See, I think part of this is a semantic debate. "Complexity" suggests that the game as it is played is going to become more complex. If you've got a party of four players, that's four sets of class-based rules you need to know. You don't need to worry about the classes that aren't being played, so they don't factor into the complexity of the game, no matter how many unused pages exist. (That said, if you let the players have access to those books, YOU can choose to up the complexity of the game by tapping those same resources for the NPCs.)

Arguably, a person doing a Druid/Wizard/Arcane Thaumaturge is considerably more complex than a person doing a Wizard/Alienist--let alone a person doing a straight Favored Soul.

A rule limiting the amount of multiclassing would actually do more to limit 'complexity' than a rule limiting sourcebooks. What you're doing is limiting variety, which is a different beast. 3.x supports an incredible variety of character types, but does so by forcing the players (not the GM) to be able to do the heavy lifting of finding the combination of classes that produces the characters they want.

Now, that said, it's possible that variety can lead to a kind of selection-paralysis--that was, in fact, part of the argument behind the design of 4e.

If I'm feeling a D&D itch, my current salve is Dungeon World.

What is e6?

While Core is a complete game, core D&D where the only class was Cleric would be a "complete" game as well. I think we all agree the game would be lessened by that (outside of special scenarios); the question is where to draw the line.

I like it!

Let's say the game has a literally infinite amount of material. By your logic, it is a literally infinite game.

But here's the problem. Just because you allow all of that material doesn't mean it all factors in. I allow pretty much everything, and I've seen most base classes used in a game at some point or another. The Expanded Psionics Handbook has nine prestige classes. I've seen two of them used, ever, and in every single game they weren't a part of, I paid them no mind. They did not factor into the complexity. I'm not even sure what most of the other seven are, and I don't need to. If anyone ever wanted to play them, I'd just give them the once-over real quick and run with it. After all, unless I'm doing something insane like running a super-high-level game, I only need to skim it, then really look at one level every few weeks, or every few months. That's negligible.

More material simply means more things you can bring into the game, instead of something else, but the result is not inherently any more complex, and often aid in making a more straightforward representation of what you wanted in the first place, making things simpler. After all, a Beguiler does the mage/thief gig far more simply than a Wizard/Rogue/Arcane Trickster (who has to maintain a spellbook besides).

1) No, you're not. You're deciding which books everyone does or does not use. Huge difference.

2) You completely ignored what I was saying there. Just because you're allowing all the books doesn't mean you have to go to all the books for challenges. You can still voluntarily go to limited sources for preparing challenges while still allowing all the material.


It's very rare to get a core book that's actually complete, unless it's a really simple game, or something super-open-ended like Mutants & Masterminds. More often, you'll have a lot of glaring holes, which get patched in later supplements to fill in some of those blanks. If you then go back and refuse to allow the most reasonable path to build a character who's in one of those blanks because the obvious choice is printed on the wrong sheet of paper, you're kinda being a dick.

That is a very fair, and good, point.

My position (and I think Clintmemo was saying something similar, I hope he will correct me if he was not) is that while you are correct, the use of splatbooks has, in the games that I have run, tended to result in a large number of additional rules being introduced in a way that impacts the GM. What I mean is that it has been my experience that the players, even if they own the splatbook they are using, will require me to make rulings on the rules in said splatbook, which will require me to gain at least some degree of knowledge of those rules, making the game more complicated than I prefer. Moreover, in a level-based game, there is a tendency for more rules to come into play as the game progresses, meaning that the larger number of rule books allowed increases this sort of thing. While I do play other, simpler games, I enjoy D&D, and don't mind running it, provided that it is done within my comfort zone. If someone else wishes to play D&D

Now, again, as I have said multiple times, my experience is with older splatbooks, and I am not particularly knowledgeable about the newer ones. If the new ones are sufficiently different that they eliminate this problem, then I am willing to change my mind (though time and money constraints will continue to impact my ability to get and use said books).


To VV's points:



This is also a very fair point. However, to do as you suggest here requires that I, as the GM, have a sufficient knowledge of this or other classes, and their associated feats, abilities, etc. to be able fairly adjudicate situations in which they are in play. While, yes, this can be greatly simplified by requiring the players to print out/write the relevant information, I still need to know enough about it to be able to prep scenarios and run a game with such a character in it. Even if the player prints out the material and hands it to me, I still have to account for it while preparing to run a game, while the core classes/races are ones that I know so well at this point that I don't typically have to consult additional rules, even if the rules are convenient. While I appreciate that, as you state, you find the time commitment in question negligible, I do not - whether this is because of differences in our GM styles or differences in how we arrange our lives, I do not know.

Once again, as I have said before, it gets down to how one prefers to run a game. I am not saying you are wrong (though you seem increasingly bound to prove that I am), I am saying that I prefer to run things differently.

One last thing:



You don't know what my players think of how I run a game (given that you live quite some distance from all of them, I doubt you could have done so), nor do you know how I present the way that I run games to my players. This, really, is just name-calling for the sake of name calling.

Consider that I have been respectful to you, that I have made clear that I see nothing wrong with how you run a game though I choose to do things differently, and that you know little about how my players and I interact and therefore little about how I engage with my players on the matter of rules. Think about that next time you feel inclined to begin throwing vulgarities at me.

I would solve your hypothetical problem with a hypothetical solution. I'm sure you can manufacture problems with any system and find glaring holes if you really want to be a dick. I take the rational solution and don't play with assholes. We have a great time and there aren't any issues. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.

I draw the line right after the core books.