Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

Recently this thread touched upon something that has been concerning me about the current version of D&D.

While I can understand if most players prefer the game as it is, with it's many character creation options, combat options, etc (which just keeps growing with every new accessory), I really feel I had the most roleplaying fun playing a much simpler 1e game back in college, 17 years ago.

I can also certainly understand how many may need most of these options to keep the game fresh, much as my group and I welcomed new stuff back when playing 2e, when we had the time to thoroughly explore it all.

But for someone who wants to relive that early experience with the added bonus of some of D&D 3.x's better innovations (like feats), I feel there might be a need for a simplified version of D&D.

As such, I was really looking forward to the Basic Game box, until I realised it just deals with the first 2 levels of normal 3.5 D&D. (Isn't it?)

Obviously, allowing for more spontaneity and improvisation requires a really competent DM who can make just rulings on the fly, as well as a great group of players who'll trust him and not try to take advantage of the system.

Ideally, I guess you could play the present version as fluidly as I would like, but since we all can't have a DM with the rulemastery of Hypersmurf, my guess is that many playsessions get bogged down by the looking up and interpretation of rules.

Also, I feel that a system that is too rules heavy and complex may act stifling on player creativity.

Thoughts?

Edit: For specific ideas on how to simplify D&D, go here.

It's easy to say "we need a simplified D&D", but it might be more useful to discuss exactly how it would simplified. Almost all simplifications involve removing choices from the game, and people generally like to have the choices available to them.

I mean, what specific changes would you have in this simplified D&D? Would you eliminate multi-classing, prestige classes, or something like skill points? What about all the different combat options? Should we eliminate things like Sunder and Grapple?

A simplified D&D is a good goal in theory, but the devil is in the details.

In my circle of gamers, I don't see a need for a rules-lite version of 3/3.5E, but I'd be willing to bet there's a market for it. It would probably also be a good way of introducing the game to people new to roleplaying.

While I can understand if most players prefer the game as it is, with it's many character creation options, combat options, etc (which just keeps growing with every new accessory), I really feel I had the most roleplaying fun playing a much simpler 1e game back in college, 17 years ago.

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but for me I think that my nostalgia for the lost days of youth made me feel that previous editions were better. I primarily use the core books when I game now as they provide enough options to suit my tastes the vast majority of the time (I usually will pull the occasional feat from another book if it fits a particular concept).

Also, I feel that a system that is too rules heavy and complex may act stifling on player creativity.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on several factors - the quality of the DM, the experience of the players, and the groups' desire to stretch the system (includes desire to learn the system despite its complexity). When all of these factors mesh, I've found it to be less of a factor. But if either the players or, in some cases, the DM don't have a desire to do more than what is written, then creativity lessens.

I have been wishing that there existed a simplified version of 3.x since it was first published.

But as GSHamster points out, making a simplified version of 3.x is trickier than it sounds. While ignoring PrCs, extra feats etc., even some core classes, etc. is easy enough, tinkering with the core system itself in order to simplify it could be very difficult. E.g. consider a relatively straight-forward simplification: removal of AoOs. Once you do this, though, flanking and sneak attacks become much easier, and spellcasters benefit enormously. Then, in order to prevent spellcasters from being too powerful with this house-rule, you introduce another one, say, changing casting times to full-round actions. But that change will have other ripple effects, etc.

So many elements of 3.x are interdependent that, annoyingly, changing any one element has all kinds of unintended consequences. I like (moderately) "rules lite" systems, and this feature of 3.x is the one that annoys me the most.

My advice, if you are looking for a simplified version of DnD, is to go back to some earlier version of the game -- e.g. the Rules Cyclopedia version of DnD is probably the best presentation of a "rules lite" version of the game you could want; everything you need to play from level 1 to 36 in a single book, plus some campaign material on Mysteria, etc. -- and add some house-rules to fix the game to your liking. (The nice thing about earlier versions of DnD is that house-rules are generally less likely to "break" the entire system.)

Alternatively, you could wait for TLG's Castles and Crusades game, to be published later this month (or early October). C&C draws on all editions of DnD, and purports to be compatible with all of them as well. And it is both "rules lite" and very adaptable (i.e. it is easy to add new rules/elements to the game without "breaking" it).

Those are my two suggestions. If you want to stick with 3.x, just use the core rules, and avoid the "rules bloat" out there as much as possible.

I think you may find Castles & Crusades fulfills your desires for a simpler D&D; but, of course, it has its own problems.

Mind you, I'd be interested in how a slimmed down version of D&D (an intermediate version) would sell. Such a version would include the following:

* Combat rules only covering movement, spellcasting and simple attacking. No grappling, unarmed attacks, disarming and so forth.

* Only the first 10 levels covered.

* No prestige classes. (Possibly no multiclassing)

* A limited selection of feats.

And so forth - the actual rules are identical to 3.5E, but various options would be removed. I suggest this so that there is less of the Information Overload that can occur with the 3.5E rules.

Cheers!

Or (toots own horn) you could drop $5 on my "rules-lite" PDF - link here and see if this is along the lines of what you're looking for.

Not perfect, and nothing for GMs (yet), only players, but this IS pretty lite IMO.

--The Sigil

Grayhawk said:

Also, I feel that a system that is too rules heavy and complex may act stifling on player creativity.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think that's the key to your post. With the older rules, players would act more reasonably and not treat the rules as tools to kill and become more powerful. All these combat rules and tables and subsystems that all mesh in a universal way causes people to look at the system and get the distinct impression that D&D is a math game that is supposed to be calculated for maximum efficiency. Ruins the feel of the game.

If it were up to me, combat maneuvers other than attack and charge would be removed. If the character wants to do something like that (trip, disarm, sunder), fine. But it would be up to the DM to adjudicate it.

One attack per round. This abstraction gives leeway in how you describe attacks. You can describe a great powerful attack as a series of blows, for instance, while the current system is basically telling you this is wrong.

Universalize the skill system a little bit. I'm not necessarily against class skills and cross-class skills, but I think the classes' skill sets could be widened a bit and given more skill points. Certain skills should also be split up to avoid skill pumping a few really good skills. I mean seriously, there is almost nothing in the MM that can hide well at all from a 5th level rogue or ranger who concentrates on those aspects of their career.

Movement should be abstracted as well. Movement should not cause attacks of opportunity, though expanding the other actions that do may be appropriate.

Grappling should be redesigned from the ground up. The current incarnation is a horrible beast.

Turning should also be redesigned or dropped.

Animal Companions, Special Mounts, and Familiars should not be treated as items. It reinforces the idea of gathering equipment to make one's character more and more powerful. They should neither get nor grant any special abilities other than ways to communicate with their master. I just despise dealing with this real-in-game situation: Ranger's lion insults the Wizard. Wizard casts shocking grasp on his toad familiar and throw it at the lion to deliver a touch spell. I said the lion ate the toad in retaliation. Player actually had the nerve to be pissed and complain that the toad had alot more hit points left and shouldn't have been able to be killed so easily. This is endemic of the problems in the presentation of the system.

Magical items should not be so easy and straigthforward to create. The creation of a magical item should be a game opportunity. It should not be a a way to expend some excess cash and XP to become more powerful.

This is edging toward house rules, but here's what I would do.

This is D&D, so we need a few sacred cows. If we were designing a generic D20 RPG, a few of these could go. Also, some of these are actual changes, not just subtractions.

Four classes - Fighter, Expert, Mage, and Priest. Have 20 levels in each class. Fighters get the best attack bonus and hit points, Experts get the most skills, Mages and Priests are similar except in the type of spells they cast.

Both types of spellcasters have MP, just like in video games. People are familiar with it, and I'm pretty sure it's been shown that psions didn't break it. You don't prepare spells in advance. Instead, you have a list of spells known, and if you want to cast something else you have to have a written copy of it, and casting it takes like a minute or something.

Skills are:

Craft - this skill is unique in that it does not have a level-based rank limit, perhaps? Would also include forgery.
Deception (bluff, disguise)
Disable Device (also covers open locks)
Influence (diplomacy, intimidate)
Knowledge (knowledge skills, appraise, and spellcraft)
Move (balance, climb, escape artist, jump, swim, tumble)
Perception (listen, spot, sense motive)
Ride
Sneak (hide and move silently)

Feats are simplified a bit, probably.

Combat no longer has attacks of opportunity. Not sure what to do here.

It's not D&D, but you might want to check out Savage Worlds over at http://www.peginc.com. The system is MUCH simpler than D&D 3.x, has more flexible character creation, and still has the same level up/tactical combat feel that makes D&D what it is.

RangerWickett said:

...
Feats are simplified a bit, probably.
...

Click to expand...

I really like your ideas, RW.

I think feats can go away entirely in this type of game. Race + Class + Skills + roleplaying covers almost every imaginable archetype.

Skills could be simplified to a "you either have it or you don't" paradigm. Or something in between: none, poor, good ratings - like saving throws.