An Occasion for Every Rule, and a Rule for Every Occasion

At both Viking-Con and Worldwide D&D Game Day, as one of the designers of 3rd Edition D&D, I was asked something along the lines of, "Don't you think the increased number of rules in 3rd Edition is detrimental to roleplaying?"

My answer, which I hope will come as no surprise, was always "no." In fact, I've got to tell you that I find the premise (that there are more rules in 3rd Edition than in previous editions of the game) patently absurd and demonstrably false. People who ask the question must clearly have already forgotten things like System Shock, five different saving throws, Bend Bars/Lift Gates percentages (as opposed to the Open Doors roll, as opposed to Strength checks, as opposed to the uncodified but often used "it takes a combined total of X points of Strength to move this heavy object" rule), different tables and different scales for each ability score, different experience point progressions for every class, and so on and on. And that's not even mentioning such complications as the Weapon vs. Armor table, the pummeling and grappling rules, percentage Strength... okay, I'll stop.*

(It's possible that people didn't forget all those 1st Edition and 2nd Edition rules, but that they just didn't use a lot of them, because many were clunky and cumbersome, or just hard to remember, and the 3rd Edition rules, because they all were the same way and are more universally integrated throughout the system, are easier to remember and thus seem more numerous.)

I do not, however, find the question absurd. It's a good question. Obviously, it's not an ignorable concern, because so many people raise it. But beyond that, it's not hard to see that the 3rd Edition system is robust and the mechanics can be compelling and thus can overshadow character development and story. Specifically, I think that, since there are more interesting character options to consider -- feats, skills, multiclassing, prestige classes, and so on -- sometimes players get caught up and forget about their actual character, as opposed to his stats.

Was this intentional? Yes and no. It was intentional that players find a number of aspects of their character and its advancement more compelling in 3rd Edition than in previous editions. One of our goals specifically was to keep players interested in the game longer. The genius of level-based characters is that hopefully the abilities you get next level make you want to keep playing to attain them. This is the "stick and carrot" approach, and it's been around since the earliest days of D&D. All we did was try to amplify the concept so that there were truly attractive things at every level for every character. But it wasn't to overshadow the development of a character's background or personality, and it doesn't have to do so.

You just might need to remind your players of this now and again, if they're having trouble with the concept. If you think the character abilities and so forth will distract the roleplaying aspects of the game, a more proactive approach is to provide tangible rewards for character development and roleplaying, whether they come in the form of experience points, special "hero points," or so forth.

And what about all the other stuff? Attacks of opportunity, grappling, disarm, bull rushes, and so on. Why all that complication?

An Example

Imagine this situation: Six bugbears block a 5-foot-wide doorway in two rows. The PC fighter just wants to get out of the room. The player says to the DM, "I want to charge the bugbears with my shield in front of me, and my weapon used to just ward away their blows. I don't care about hurting them -- I just want to get out, hopefully without taking too much damage."

This is a reasonable thing to try, albeit a difficult one to accomplish. While some DMs could come up with rules on the fly to handle the situation, many others would take a lot of time with it. A reasonable and action-oriented plan by a player could slow things way down. Further, even the on-the-fly-savvy DM runs the risk of forgetting how he handled it, and running a similar situation completely differently the next time, which can confuse and irritate players. Worst of all would be the situation where either because he can't think of how to handle it, or because it would take too long to figure it all out, the DM replies, "No, you can't do that."

When Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I designed 3rd Edition, we wanted something for the DM to be able to fall back on. We wanted to provide rules the DM had at his disposal that wouldn't be hard to adjudicate, wouldn't slow down the game (at least not too much), and wouldn't force him to say "no." Our attitude was, "Don't worry, DM. We've got your back."

Thus, the game has rules for attacks of opportunity and various special situations or character options. However, it's both incorrect and unfair to think that the presence of those rules -- provided only to make things easier -- makes the game more complicated. On the contrary. That would be like saying having a fire extinguisher in your home requires you to learn how to be a fireman and think only about putting out fires. The extinguisher is there if you need it, but it's your choice to pay attention to it. Even if there's a fire, you could always try to smother it with a blanket or call the fire department.

Likewise, you only need to reference the rules in the core books if you want them. The DM might say the following to the player with the fighter in the above situation: "Okay. Make a DC 20 Strength check or Dexterity check -- your choice, depending on whether you're pushing through them or trying to slip through them. And, oh, a couple of them will get to make free attacks as you push through, but we'll give you a +4 bonus to Armor Class because you're only thinking about defending yourself." A DM might come up with this approach rather than looking up the rules for bull rushes, tumbles, or whatever, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'd caution you to try to keep the same general approach the next time the situation crops up, but you don't even have to do that.

Say, for example, the bugbear encounter isn't very consequential, and the fighter is just trying to rejoin his comrades so the adventure can continue. Then, you might simply want to tell your player, "Look, just make this simple check and we'll call it good. This situation doesn't warrant looking up all the relevant rules, like we would do if this was an important encounter." Most players will not only understand that approach, but they'll appreciate it. They want the game to move along with a steady, exciting pace as well.**

Ultimately, the rules are there to help, not to hinder. If you find them hindering you or your players, change them or ignore them. It's your game. There are no game design police who will come and confiscate your books for misuse. Fun is more important than accuracy or adherence. Do what's fun.

*Please don't take this the wrong way. I loved the previous editions of the game and played them for years. My point is only that there were a lot of rules and subsystems in them -- more than in core 3rd Edition. And worse, they all worked in entirely different ways. Roll high, roll low, percentage rolls, d6 rolls, and so on. Ultimately, though, if you're reading this and you're surprised that I would like the edition of the game that I helped develop as opposed to those that came before, I'm not even sure how to respond. (I have received one or two emails over the last few years from people who don't like 3rd Edition who say something like "I know Wizards of the Coast made you change the system more than you wanted to and that you must secretly hate 3rd Edition," which I always find amusing.)

**Some players might object to this approach, but I bet the number is much smaller than you'd think.