Is D&D too complicated?

[reapersaurus]

RyanD:
I really appreciated your post, and the reply.

They helped me collect my thoughts on the matter (as did many people's posts about complexity and what 3X D&D is best designed for).

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

D&D is, in fact, very complicated. For someone who picks up the PH and learns the game all by themself, I applaud them (and I think that's quite rare).

I think D&D would be well served by an introductory rules set (like the old red box) that walks a player through everything. Sort of like choose your own adventure.

For someone to pick up the PH & DMG and be able to run a game, all I have to say is good luck. Plus you need to be able to teach the rules to others and keep them from being bored by all the rules long enough to get them interested. But if there was a walkthrough tools set, then each player could run through it on their own and get a sense for what D&D is all about.

 

[pogre]

D&D's complexity is part of its appeal in part. I love to play Bridge. Bridge is great game, because much like D&D once you start learning the details you just realize there is more and more to delve into and enjoy. 95% of Bridge players are taught by other Bridge players. That's not really a problem - Bridge as a hobby/game continues to expand. I think a basic D&D game should do exactly what other posters have suggested - limit choices.

If I was teaching someone how to play bridge - I would teach them exactly two conventions 1 NT reply and short club. The rest of the time I would teach them the core parts of the game - counting Goren points, playing suits, scoring, and board transfer strategies.

I hope this is the approach the basic rules for D&D take as well: Offer 4 classes - Fighter, Sorcerer, Rogue, and Cleric - give each class limited feat choices and built in skill choices. Let the kids concentrate on the core mechanics.

 

[BluePantsDude]

Is That Him
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?90043-Is-D-amp-D-too-complicated/page2
LOL

 

[stoneagewar3]

i ran games for quite a few absolute beginners (9 so far), i don't even show them the books until they ask.
had no problem playing, we now have a few people at lv 5, and none of them has even read the phb.
two newer players are now lv 3, and has just recently asked for source materials that they could read and plan for future levels
sure, playing like this has its own problems, as the players will only be picking spells or feats that sounds cool to them, and they won't really care if that ability is actually good or not, but powerlevel is something a dm should be able to fix, simply by increasing player HP (i double their lv1 hp), and not throw encounters that would challenge their level, but rather their powerlevel (which should be done anyways, if you challenge their level but they are optimized, the encounter just wouldn't put more than a scratch on the players)

i don't really think there are too many rules involved if i can explain most of it in 20 minutes, there are plenty of boardgames that simply can't be played after only 20 min of rule explanation

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm not sure about D&D but since we started a Pathfinder campaign this year, it's becoming increasingly clear that Pathfinder's a too complicated system for our group these days.

After playing D&D 4e for several years, we've forgotten most of the D&D 3e rules, and when we look them up, they feel way too fiddly and clunky. So we continue to house-rule the system and just hand wave much of the nit-picky stuff (e.g. the action cost of drawing/sheathing weapons).
It doesn't help that our DM doesn't have a good grasp of the rules, so I'm constantly wondering whether I should bother to correct him or not. Also, his preference for railroading is grating on me.

The worst thing is that the players don't have a good grasp of their characters' abilities. I'm playing a Magus myself, and without poring over it for hours after every level-up, consulting forums, reading guides and FAQs, I'd be unable to play this class correctly, either. It's a mess.

I'd really prefer if we switched the system (e.g. to 13th Age), but, alas, our DM isn't interested (yet).

 

[Celebrim]

Yes. But sadly this turns out to be because life and stories and combat and everything else we are interested in also turns out to be complicated, so that we soon find ourselves at a point of irreducible complexity, where to have anything less complex ultimately harms our enjoyment more than the complexity of the process. It would be great however to be able to automate away much of the complexity so as to focus on the story telling, but so far no one has developed an interface for doing this that is not disruptive to play and is affordable. So we are stuck with dice and penciled notes.

 

[TwoSix]

Obviously necromancy is not too complicated!

 

[Arilyn]

No, it won't. My evidence for this is simple - the rules have been complicated since 1978. The rules now are actually simpler and more unified in concept than they were at that time. Much of the extra page-count nowadays is in explication of the rules so that you don't get confused.

If the complicated rules didn't kill things back in 1978, they won't kill things now.

In my experience, it is board games which compete for players' attention, and a lot of the more popular board games have complicated rule sets as well.

Ever since the beginning of rpgs, there have been people claiming that the hobby is dying, yet it's stronger than ever.

 

[CubicsRube]

Since y'all are replying to a thread from 2004, it's unlikely you're even talking about the same edition..

Indeed necromancy is not complicated enough!