e., actions are resolved in successon, but effects are applied simultaneously).

I wasn't really looking for one, myself, but was really more intent on finding out if he had something specifically in mind. Thanks, though.

 

[RFisher]

No one will be surprised that I'd like to see fewer rules in a 4e.

Although, I think--like my preference for big-picture modules over tons-of-detail--this preference has to do with personality type. Could a single game adequately fill the needs of both big-picture types & detail-oriented types? Should it? I could argue that commercial games should target the detail-oriented referee because us big-picture types can probably get mostly by on free systems.

I do think there have been some good examples of things in 3e that are needlessly complex, though. The payoff of a complication needs to match (or exceed) its cost.

 

[takyris]

I'd be fine with, but not desperate for, a paired rules system -- one for "miniatures play" and one for "mini-less" play. Mutants & Masterminds 2E works fine for me without miniatures, and I could see adding it as one of two equally valid play options.

The kicker here would be making sure that classes were balanced in both forms. A barbarian's fast movement in mini-play would have to also provide some benefit in mini-less-play.

But basically, I'm happy with the existing level of complexity. I don't want less. Less let's a DM screw you or a player whine. I don't need more, either. I'm pretty happy with where things are now.

 

[Hairfoot]

I don't want less. Less let's a DM screw you or a player whine.

I think that fairly much sums up the philosophy behind third-edition Dungeons & Dragons.

I think perspective varies a lot with experience. In high school I was dying for a 3.5, because the adolescent DM would use fiat to shaft any player he didn't like in that particular lunch hour. Now, however, I feel mildy insulted by the density of rules. Hey! I can work that out for myself - am I dungeon master, or what?

 

[Sadrik]

Less rules.

However, I think they should do an advanced D&D and a basic D&D. Have them in the same book and just highlight the section that is advanced. Everyone is happy then.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

i find the complexity fine in 3.5 u can always remove rules u do not like ..its harder to add in things sometimes then it it to remove it ...there have been some good ideals on here but many just r not d&d..
it stay 3 books PH DMG MM
leave the classes be.. mayhapp add a few more combind soc/and the warlock make em one class
also leave hp be its a part of dnd but a few more options would not be bad
..as well as the magic system although haveing spell point or some other alterntive wouldb be good..
the x/day use stuff should be replace with a save like roll made harder by number of times its been used .
bulk up 1/2 orcs and 1/2 elves i mean really...add hobgoblin,goblin ,and kobold to races maybe a few more...
rethink the whole ECL thing its wonky
leave AC in there mayhap combine it with ac by class armor could have a DR and a AC bounes or just a DR
skill trees would be ok
and retink the whole exsotic weapons think nice ideal needs work
also include size for sacks,backpacks,beltpouches and saddle bags i mean come on that ones easy
other then that works good for me u mayalso like to run more class based alt ablites

 

[ruemere]

Responding to Lanefan...

Re: swimming / another trait

True, but it only needs to be noted once (or once every very long while); it wouldn't be tied to a stat or anything else that changes all the time.

Still, all one needs is a simple free rank or two in a skill to avoid adding to default character model.

Re: when rolls disagree with character's concept

Just like now; players adapt. Or, they come in with a few different concepts and see where the dice take them. In 3e, most concepts can be done with most rolls anyway.

No quarrel here. I prefer character creation with lower degree of randomness. It allows, among other thing, for planning social aspect of party adventuring. For example, some campaigns I run rely on characters being members of a team of similar individuals, only later developing into more unique personalities. There was also one short adventure based on a concept of characters being very similar, slowly evolving and becoming unique, and finally, at the end of the story, realizing that they are merely parts of one split personality travelling through dream realm, and that in order to survive and wake they have to sacrifice their individuality.

Re: Treasure and components

Then don't give out so much treasure. This is one game aspect the DM has complete control over. And to avoid the "sacks of ingredients" problem, clerical spells in particular could be paid by sacrificing anything of value; it'd be easy enough to come up with something similar for wizards.

I don't. My real gaming started with WFRP, where treasure is scarce to nonexistent. I like the idea of simple sacrifice system. It's just that in a system where you can easily access items worth thousands of gold pieces (or rely on monster-of-the-week type of opposition to avoid handing out too many magic weapons), it's not as easy.

Re: Abuse of transportation spells

Then don't rely on core rules. [...](and your SH+T problem goes away unless the person providing transport has been there before...)

Umm, we're talking about 4th edition core rules, right? And how should they differ from 3rd.
Rest assured that I have designed some home-made prevention systems, still, as per core rules, defense mechanism for one castle would drain up resources of medium size kingdom.
I don't like tweaking starndards too much, though, as it sometimes breaks up adventures and adds too many little exceptions over the course of campaigning.

Also, SH&T problem is a little more complex thing than simple transportation issue. It's all about spells being superior to mundane means of solving problems while, IMHO, they should offer only equally viable alternative.

Re: Resurrection failure chance

In 1e, resurrection failure chances were fairly low provided you had a better Con. score than a fieldmouse. But perma-death can and does happen, though not to the rather overstated level you imply above.

There were sessions where I failed my own resurrection roll more than once. It hurt, especially when you played tough warrior with 16 Constitution.

Re: Scaling damage

I find myself running more and more monsters with lots of small-ish attacks each round.

*sigh* Does not work with spellcasters on the opposing side.

Re: disruptive, or temporary disabling vs temporary killing

Only disruptive if your game is predicated on everyone surviving. At those levels, revival effects are available and most parties will try to bring back a valued companion even if there's a chance it won't work. Fine with me.

I prefer dying to be a rather important in game event instead of save/load pause.

Regardless of the "roles", gameplay will always be exactly as inventive as the players can or will roleplay; the characters are much more than just numbers on a page, and if the players give them some character the mechanics being the same pales into insignificance. Buff spells will be overused regardless of the role mechanics. What you call an unbalanced encounter I call interesting...a military patrol meets a lone Kobold "Yeah, Sarge, leave it to me; I can take 'im with one 'and behind my back" "OK, Private, go to it" then gets the shock of its life when Private turns coat...I fail to see a problem.

True. However, I'm talking about steretyping caused by the system, not how the players are supposed to circumvent it. Also, about how rock-paper-scissor type of system leads to unbalancing encounters (and to certain predictability).

To scale the game to 100th level you'd have to make it mighty boring for the first few levels, and as that's where most gameplay usually takes place (particularly for new players) that'd end up being somewhat self-defeating.

There are games which handle this type of scaling while maintaining high attractiveness. The curve of power increase does not need to be steep provided you avoid giving out binary powers[1] and allow for character growth unrelated to combat effectiveness.

regards,
Ruemere

[1] Binary power:
Power which yields definitive result (usually success or failure), irrespectively of circumstances.
Examples: Detect Evil spell. Detect Magic spells.

 

[Azazyll]

I like rules. If you want less rules, go play Requiem. If you want more rules, go play Rifts. D&D is just right.

I play D&D for the rules. I buy new suppliments for the rules. More rules presents the opportunity for more neat ways to use them. The suppliments I like best are the ones that present an interesting new rule that both elegently blends with existing rules and presents options that I wouldn't have thought of. I can come up with fluff. Or I can read a fiction book for it. Sure, sometimes there's great fluff. Eberron blew me away, for instance. And there are certainly a lot of mediocre or even bad prestige classes/base classes/spells/feats/magic items/monsters (complete warrior, anyone?).

But when a book has a really neat new rule, I buy it, hands down. When a book comes out that tries to explain to me how to organize a city or a kingdom, I yawn. There are plenty of those. There's real life for those. Millions of people try to make a living writing new fantasy. Very few people have what it takes to integrate that well and creatively with a rules system.

And on a side note, whatever happens, I hope to god that they don't change upgrading NPCs/monsters too much. It was impossible to do in 2e. I think that the monster/npcs system is the best thing that happened to 3e

 

[Glyfair]

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

I agree. NPCs (at least the grunts and such) should follow an abbreviated set of rules. I guess that technically puts me in the more rules category, but I put down about the same.

 

[takyris]

I think perspective varies a lot with experience. In high school I was dying for a 3.5, because the adolescent DM would use fiat to shaft any player he didn't like in that particular lunch hour. Now, however, I feel mildy insulted by the density of rules. Hey! I can work that out for myself - am I dungeon master, or what?

I guess my experiences have been different. Every time I've been treated in a manner I consider unfair in a game, it's been because the GM chose to throw out the rules to make sure that his pet plot event happened. (Or, in some cases, failed to know the rules.) And that's not just with bad GMs. I've had otherwise good GMs opt to throw out the rules for a dramatic event, and the dramatic event usually ends up boning me.

The way I see it, a GM can always toss out rules that he doesn't like, for better or for worse. I'd prefer that the rules be there to toss out, though, because the alternative is for every GM who wants rules for that situation to have to come up with their own house rules, and that means that something as simple as Jumping is different in every dang game.

To finally figure out how to say it briefly:

I'd rather have Jumping be by-the-book in 8 out of 10 games and house-ruled differently in 2 than to have Jumping ignored as a non-game-factor in 4 games and house-ruled completely differently in the other 6.