Is D&D too complicated?

Torm · Jun 3, 2004

SemperJase said:
Dancey essentially admits D&D is too complicated by showing the necessity of a boxed set. It pretty much the only product that gets new people into the hobby. Can anyone learn D&D without someone else demonstrating the game?

Seems to me that if ANY product they have is a "gateway product"

, its the miniatures game, rather than the boxed set. I can easily see kids buying those as toys, and then learning more about the pieces and how to fight them against each other - the basics of rollplaying, if not roleplaying. But Wizards is really missing the boat getting those stocked almost exclusively in with the other RPG\CCG products, rather than getting at least some of them stocked in, for example, the toy department at Wal-Mart.

Speaking of which, I've frequently though somebody missed something good when it came to the Tech Specs on the backs of Transformers packages. They look like somebody was trying to make an RPG, but never finished the job....

Old Gumphrey · Jun 3, 2004

kamosa said:
Anyway, I don't think it's the complication that keeps people out. It's the size of the rules and their ability to always be in the way of having a good time.

What's that rule I'm always hearing about? Rule 0? If you don't like something, change it, right?

kamosa said:
The only saving grace is that the party takes 3 times longer to do anything in 3E, so I have to prep less material per session. As a result the games I've played in have had a much greater percentage chance of being boring as heck. Gee, we spent 3 hours figuring out whether or not the Paladin could actually climb the rope while in plate armor after getting hit by the shadow, what a fun time...

Now that, my friend, sounds like a personal problem. I don't see the general D&D ruleset causing problems like that to groups I've played in. I'm sure (read: I hope) you're exaggerating those figures, though.

kamosa said:
In D&D you had a streamlined system that could quickly determine combat, quickly create characters and the GM could quickly create the bad guys. Those days have been drug out into the street and shot dead.

That's because 2e encouraged the DM to just make stuff up. The new edition now has plenty of creation rules (apparently more than you care for) for those people who hated the inconsistensies caused by other editions. It's still very easy to guess or invent what you need if you don't like to be so precise. Don't know the wis stat of that slug? Make one up and go. They're not all the same, just like humans aren't all the same.

The feats and skills and everything are there for greater customization of your characters, something I and many other players I'm sure are very glad for. Having been an avid player of 2e and 3.x, I can safely say that 3.x is the easier system to learn and teach and is much more streamlined overall. I really had to chuckle at the comment about those days being gone; because in 2e you couldn't safely guess at what a given monster's abilities should be or what kind of saving throw it should have, or the difficulty, etc, etc, etc.

I'll admit the system takes some getting used to but in the end is still the best edition so far.

teitan · Jun 3, 2004

Krieg said:
(PS- On a totally unrelated but weird tangent, I have a great uncle who swears on his life that he saw the Mothman in '66!)

I got another 25 stories on this one sitting at my Mom's because I GREW UP in the Gallipolis/Point Pleasant area! I helped write the 25th anniversary book on the Silver Bridge for River Valley High School in Cheshire, Ohio and had to interview people who were alive and in the area then and my special focus was the Mothman!

Jason

cimerians · Jun 3, 2004

I agree with Dancey and SemperJase to a point. The game is complicated, but its always been that way. The difference IMO between now and 1978 is this:

- Eliminate rules "back then" and it didn't matter too much unless you were a rules freak. You also had the Basic set rules to back you up in these cases.
- Eliminate rules "now" and you better make sure you know what your doing or it will unbalance things.

The advanced game was ALWAYS complicated, that is actually what we are playing now minus the word Advanced. I've been in official playtesting before 3rd edition came out and even at that time the old staff at TSR was planning on making AD&D "simpler" by not only standardizing the 20 sider but removing the aforementioned advanced word from the name.

I for one wish WOTC today would release a LEGITIMATE basic version of the game that stood on its own without the need of the "advanced" Core books. Without that support its up to experienced players to provide the bulk of the introductory lessons of the game to interested new players. Granted there are those brave souls who dive right in to the core books albeit few indeed than what we would like to see.

teitan · Jun 3, 2004

dungeonmastercal said:
I don't find it too complicated at all. I can whip up a character now in less than a half hour. The hardest part is choosing the feats. I've used a few software programs for character creation, but I like the old fashioned way best. Some of my group use a program, but it's just not my thing. The rules can be daunting for a beginner, sure. But the d20 system streamlines the actual playing mechanics so much that some folks I know play now when they before they refused, because they found previous editions confusing.

Well that makes me spit my milk all over my monitor thank you very much, LOL. Honestly I remember being able to create NASTY NPCs ont he fly in 1e and even 2e (were NWPs for NPCs important at all? LOL) with minimum time. I can't do that in 3e which bugs the pee out of me, but I like the level of detail at the same time... weird.

D&D does need a Basic set, but not so stripped down like the Adventure Game was stripped down, it needs to have complete rules for up to such and such level and a decent collection of feats and spells. Newbies can pick up the box and get an idea of what next and I could even conceive of doing the whole game that way. What I would like to see though is 4e as a SINGLE book like D20 Modern with an expansion for more monsters that is optional. Make a core book as complete as the Rules Cyclopedia... and release a Basic set just before hand. I think what is keeping Billy Kid from gaming and only encouraging gamers already in the hobby is that 90 dollar buy in tag and the proliferation of RPG prices. Sure we will pay the prices but a new guy won't. The lack of official adventures doesn't help either...

Jason

Jason

teitan · Jun 3, 2004

I actually find my games in 3e run much smoother and faster than 1 or 2e, faster than just about anything except M&M and Maybe the new WOD game (that looks pretty f'in quick).

J

artent · Jun 3, 2004

re

MerakSpielman said:
Ah, for the complexity of 1st/2nd edition. Remember, THAC0 kept the riff-raff out!

I played that game for years.....and I'm still fuzzy on how Thac0 works

jerichothebard · Jun 3, 2004

artent said:
I played that game for years.....and I'm still fuzzy on how Thac0 works

Me too. I would roll my d20, add my bonus, and look at the DM. "Did I hit?" This for like 10 years. I'm surprised they kept me in the party.

Ottergame · Jun 3, 2004

I feel that while there is more prep time involved with 3.x, the game runs smoother and faster than in 1e/2e.

And I find character generation a breeze if I know what basic type of character I wanna play. I could roll up a level 20 cleric or wizard with feats and spells and magic items accross many books in no time. The MOST time consuming part of the whole process is buying equipment.

MerricB · Jun 3, 2004

The big difference is in how much you have to learn before you reach that point - or to realise you don't actually have to learn that much!

There are a lot of things in the D&D rulebooks you don't actually need to play a game, though they do add a lot to an established game. However, a new player doesn't normally realise that they're rather optional.

Cheers!