Honestly, 75 feats in a core game sounds terrible to me. Session 0 slog and more charop-minigame shenanigans.
5e curtailed the excesses of 3e by having a tighter core base and the excellent rule of core+1 rulebook.
I was hoping for less feats better designed.
In a core game, it is massive. It's a lot to ask players to study and learn and a lot for them to go through when creating a new character. The decision points will be an absolute slog at many tables.
There will always be the dedicated ones who internalise all of it and can quickly visualize what will go with their build or idea. But a lot of gamers just sorta know the rules and they will require assistance to go through character creation with 75 feats. That means the core rules have failed.
Given that they are sectioned off by level and usage, it's actually a lot less. Definitely not more "Session 0 slog", certainly, and for those who don't want to use them they won't.
You talk about decision points, but sometimes a
lack of options can slow things down because nothing quite fits and you are trying to figure out what works best among a bunch of imperfect options: adding some extra stuff can help in that regard.
it would be nice if the core rules helped with that baseline, the way 5e does.
I have no issue with splat supplements to help PGs scratch their itch.
But I do have an issue with the most popular rpg in the world going in a direction where added complexity becomes mandatory.
Have they said it's mandatory? As far as I know it's not, and this feels like we are ripping on them for adding options more than anything. If you want people to play simple stuff, there's nothing that takes that away in this. It just gives options for people who want them.
I think D&D should be that. That's why we have Classic D&D throughout TSR's history. And why 5e has been such a smash hit, because it enabled a simpler playstyle than 3rd and 4th edition.
If I were to run a campaign for my current table with the new rules, I imagine there'd be a couple of players who'd need assistance with character creation, because they can't be bothered with internalisating that many options.
I don't like to run games where the rules are so complex that half the table basically rely on the GM to know stuff for them.
Maybe that's just your group? Like, you still have the option to simplify stuff down, but I find less problems with my groups, especially among the younger players.
It's nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with zeal for complexity.
I think your own preference puts you out of touch with how zealous many gamers actually are. There are many happy to learn the rules up to a point and then show up for game nights, but who would never go online and discuss D&D, or ever touch on topics like charop, etc.
5e was able to meet those gamers. And also the PGs via splatbooks. 3e frankly was already too complex a game for such players. It sounds like the next edition will tilt towards too much complexity in the core game again.
I mean, maybe that goes back at you? Sometimes "streamlined" doesn't actually always make things faster or better. "Zeal for simplicity" has been a massive problem in the game, especially when it comes to the design of certain classes (like the Fighter).
But I think your example of 3E is not necessarily wrong but perhaps misses some of the bigger underlying problems: 3E was terribly balanced and had a great deal of trap builds and long feat-chains. It wasn't that the complexity of 3E was the problem, but rather you were forced to engage in that complexity many times to build a functional character, especially depending on the class. If you balance your stuff out of the gate much better, having more options is less of a problem because "optimization" becomes less of a concern than "What's something cool for my character?"