D&D 4E 4E: Shifting complexity rather than simplifying?

[Imaro]

I don't see how shifting the complexity to the players alleviates the DM. Don't you still have to know the rules your players are using in order to abjudicate situations correctly? How do you challenge these players and keep them interested with NPC's if either...
a. every PC is a cookie cutter example of it's race and class.
b. They just don't have the options the players do.
c. Is there another option I'm not seeing?

I also don't see this in any way speeding up combat time...it seems to suggest a situation that is similar to 3e, where low level will be fast and higher level will be a drag(only now the player's are taking longer than before). Especially for players who are new to the game or don't have a firm grasp of the rules. As the rpg that most new players cut their teeth on, I really hope WotC looks for a way to address this.

 

[Lanefan]

Shifting complexity to the players only helps if the players are willing to accept it. Looking only at the overall crew I game with, all I can say there is "good luck"....

And, if it remains effectively impossible to generate a new character (or new opponent) on the fly in mid-session, a major part of the problem remains unsolved.

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't see how shifting the complexity to the players alleviates the DM. Don't you still have to know the rules your players are using in order to abjudicate situations correctly? How do you challenge these players and keep them interested with NPC's if either...
a. every PC is a cookie cutter example of it's race and class.
b. They just don't have the options the players do.
c. Is there another option I'm not seeing?

I also don't see this in any way speeding up combat time...it seems to suggest a situation that is similar to 3e, where low level will be fast and higher level will be a drag(only now the player's are taking longer than before). Especially for players who are new to the game or don't have a firm grasp of the rules. As the rpg that most new players cut their teeth on, I really hope WotC looks for a way to address this.

You have to know the rules, but you don't have to use them in the same complex manner as the characters. Each player character is created only once. NPCs are greated in dozens per adventure. If the DM needs as much time designing (and/or advancing) the NPC as the player does for creating (advancing) his character, his job is a dozen times more difficult (and that's just the NPC generation, we're not talking about an interesting adventure idea and plot, or a cool setting for encounters).

Within a combat, each player character has dozens of options (maneuvers, spells, or what ever else D&D 4 will throw at us) per round.
But an NPC might have only 5 (taking the latest Monster Manual idea further), perhaps even the whole opposition within a single encounter has only 5.

This greatly improves the effort of DMing.

Also note that while a DM needs to know the general rules, he might not need every specific detail, if using the rule is initiated by the player. At least if the rule is simple enough from the DM's side (Ah, so I just have to tell you if you beat his reflex defense, and he is entangled for one round. Fine. Not: Okay, now I have to roll a special attack role with a special modifier based on size different from the usual one, and then I can only attempt to make such a roll to get free or damage you with unarmed damage, or make a attack with a -4 penalty against you. Ah, okay...)

 

[Treebore]

I don't believe that 4E, over all, will be easier on the DM. Then again, they have yet to even write down "concrete rules", everything is still "liquid", so we still have a good ways to go before WOTC can even say for sure how they are going to finalize things in 4E.

I definitely prefer "simpler", but fortunately for me my system allows me to steal what I will want from 4E. However, if it does end up being considerably simpler than 3E maybe I will change my rules base. I consider it highly unlikely at this time, but within the realm of possibility.

I won't know anything for sure until I read through the 4E PH.

 

[GVDammerung]

One of the stated goals of 4E is to make play faster & more fun, in part by simplifying preparation & work by the DM.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that 4E will actually be a simpler system. I'd posit that 4E is actually increasing in complexity, but achieving simpler play by shifting some of the complexity from the DM to the players, and then by further shifting some of that complexity from in-play to out-of-play activities.

Can't know but from what I've heard and read I would not be surprised. If you are correct in your surmise, IMO, 4e will be a different dog with virtually the same fleas. In short order, it will develop species of the same issues said to plague 3x only the onus will have been shifted around - kinda a shell game with burden of the rules. I would hope this is not the case.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I'd posit that 4E is actually increasing in complexity, but achieving simpler play by shifting some of the complexity from the DM to the players, and then by further shifting some of that complexity from in-play to out-of-play activities.

I'm not sure WotC has necessarily implied it will be a simpler system, though it could turn out that way. They have said it will be streamlined, but streamlined does not necessarily mean simpler.

They have also said that the complexity of high level games is something they are aiming to eliminate, or at least reduce far enough that it is on par with complexity at the "sweet spot" of D&D.

Also, whether complexity is shifted from in play to out of play, I'm not sure that makes the game one a whole more complex like you said. It just puts the features that obstruct play out of the way of play.

 

[kmdietri]

Uh oh... I hope this is not the case because my players are notorious for just breezing through their character abilities and spells and getting them quite wrong. Forcing me to have to look them up anyways.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think we are seeing different and more important examples of a shifting of complexity.

The best one which we see at the moment is the replacement of CR and the exp chart with fixed xp values for creatures. The 3e system had a simple basic backend (the xp chart and the 13.33 encounters to go up a level) BUT gave the end user a lot of complexity in terms of calculating xp (especially with a mixed group of foes, facing a party of only 3 characters, who are all different levels)

From what we've seen of the current system we just say "I want a 4000xp encounter" and pick a selection of creatures to make up this total (with all creatures having a fixed xp value). This will probably mean more complicated and bigger totals in the xp charts but... it dramatically reduces the complexity at the point of contact with the gamers (creating encounters, sorting out xp for encounters).

It sounds to be like a classic case of shifting complexity from the front end to the back end, shifting complexity from the bit people have to do lots of times (building encounters) to the bit that is rarely done (writing xp tables)

Cheers

 

[Lanefan]

I think we are seeing different and more important examples of a shifting of complexity.

The best one which we see at the moment is the replacement of CR and the exp chart with fixed xp values for creatures. The 3e system had a simple basic backend (the xp chart and the 13.33 encounters to go up a level) BUT gave the end user a lot of complexity in terms of calculating xp (especially with a mixed group of foes, facing a party of only 3 characters, who are all different levels)

From what we've seen of the current system we just say "I want a 4000xp encounter" and pick a selection of creatures to make up this total (with all creatures having a fixed xp value). This will probably mean more complicated and bigger totals in the xp charts but... it dramatically reduces the complexity at the point of contact with the gamers (creating encounters, sorting out xp for encounters).

It sounds to be like a classic case of shifting complexity from the front end to the back end, shifting complexity from the bit people have to do lots of times (building encounters) to the bit that is rarely done (writing xp tables)

So, in short, shifting complexity the other way: from the DM to the system designers. If this is the case, great!

But do we ever just say "I want a 4000 ExP encounter", or do we (or should we) design vaguely appropriate adventures and encounters somewhat in ignorance of how many ExP they'll generate and let things fall where they may?

I've run 1e for a very long time; it uses fixed ExP for monsters, and I don't remember ever designing an encounter based on how many ExP it would generate. Anyone else here ever designed on that basis?

Lanefan

 

[IceFractal]

Re: Taking too long to make NPC opponents - maybe 4E could incorporate something like Hong's Villain Classes. NPC-specific classes that are as potent as PC ones, but much more simplified in terms of options.

While I think having PCs and NPCs use the same rules for everything is cool in concept, in practice it just creates conflict between the players' desire for options and the DM's desire for simplicity. A conflict that doesn't have to exist at all.