The Dilemma of the Simple RPG

Ratskinner · Apr 30, 2017

hmm...I'm a little torn, but generally agree with the article. (Complex rules can be as much boon or bane for a GM, IME.) I've seen the mass of rules be an impediment for new players more often than otherwise.

However, I'd also say that there is a certain art to writing a good set of minimalist or rules-light rules. Most of the rules-light games I've played or read have been poor because of a failure to recognize that art, trying instead to create a stripped-down version or combo of GURPS or D&D or whatever quasi-sim trad rpg mechanics they like best. (Often they seem to think that some rough general guidelines about setting DCs is enough to make a game!) The better rules-lite games manage to give the GM enough of a scaffold to respond to as well, if they even have a GM. Most importantly, they provide clarity of authority and result usually by leaning on the narrative "wrapper" of the story in a way that complex systems rarely do. I'd point to many PbtA games as evidence of this principle in action. There's a lot of "weirder" fringe games that manage this as well (Fiasco, Archipelago, etc.)

billd91 · Apr 30, 2017

I think the article has a point but I don't think it's just the economics of the RPG producer pushing the complexity of a game. The players push it too and often the game company is the one responding to that demand. Among the most common house rules added to games like AD&D were critical hit tables and specific injuries, neither of which the game easily incorporates. Yet there they were - created by the players/DMs/fans of the game. As hobbyists, the players and GMs crave additional complexity, in mechanics or strategies or even both, and will add it themselves if the publisher doesn't do it.

martinlochsen · Apr 30, 2017

I am having a hard time following the logic of this article. Perhaps I'm stupid and don't see what is obvious to others but there are a couple of things I don't understand.
First off, it's stated that there are more new players at events and clubs than there used to be, and less experienced players. Ok. That's fine. But... the reason for this is that rpg rules are too complex? I don't get it. How are those two things connected?
Next, this is put forth as an argument for simpler rules. Is many new players at clubs and events a bad thing? Doesn't that just mean that there's a lot of recruitment to the hobby, which would really be a good thing?
To sum up. There are mostly new players at events because rules are too complex. That's why the rules should be simpler, but they won't be because complex games are more popular and so make more money, and that's why the companies make the games complex.
I can't make sense of it.

EDIT: I get it now. I misread the first paragraph.

mflayermonk · Apr 30, 2017

I think the new way is to sell you the same rules, but on different devices.
You have the Players Handbook in print, then you buy a Fantasy Grounds copy, then you pay $5 a month for a subscription.

mflayermonk · Apr 30, 2017

martinlochsen said:
Ok. That's fine. But... the reason for this is that rpg rules are too complex? I don't get it. How are those two things connected?

A steep learning curve keeps people from getting involved in your game, but to make money you need more rules, making your steep learning curve steeper.

I guess its like Bowhunting.

martinlochsen · Apr 30, 2017

Anyway, I have introduced lots of teenagers to the hobby over the last couple of years, and I really don't see the this learning curve barrier in real life. Most of these kids are instantly hooked when they give the game (5th ed D&D) a try, even though they don't understand all the rules at first. I really think that lack of exposure and competition with video games is the main reason the hobby might be less popular than it was (if that is indeed the case).
Also, seeing as WotC has purposely slowed down the rate of publishing new rules expansions for the latest addition, I think the argument that you need to publish a lot of such books to make money falls flat. I agree it probably has been a problem in the past, but it doesn't seem to be the direction the industry is heading in at the moment.
In addition, there are actually legitimate reasons for publishing new editions, such as keeping up with the times. As gaming trends change, games need to change with them or risk becoming obsolete and irrelevant. I think the idea that "new editions are just to make money" is a bit cynical.

Over the Hill Gamer · Apr 30, 2017

I totally agree with this article. A lot of RPG players and GMs enjoy more detail and complexity in their game system. It makes it interesting and challenging for them. I think the author speaks to the experience of new and more casual players who "ain't up for all of that." Many game companies are happy to feed into the demand for more detail and options, especially because these players and GMs are their regular customers. Give the people what they want. Unfortunately, that may sometimes push the "I ain't up for all of that" crowd away. Refreshingly, WoTC seems to have adopted a new strategy -- instead of frenetically producing new stuff they prefer to maximize sales of fewer but well-researched (survey tested) products by building demand and anticipation of these releases. It's worked on me, I've bought every 5e release. I would never have attempted that with 3e or 4e. Still, I think there is room in the market for WoTC to produce a "simple as possible, but not simpler" version of 5e more geared towards casual or new players who just want to sit down and play.

mflayermonk · Apr 30, 2017

Ratskinner said:
The better rules-lite games manage to give the GM enough of a scaffold to respond to as well, if they even have a GM. Most importantly, they provide clarity of authority and result usually by leaning on the narrative "wrapper" of the story in a way that complex systems rarely do. I'd point to many PbtA games as evidence of this principle in action. There's a lot of "weirder" fringe games that manage this as well (Fiasco, Archipelago, etc.)

There are also the Robin Laws/Ken Hite games which are roll a d6 to decide most everything. The Dungeon World (PbtA) stuff is roll 2d6. Savage Worlds is also roll a few d6 for most everything. Those seem to be the type of games that break through for awards and sales these days. Crunchy systems seem to appeal to people that have already played them in the past, not the new players.

Take for example Palladium games-its back, but its back with Savage Worlds rules. There probably aren't many new GMs for Palladium games. Whereas the less-crunch stuff with the scaffold can get picked up pretty quickly by new GMs. I've done it midgame, just straight told a new person you are now the GM and it worked perfectly fine.

If you look at D&D and Pathfinder-theres not a week on this forum when someone doesn't post "New DM, What Did I do Wrong?" Players I know that try DMing come up to me and ask me to sit in on their games and help them out. The players killed the monsters before the monsters could act. The players teleported to the boss in the first 5 minutes and killed him, and the game was over in 20 minutes. DM not knowing you can only cast a cantrip and a 1+ level spell in the same round. Honest and dishonest mistakes the DM didn't have the rules knowledge to catch. It is a steep learning curve.

JeffB · Apr 30, 2017

It is hard to cater to casual players and hardcore players at the same time.

My players are casual. I started the group about 7 years ago when they were all 11-12 yo (my son and friends).. They are now young adults. Even after all that time, they don't get into the books or rules minutiae. They don't get into backstories, or planning out mechanical crunch paths for their characters. They don't read thr books outside the table, and buy nothing. They treat rpgs like they do playing Monopoly, or Clue, etc. They have fun for a few hours and then off to whatever else is going on in their lives. Rules, complicated systems are an abomination to them. Ive gone that route with various systems and it always is backlash.. So I keep it simple and light for them. Otherwise they would rather play a videogame or watch a movie.

You cannot make any money on them. Yet they love playing and even after 7 years, we are still playing once or twice a month. Had a session yesterday. So how do you market to them? You rely on GMs and making their (my!) life easy. Complicated systems and limited gaming/prep time do not mix.

The people who live, eat and breathe gaming are a completely different kettle of fish, and are the ones who make you money... they crave more more more.

It's a tough balancing act for a manufacturer, and how do you ensure longevity with what direction you go in? As a player and consumer, it's a completely different set of needs and wants.

This is the big issue with competing luxuries and decrease in free-time , compared to a few decades ago.

At any rate, I think there are fewer diminishing returns with simplified systems and leaner business models. WOTC's success with 5e seems to be a good indicator- They are in much better shape with 5e than 3.0/3.5 at it's height with it's complicated rules and vomitous flow of official books which eventually drove consumers off to become their competition, or to other systems. 4e also failing to be a success because of WOTC being unable to figure out the core D&D audience and how to engage lapsed and potential players (and fwiw- that is not a bash on 4e. I am a fan of it much moreso than 3rd or 5th editions).

aramis erak · Apr 30, 2017

Hussar said:
I'd argue that the Rules Light games are less DM friendly than the rules heavy ones. Sure, you can learn the game faster, but, because so much of the game relies on you, the DM, to make it run at the table, rules light games force DM's to play amateur game designer at the same time as they are trying to run the game.

Yes... rules medium and rules heavy games do more to enforce setting and genre than do rules light games...

Rules light, there's less to get in the way, but also less to rely upon, and a far less consistent experience even with the same GM.