PDA

View Full Version : At what point do you claim "overcomplicated"?



Traab
2012-06-09, 10:43 PM
This is for D&D games, especially on character creation. I have read a few topics that talk about different ways to get effects that you want, and I see them bringing out a half a dozen books to grab 1-2 feats, items, or spells from each, and melding them all together into some unholy muddle that in the end creates some crazy character concept that will probably be house ruled as unacceptable forever once the dm figures out what you are trying to pull. As players, how deep are you willing to go into designing your character? As dms, is there a cutoff point for how many sources in a single character you will allow? "Im sorry bob, but you have 15 source books you are pulling details from all at once, and its just too much to try and keep straight and figure out if its a workable plan, or something that will cause my head to explode trying to figure out what sort of cheese you are trying to pull here."

Masaioh
2012-06-09, 10:54 PM
There is no limit as long as I look through whatever content is being used from each book and approve of it. I'm usually the one who comes up with the craziest ideas, anyways. I once tried making a Thri-Kreen with the Insectile template (8 arms=huge weapon without size increase), but it got banned for being illogical and redundant.

Knaight
2012-06-09, 10:58 PM
I generally avoid D&D. That said, as a GM, I have absolutely no problem with players making their characters as they see fit. If they know the setting, and they know the systems, I trust that they'll make sure that the characters fit together well, and fit with the setting. If that involves a huge amount of books, so be it - I'm not the one who has to dredge through them all.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-06-09, 10:59 PM
Um... there's a few different possible outcomes when a player does that.

1. The player is digging through books to find stuff related to his concept. But he's not an optimizer. He's either good or underpowered, or maybe an accidental overpowered.
2. As 1, but the player has a good grasp on mechanics. May or may not be too powerful if they don't learn the group's power level beforehand.
3. They're doing it for some Theoretical Op build not intended for play. Like Pun-Pun, the Omiscifier, the D2 Crusader, or the Idiot Crusader (which actually don't need more than a handful of books, usually. In the case of the Idiot Crusader, it only needs one, besides core).

Generally, as long as I don't have to read through entire books I don't have, it's not overcomplicated. Like if they decide to nab Zhentarim Soldier and then never use Champions of Valor web enhancement for anything else, I'm fine with that, as long as I know how it works. Or if they decide to take Dungeoncrasher, Steadfast Determination, and Martial Study, it's still good.

eggs
2012-06-09, 11:34 PM
I prefer games with minimum digging. I often snub FATE 3 games, which are often labeled "light" on these forums, in favor of FATE 2.0, because digging up Stunts to change certain rules on a character-to-character basis is more fiddly than I would call ideal.

But in a game whose publication model is based on that mentality (like D&D), I'm not adamant against plowing through books (and after a decade fiddling around in 3e, most of its contents are pretty familiar anyway). That's just a part of the game, no matter how ridiculous it gets.

But still, all else equal and all other parties willing, I'd prefer to homebrew something like a teleportation-based melee class based on SRD materials than cobble together a 6-class, 12-sourcebook build modelling the same concept.

JustPlayItLoud
2012-06-09, 11:48 PM
I've never run pbp, and all the people I tend to play with in person have much much much less op-fu than I do. When I run, I'll pretty much allow anything I've already heard of when I look at their character sheet, barring anything I've previously banned for style reasons or anything I immediately recognize as cheese. As far as seeing something on a sheet that I've never heard of, I'll let you know if that ever happens. As I said, my level of op-fu is vastly higher than the people I tend to game with, and I can almost always tell just by looking at their sheets if they've missed a prereq for a feat or haven't computed skill points correctly.

erikun
2012-06-09, 11:57 PM
As dms, is there a cutoff point for how many sources in a single character you will allow?
I generally just ask what they're trying to do. If it is an interesting idea, I'll allow it or even offer to homebrew a class/prestige to accomplish it better.

If they're trying something tricky (or I suspect they might be) I'll just rule there that it doesn't work.

Knaight
2012-06-10, 12:19 AM
I prefer games with minimum digging. I often snub FATE 3 games, which are often labeled "light" on these forums, in favor of FATE 2.0, because digging up Stunts to change certain rules on a character-to-character basis is more fiddly than I would call ideal.


Not to advertise FATE 3 - I prefer Fate 2, and I prefer Fudge to Fate 2 - but Stunts can be a good mechanic. They are often handled poorly, but stunt creation systems (that mirror aspect creation systems, and are fairly simple) drastically reduce the overhead, and keep things lightweight.

Sadly, my best example for these isn't actually published yet, and tends to have problems with strings of delays.

Ashtagon
2012-06-10, 12:23 AM
For each character, I prefer "core plus one book", with core expanded to include the Spell Compendium and Tome of Battle. I also reserve the right to veto specific aspects depending on campaign concept.

Rorrik
2012-06-10, 12:29 AM
I'm going to be honest, I just about wet myself whenever I come on looking for help with a character and get advice that involves several books. I've only ever made a character with core.

That said, I have a player I GM for who I know if we played 3.5 would have several books for each character, and I wouldn't be able to say no because he'd be so excited and proud of it.

Savannah
2012-06-10, 12:50 AM
As long as players provide me with book titles and page numbers for non-core things (spells, feats, classes, items, whatever) to make my job of looking at what they can do easier, I don't care how many books they pull from. And sometimes I learn nifty new things to use on my NPCs :smallbiggrin:

Seharvepernfan
2012-06-10, 12:51 AM
It depends on the game in question. If we're going with "mostly core", then I wouldn't allow any ToB or beguilers or anything more complicated then that. If we're going with with pretty much anything, then I wouldn't care how many books it comes from.

As a player, I can be happy playing a straight core human sorcerer or a wingless avariel scout/swordsage/transmuter/ruathar/swiftblade with traits, flaws, MiC and glassteel items, SC spells, a floating psionic crystal familiar, and a custom-built air-elemental bound harness that allows a constant perfect-maneuverability flight speed of 100ft.

If your concept is out of sync with the game, then it's a no-go. If the game is complicated, then your character can be equally complicated.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-06-10, 01:17 AM
But still, all else equal and all other parties willing, I'd prefer to homebrew something like a teleportation-based melee class based on SRD materials than cobble together a 6-class, 12-sourcebook build modelling the same concept.

And at this point I just have to point out that there is a prestige class that does that.. Jaunter, 5-levels, published in the Expedition to the Demonweb pits adventure of all the illogical places for it. XD (Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you... just found it amusing that you brought up an example of something I stumbled over at random and ended up playing...:p)


Anyway, on topic. I'm not a DM (I hope to DM someday, but lacking the spare time for it right now.), but I personally shy away if someone is dipping into classes everywhere without a good explanation to why. Make it as complicated or as simple as you want to, but if you can't get an IC explanation for a ninja/warlock/barbarian/artificer/swordsage/sword-dancer it's not playing. And if I'm not the DM (which is very likely) I'm not playing with you.
Now if you need to do silly things mechanically to pull of a concept you have in your head, go for it. I'm not the least bit against outrageous character concepts (I tend to be among the worst with it anyway... entire systems twitch when I say "I have a neat idea."...), I'm against outrageous cheese.

Jay R
2012-06-10, 09:10 AM
I played D&D when it was three pamphlets that fit in a small white box. I loved it.

I'm currently playing 2E, and besides the core rules, I have quite a few extended books. And I'm loving it.

One of my favorite games is Champions. Some people find it too complicated, but I really love it.

On the other hand, I have no desire to play 3E or beyond. I have no interest in characters with lots of classes, or templates, or war-forged, or some of the other changes.

So I guess "overcomplicated" really means whatever you personally don't want to spend time doing.

Sucrose
2012-06-10, 09:19 AM
I let the players do anything that isn't from another setting (and even some of that, if it seems like it ought to be a generic option), with any number of sourcebooks. I'm even open to a lot of homebrew. My only rule is that it can't be powerful enough to overshadow the other members of the party, and in that case, I'll request a tone-down. Since I play with friends, that is generally seen as acceptable.

As a player, I'll pull from any number of sourcebooks, but need to limit myself in much the same way as I limit my players; more so, in one group, who I accidentally cheesed a campaign of with a frankly substandard DFI Bard.

Kol Korran
2012-06-10, 10:16 AM
As long as players provide me with book titles and page numbers for non-core things (spells, feats, classes, items, whatever) to make my job of looking at what they can do easier, I don't care how many books they pull from. And sometimes I learn nifty new things to use on my NPCs :smallbiggrin:

pretty much the same thing with me. with one addition. i ask my player:
- how does it serve the concept?
- what do you want to achieve mechanically? oh, and if you'll be pulling something off i may veto it on the spot.

i have quite ok players (except for one who left the group) and their shenanigans are quite low key mostly.

Madeiner
2012-06-10, 11:02 AM
I DM without using books, only the pathfinder SRD.
My rules are:

1) Anything that is NOT on the SRD is not allowed. Anything in the SRD that is written by third parties or users, is NOT allowed.

2) Exception to rule1 is made once or twice for each person. You can take maybe one feat and one trick from that list, if i previously review it carefully, on the assumption that you attach the special rules on your sheet and able to provide it for me at any time requested if it's not on the SRD.

3) Anything that is NOT core is specifically checked. If the same thing could be done with CORE material, then you use that. If there's something that i specifically don't like to see in my campaign, then it's banned. Example include forms of "permanent" things that bypass possible interesing stories. Being able to fly all day, for example, removes "terrain" as a story element at all.

4) All characters MUST be balanced with each other at any time, to the best of my ability/judgement. Feats, spells, and everything CAN be removed by the DM at any time, providing compensation of course. Special rules may be put in effect to balance things out in any direction. A few examples include paladin's smite evil damage reduction, or a specific-build magus spell critical strikes damage multiplier reduction.

DarkEternal
2012-06-10, 11:05 AM
Mixing various templates with races and then doing some min maxing I guess. That sort of thing is a bit too much for my games, but if it's well spun to fit in the world, then I'll try to cope. Also, anything from Magic of Incarnum I guess because I'm thick as a brick when that particular source is considered.

Jay R
2012-06-10, 12:50 PM
In my last couple of games, I gave them a fairly long list of things that they could not do, but:

Each person could have exactly one exception, and no two people could have the same one. This allowed people to get one thing they really wanted, but not to go wild combining rules that weren't intended to work together.

Skorj
2012-06-10, 03:25 PM
pretty much the same thing with me. with one addition. i ask my player:
- how does it serve the concept?
- what do you want to achieve mechanically? oh, and if you'll be pulling something off i may veto it on the spot.

i have quite ok players (except for one who left the group) and their shenanigans are quite low key mostly.

I do just the same. My rules are:

There must be a coherent character concept (that fits the campaign).
There has to be a reason you're not doing something simpler to achieve the concept (but with 3.5 there usually is).

As has been often noted about D&D 3.5 - the most broken stuff is in core. I'm not worried about some overpowered build, I just don't want to juggle a bunch of unfamiliar rules unless it serves some purpose in telling the story.

And if only my players' shenanigans were rules-oriented! You can veto those. Overly complicated (and overly clever) in-game plans are far more of a headache for me.

TheThan
2012-06-10, 03:38 PM
I take it case by case. Some players I know I have to watch like a hawk, because they are rampant power gamers. Others really aren’t so don’t mind giving them much more leeway with character creation.
Ultimately I’m a little more concerned with the character’s personality and well character, than his character sheet.

Endarire
2012-06-10, 04:28 PM
I've never seen an overcomplicated character, regardless of the sources used. I have seen ones stretched too thin, and who do things so well that I'd normally not allow them in my current game.

Mind you, I've been optimizing all my life (and my uncle optimizes too, so it's genetic) and own about 50 3.x books. I wish I could pay by the rule instead of by the book. Then I'd only need a small portion of what I have.

Fatebreaker
2012-06-10, 04:54 PM
The attitude that a multi-book build is inherently more complicated or overpowered than a single-book build (or "Core+1") is somewhat baffling.

Yes, it can be more powerful or convoluted. The player can cherry-pick items, spells, classes, and abilities which were not intended to function together to create some insanely powerful monstrosity. But the fundamental imbalances of the game originate from core, so I don't see the problem with letting folks use resources they paid real money-dollars for to help even things out.

More importantly, I'm not inclined to prevent a player from playing the character concept he likes just because he was unlucky enough for Wizards to publish the mechanics he needs across several different books. All I would ask is that I be able to review it to ensure that it fits within the theme of the world and that it meshes well with the other players at the table.

Or, put another way, if you can play nicely with others, you are welcome in my game with the character who makes you happy.

valadil
2012-06-10, 07:44 PM
When there's more build than character it's over complicated. I don't see the point in playing some unholy abomination just because the templates line up right. I want to play a person and use the rules to represent that person.

Sheogorath
2012-06-10, 09:26 PM
After doing everything the Players Handbook tells me to, and then comparing it with other peoples characters. The amount of additional choices, details and obligations the vast number of extra books gives is literally larger than the character sheet itself at times...
At that point I really can't follow it.

Rorrik
2012-06-10, 09:50 PM
When there's more build than character it's over complicated. I don't see the point in playing some unholy abomination just because the templates line up right. I want to play a person and use the rules to represent that person.

This is the real issue, my player who would go for a dozen books wouldn't do so for his character, he'd do it for the build. The others make due trying to make a character concept with the bare minimum rules.

Captain Six
2012-06-10, 10:23 PM
The number of books used doesn't bother me at all. The amount of multiclassing sometimes does, but not to much. But for some reason I absolutely refuse to take any less than 2 levels in any class I take. No matter how many classes are on my character sheet if one of them reads only 1 level I start to feel a little dirty inside.

Lord.Sorasen
2012-06-10, 11:49 PM
Can't say I really have a limit in this regard.

I got into D&D 3.5 at the time when it was already a discontinued edition. In essence, to me "core" wasn't all that different than "complete arcane". both seemed to be a book with some classes and feats, etc etc.

Now, whenever I am DMing and I see something I don't understand, I ask what it is and why the player wants it. If I see it as breaking the game I tell them it's on trial: If it breaks the game I will remove it but if it doesn't I don't really care.

Right now I play Pathfinder, and it's a similar issue, but perhaps even greater since almost all the material can be found on the same website, with little to differentiate core and non-core.

I don't really find broken and complicated to be the same thing. Druid with wildshape isn't really complicated at all, but any vow of poverty monk worth much in a fight is going to need to be pretty complicated. You know what I mean?

I guess I feel like there's a stigma against complicated characters, that any vision (fluff or crunch, doesn't matter) can be created perfectly in core, and people who drift too far away from core could only be doing it because they are trying to overpower the system. It's not stormwind fallacy... rather "a character may have a complicated or intricate designs for a number of reasons. A complicated character is not necessarily stronger than a character built simply, and such design might be necessary to fill a specific vision adequately." If that makes any sense.

Geddoe
2012-06-11, 01:39 AM
When I GM'd 3.x

As long as they have an actual character, I don't care if they use every book in the world. Aside from certain third party supplements(aside from l5r stuff if doing OA) and a few broken builds, you can use just about anything. Just let me read it over to make sure I understand it.

For Anima: Beyond Fantasy

Obviously the number of supplements are limited. Anything I have you can use. Plus the revised secondary rules and spell rules from Spanish Core Exxet.

Philistine
2012-06-11, 01:40 AM
When there's more build than character it's over complicated. I don't see the point in playing some unholy abomination just because the templates line up right. I want to play a person and use the rules to represent that person.

Who makes that determination? And based on what criteria?

I know that from my own playing experience, one particularly notable character's mechanics pulled race, template, feats, ACFs, PrCs, and items from... I think it was 8 different books by ECL 10 (and it may have been more). And here's the funny thing: all of that work - which was done before the game, in character creation - required me to spend considerable time thinking about what the character would be like in great detail, so that when I finally got a chance to play him at the table he was more fully realized as "a person."


This is the real issue, my player who would go for a dozen books wouldn't do so for his character, he'd do it for the build. The others make due trying to make a character concept with the bare minimum rules.
That's great, assuming the system you're using supports it. Not all do - and what's worse, some systems (*coughD&D3.xcoughcough*) support it really well for some archetypes but extraordinarily poorly for others.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-06-11, 06:52 AM
Who makes that determination? And based on what criteria?

I know that from my own playing experience, one particularly notable character's mechanics pulled race, template, feats, ACFs, PrCs, and items from... I think it was 8 different books by ECL 10 (and it may have been more). And here's the funny thing: all of that work - which was done before the game, in character creation - required me to spend considerable time thinking about what the character would be like in great detail, so that when I finally got a chance to play him at the table he was more fully realized as "a person."


I know it wasn't aimed directly at me, but I'll give my point of view anyway. The DM decides that, but the DM should also make his tastes clear to his players from the start. If the DM isn't a fan of level dipping or someone having more that two base classes and one prestige class ontop of that he should say so at character creation, if not the players can only assume that as long as they don't utterly cheese something out anything goes. If the DM neglects to tell them how he prefers things he can't just tell a player the build isn't viable when they hit lvl 5 because the player just picked up a 3rd base class for his build. But if he has set long-term guide-lines and a player does go against it the DM is within his right to remind the player of them and say no.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-11, 07:10 AM
This is for D&D games, especially on character creation. I have read a few topics that talk about different ways to get effects that you want, and I see them bringing out a half a dozen books to grab 1-2 feats, items, or spells from each, and melding them all together into some unholy muddle that in the end creates some crazy character concept that will probably be house ruled as unacceptable forever once the dm figures out what you are trying to pull. As players, how deep are you willing to go into designing your character? As dms, is there a cutoff point for how many sources in a single character you will allow? "Im sorry bob, but you have 15 source books you are pulling details from all at once, and its just too much to try and keep straight and figure out if its a workable plan, or something that will cause my head to explode trying to figure out what sort of cheese you are trying to pull here."

No limit. I don't care if they build a char using every sourcebook in D&D(now THERE'S a challenge), it's all about the end results. There are chars that are straight core I prefer to avoid(say, the CN rogue who wants to steal from the party), and endlessly splatbooked things that work great.


This is the real issue, my player who would go for a dozen books wouldn't do so for his character, he'd do it for the build. The others make due trying to make a character concept with the bare minimum rules.

Meh. I know people who use fairly few books, but still try to munchkinize everything.

I also know people who cobble together things out of tons of books just to make some oddball concept viable.

I don't think the assumption of build over char holds true for everyone.

valadil
2012-06-11, 08:22 AM
Who makes that determination? And based on what criteria?

I know that from my own playing experience, one particularly notable character's mechanics pulled race, template, feats, ACFs, PrCs, and items from... I think it was 8 different books by ECL 10 (and it may have been more). And here's the funny thing: all of that work - which was done before the game, in character creation - required me to spend considerable time thinking about what the character would be like in great detail, so that when I finally got a chance to play him at the table he was more fully realized as "a person."


This is exactly why I do this by feel instead of by number. If I were to limit you to a number of books, it would certainly be lower than 8. And yet I've known players that could create overly complicated template buffet characters without leaving core. You've created an interesting personality to roleplay. Well done. I don't really care how it's built.

That said, I've never seen a character quite like that in real play. The ones with templates and several 1-2 level dips usually have no justification whatsoever and make no attempt to roleplay. The fighter with a single level in jaguar totem barbarian never really roleplays his feral upbringing - he just mentioned it to the GM once to get to pounce and then forgot about it. That's what I've come to expect from overcomplicated characters.

Winter_Wolf
2012-06-11, 08:31 AM
As a player, if I have to go into more than three books to get the stuff I want, I rethink my concept until I can get it in three books or less. Which basically means Player Guide plus one or two splats/source books relevant to the campaign.

I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with GMing anything anymore, least of of all 3.x D&D/Pathfinder.

obryn
2012-06-11, 08:51 AM
I've been spoiled by 4e's character builder. So ... that's my clear winner these days.

When I ran 3.x, for most serious games, I used Core + Setting Rules with an option for players to bring in more stuff if they kept a printout with their character sheets to reduce book reference in play. I only ran one Wahoo/Kitchen-Sink game, and that basically finished breaking me on the 3.x system. (In fairness, Arcana Evolved's casters did most of that work ahead of time...)

Nowadays, the thought of sorting through books for character creation seems unpalatable. So if I'm back to books at some point in the future, I'll probably return to similar limits.

-O

SowZ
2012-06-11, 10:43 AM
I view the books are all there to be used and really enjoy grabbing a few things here and there from each one. Combining the right items, feats, ACFs, traits, etc. all to facilitate my idea is fun. But typically I will do that with weird or sub-optimal choices in the first place and then have some optimization within that choice. So I might pick a crossbow pistol akimbo build then make it work with seven different sources so that by level ten I am still doing decent damage, (somewhere around a hundred twenty or so,) but if I took a different concept like a charger build and I optimize it the same level I can do double that with little trouble. But it has been done a thousand times and I would rather mess with less common stuff and having everything available to me helps with that.

If I'm not allowed it, eh, screw it, I'm going to go full spellcaster, then. Because spell selection in creation is cool and having different choices/options during play is already built in the class whereas making the creation as interesting as a casters and getting some utility/power/options for non casters is a lot easier when I have plenty of sources.

Rorrik
2012-06-11, 11:45 AM
Meh. I know people who use fairly few books, but still try to munchkinize everything.

I also know people who cobble together things out of tons of books just to make some oddball concept viable.

I don't think the assumption of build over char holds true for everyone.

Ah, I must not have finished posting, I was about to accuse you of taking me out of context. My point was that in my group, this is how it works, but that from group to group the real criteria should be whether the focus is more on the build or on the character.

Knaight
2012-06-11, 01:28 PM
That said, I've never seen a character quite like that in real play. The ones with templates and several 1-2 level dips usually have no justification whatsoever and make no attempt to roleplay. The fighter with a single level in jaguar totem barbarian never really roleplays his feral upbringing - he just mentioned it to the GM once to get to pounce and then forgot about it. That's what I've come to expect from overcomplicated characters.

I suspect the issue here is how you see classes. Many people (myself included) see them as meta-game constructs mixed as needed to create the proper set of abilities that make sense for the character. As such, there would be absolutely no need to roleplay a feral upbringing, or for the character to have one - a fighter with a dip in jaguar totem barbarian. It's a mechanical piece to see that they can move quickly and have a combat style that can involve some sort of heightened form. It could easily represent a knight who loves the thrill of battle and runs on adrenaline, who's upbringing was that of a noble.

valadil
2012-06-11, 01:58 PM
It could easily represent a knight who loves the thrill of battle and runs on adrenaline, who's upbringing was that of a noble.

If they want to refluff it I have no objection. Usually they don't even go that far and just want pounce.

Knaight
2012-06-11, 02:21 PM
If they want to refluff it I have no objection. Usually they don't even go that far and just want pounce.

I'd call that less refluffing and more grabbing existing mechanics for an existing concept, but if even that isn't done then there might be some issues. However, D&D being what it is, there are some concepts that are difficult to realize at all without significant multiclassing. If the character is also supposed to be reasonably good, it often takes it further. Others can be brokenly overpowered with all of one class supporting it.

valadil
2012-06-11, 02:44 PM
However, D&D being what it is, there are some concepts that are difficult to realize at all without significant multiclassing.

I'm all for concepts being realized. If a player wants to play a cat princess who dual wields honey badgers, and can make the build work, more power to them. If they pick up exotic weapon: honey badger, the catfolk template, and the pretty pretty princess prestige class, just because it's a good combo and they have no interest in roleplaying any of that, then it's an overcomplicated build. Two different players could play the same damn build and I'd have different reactions depending on the character attached to it.

Knaight
2012-06-11, 03:36 PM
If they pick up exotic weapon: honey badger, the catfolk template, and the pretty pretty princess prestige class, just because it's a good combo and they have no interest in roleplaying any of that, then it's an overcomplicated build.

I really have no more issue with this than someone picking up Fighter 1, Weapon Focus Sword, and something, then when asked about their character, going off on something like "He's a swordsman. Who likes to use swords. So, you know, he uses a sword. Yeah, that's pretty much the entire character."

Blackknife
2012-06-13, 08:55 AM
I never claim over-complicated. I do on occasion restrict certain things based on the nature of the setting, but that has nothing to do with complexity. For example, no paladins in my oriental games.

Spider_Jerusalem
2012-06-13, 05:03 PM
The problems I've seen (and sometimes had) with too many sources often come from not grasping ideas. Maybe the DM wants the story to take part in a world where magic is dead, so when a player tries to come up with another source that is, mechanically, just a substitute for magic, he obviously becomes frustrated. Or maybe a player wants to use some new source because what's in there translates the character concept way better, and when the DM forces him to play a character that's not quite what he wanted, the player becomes frustrated.

I think clarifying why you want to use some source (or why you don't want to allow it in game) can solve lots of problems.

Oh, and when everyone at the table knows they are contributing to a story, not competing against the DM (and vice versa), everything usually becomes way easier.

Also, I agree with the post above, and I've done things just like that. A classic example: I usually remove ressurrection spells from any game I run. At first, my players were angry and complained a lot, but when they realized I allowed to let them find ways to bring the dead back in-game, they actually stopped complaining. Studying necromancy actually started making a lot more sense after that (they don't see all necromancers as grave-robbing evil bastards anymore. not ALL, at least)

Libertad
2012-06-13, 05:17 PM
I don't have anything hard and fast, but when I'm flipping through multiple books to find out what a feat/spell/etc. does and slows down the game, it becomes "too complicated."

Also, when the rules text is not clear-cut and gives too many variables for too many meaningless situations, it becomes "too complicated."

I make liberal use of sticky notes and copy-pasted-printed rules text for ease of reference when I'm using multiple sourcebooks.