Ravenheart87 wrote:rabindranath72 wrote:Then they wanted to try something different and more complex, so I introduced them to D&D 3e (3.0) and with only the core books (does this make me an A-hole?), we still had a very nice experience. Many players forget (or don't read) what's also written in the 3.0 DMG: the DM decides what goes in the game, and the rules can be changed according to the needs; they mistake the "rules for everything" as something which must be forced down the DM's throat, not something to HELP and BE USED BY the DM!
3e with only the core books and possibly a few supplements (ie. Nercromancer Games stuff) is great. I think it's much better than 3.5. Unfortunately, 4e went with the "everything we sh*t is core" approach. Yeah, you can limit the resources for your players, but still, it's a bad mentality that hurts - especially beginners and newbs.
Personally, I HATE game expansions, if they are just rules. With a system as flexible as 3e, is there really the need for more rules? With just the core rules you can create most any character type you want. That's what I did for the last 10 years; only core rules and a setting book: the FR campaign setting book, or Greyhawk Gazetteer (32 pages!) or Dragonlance campaign setting book. I might pick a monster from MMII or Fiend Folio, but most of the time the MM is more than enough. And the DMG provides predefined stats for any type of NPC of whatever level and race, and concise rules to transform monsters into PC races.
Also don't forget that most of the D&D settings were born under AD&D 1e, and they run with zero to minimal alteration to the core rules (see the FR Grey Box, the DL series of modules, or the Greyhawk Folio). I don't see why it couldn't be the same with D&D 3e.
And for a newbie, once you tell him "that's the PHB, that's all you need" he won't flinch. If he can't come out with an idea for a character with all the tools the book gives (races, classes, feats, skills) then perhaps it's not the game for him.
I agree 3.0 is much better than 3.5. It's less rules intensive (especially when it comes to tactical matters; diagonals counting anyone?
), less cluttered (much fewer feats), monsters are not created as PCs in terms of skills and feats (which makes them generally easier to design and run since they have fewer of both), spells are not nerfed, weapon sizes (enough said) and it has been playtested one order of magnitude better (and it shows!)
Really, how many feats you need in a game? The 3.0 PHB has a nearly-perfect set of feats, each designed to augment ONE PART of the game: one feat to excel at skills, one feat for each save, feats for fighter special abilities, feats for spellcasters, one feat for initiative, Alertness for surprise and a few other parts of the game. 3.5 split many of the feats in twos, nerfing them; or introduced stupid feats which give bonuses to two skills at the time; or went far and away from the basic idea of augmenting one aspect of the game. All redundant stuff which amounts to needless rule bloat.
I think the bad rep which 3e has got is due to the same mentality which led to the demise of 2e: too much of everything.
What got me into 3e at the start, where the words of Peter Adkison, who clearly stated something to the effect of "We will only publish the three core books. The rest will be adventures and settings."
What I saw in 3e, was AD&D 2e + Player's Option books, but all in a polished and streamlined package. 3e was a labour of love, and it shows.
After Adkison left WotC, we all know how it went...
And recently Mike Mearls stated that having "everything core for 4e was a bad idea." It's difficult to learn from the past, it seems.
Sorry for the rambling!
. Just pre-ordered based on, well, everything I've seen & read on this amazing game. Free RPG Day can't come soon enough!
)
