Is D&D too complicated?

[Vindicator]

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

Hmmm...why hasn't this "subthread" been bumped to the Toxic Waste forum yet?

[Just thinking out loud...]

 

[hong]

Not too different from my last session in terms of style. In fact, it had to be; I had no idea what the PCs would be doing this session (what I thought we'd spend the session doing they still haven't gotten to.)

I'll admit, my biggest failing as a DM is probably lack of prep. I don't mind making up NPCs, both in terms of stats and backstory. I find it hard to come up with a complete, fleshed-out adventure ahead of time, though; at most, I'll have a couple of big encounters in mind and a vague idea of how to steer the party in their direction. I suppose I could use more published modules, but I'm too picky for my own good. There's always something that doesn't work for me, and I end up either throwing it all out or reworking big chunks.

In terms of knowing what Search skills your party has, it also helps to have a balanced party.

This is true. In fact, after the guy playing the rogue dropped out, I had an NPC join them so as to fill the gap, otherwise they'd be blundering into traps and ambushes like nobody's business. Sometimes niche protection is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

It matters a great deal for newbies and those playing straight DnD.

I will agree with you that d20 can be very modular and incorporate a variety of games and play style. However, the entry vehicle, DnD, no longer serves as a simple way for new players to learn the game.

I addressed this earlier, maybe you glossed over it.

When exactly did previous editions serve as a simple way for new players to learn the game? Case in point: in an expired campaign we had 2 players completely new to D&D. They were both younger brothers of regular players, and both around 15-16. They picked up on the rules pretty quickly, in a session or two neither of them needed much help. (EDIT: This was a 3.5 game, mind you)

Later in the campaign, as a joke, one of the players asked me to explain THAC0 to the new players. I did so in great detail. They both looked at me like I had something naughty growing out of my forehead. I tried in vain to get them to understand for upwards of 5 minutes and got through to one of them only vaguely in that time.

Back in the day, I played a 2e campaign for about 6 months with 2 brand newbies and the other 3 players having been in a few games. I later found out that neither of those 2 newbie players understood the rules very well even after the campaign's conclusion. They didn't know how THAC0 worked, only that they rolled a d20 and told me their THAC0 stat and what they rolled.

So really, how is the new edition less newbie friendly? All of my players know how everything works now, and if they don't it's a simple explanation away.

 

[RyanD]

When exactly did previous editions serve as a simple way for new players to learn the game?

The first "D&D" boxed sets were an excellent entry point. In the early 1980's, TSR sold more than a million of those sets in one year. They had wide enough distribution that they got D&D into the hands of a significant portion of the people likely to find a hobby in the game. At no point since that time has the D&D publisher achieved that level of success.

And, not coincidentally, D&D core book sales have never matched the 3-5 year follow on period after those halcyon days in the early '80s. I feel those two facts are directly connected.

However, the leap from those boxed sets to the core books was tremendous. 1E suffered from a lack of a coherent design strategy. 2E suffered from a desire to take control of the game away from the players and make it reside with TSR for the purpose of building campaign settings and thus novels and software. 3E "suffers" (if you can call it that) from giving players so many tools they are overwhelmed by their options.

3E is, at heart, a very simple game. The complexity of the game comes from the number of choices that you >could< make. One of the things that most people don't see about 3E is that at any given time, the number of choices you >can< make is very, very limited. 2E trained a whole generation of gamers to be ultra careful about what choices you make early in a character's lifecycle, because those choices will be determinant throughout the whole of that characters' time in the game. As a result, 2E players often freeze when confronted with their options at character creation - afraid that a misstep will cost them dearly six months later when they realize that they've trapped their PC into a dead end with no hope of escape (something that happened often with 2E).

3E also has a strong emphasis on the idea that there should be a rule for each situation, not a judgement call. We found that by and large most DMs preferred to have a rule rather than be asked to make an arbitrary decision. We found that players overwhelmingly preferred to have a rule. In my personal opinion, these two factors are related. I think that most DMs just don't do a good job making arbitrary decisions, and they know it. And most players react badly when an arbitrary decision goes against them, and they dislike the experience intensely. In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth. Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.

D&D is a roleplaying >game<. It's not improvisational theater. Games have rules, and they are supposed to be played by those rules. I think that part of the perceived "complexity" of 3E comes from people who would prefer free-form roleplaying, rather than a "game" experience. Confronted with rules for the game, these people withdraw, citing "complexity" when their real complaint is against "rules at all".

The other thing that 3E does pretty convincingly is define the game in terms of "classic heroic adventure". D&D is the game where you fight monsters, take their treasure, and power up. If you are interested in other kinds of roleplaying, like courtly intrique, economic manipulation, etc. D&D 3E is not a good fit for your interests. I think this is an improvement, as players now know clearly what they're supposed to be doing in the game, and if they want to do something else, they need to get consensus from the other players and the DM, rather than just assuming that they will get what they're looking for automatically.

The downside is that "classic heroic adventure" is pretty much combat-centric. As a result, the game is combat-centric, and combat rules are esoteric until you've used them enough to gain mastery. 3E does a terrible job (as does 3.5E) of bringing a new player along gently. The combat system is presented as "integrated", and there's no provision made for starting with simple combat and moving to more complex combat as people become familiar with the rules. I think this could be ameliorated via a short "combat for beginners" section that did away with AoO, grappling, charges, reach and threat zones, and presented all actions in combat as full-round actions. When I teach D20, that's how I teach new players, leaving the more advanced "tactical" aspects of combat for after they understand how to cast a spell, swing a sword, shoot an arrow and run away.

 

[mearls]

In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth. Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.

I think this is true in some cases, but untrue in others. IME, when a DM "wings it" with the rules, everyone's satisfaction nosedives. As an experiment, I ran a game of the circa-1979 basic set. I found that constantly having to create new rules to fill in the gaps grew tiresome. It's *hard* to come up with rules for hiring men-at-arms on the fly. Even worse, as the players interact with the rules you may have to change them in ways they don't like. For instance, in the game I ran the players tried to send the mercenaries on suicidal attacks. On the spot, I had to make up morale rules for them. The players were annoyed that they couldn't use their NPCs as cannon fodder, since there wasn't a rule against it.

I think the worst thing a DM can hear is "If I knew you were going to make ruling X, we wouldn't have taken actions A, B, and C that got us here."

The strength of a comprehensive rules set, like 3e, is that it avoids those situations. I think the general aversion I've seen to entering a campaign that has house rules, as opposed to taking part in creating those house rules from the standard rules as a base, shows that people prefer predictability and stability of the core rules.

(In other words, I've seen a lot of people who won't enter a game that already has house rules. However, after a few sessions using the standard rules they're open to trying house rules if they feel they have a say in them.)

On the other hand, winging the squishy bits of a campaign (the "fluff") can be a good thing. I've noticed that when a DM improvises, he tends to draw more on how the players react to something than his own view of what's important. For example, the party fights a half-orc assassin that has a colorful, fun personality and a cool assortment of attacks and tactics. The DM who's winging it might pick up on that and give the players a chance to interact with him more, or he might make him a continuing NPC villain. The DM who has plotted his game out might ignore that feedback in favor of moving along with this plot, since the assassin was only supposed to be a side encounter on the way to the haunted citadel.

 

[francisca]

So really, how is the new edition less newbie friendly? All of my players know how everything works now, and if they don't it's a simple explanation away.

I can't speak to 2E, as never played it. Same with THAC0. Never understood what was so hard about looking at a freaking chart. But anyway....

I personally find that the easiest version to teach is the 1980 Basic set. The manual is 64 pages long, about 20 pages of which is for the player. The rest is monsters, treasure, etc for the DM. Much less complicated than handing somebody the 3.5 PHB.

To me, it's not so much an issue of mechanics. The d20 mechanic is indeed simple: roll a d20, add the modifiers. The problem, for new players, is coming up with everything which goes into the modifier. The ability and level-based modifiers (BAB, saves) are easy. Skill modifiers are a bit tougher, as you need to thumb through the PHB and figure out how you want to spend them. Then there are synergies. And feats. And conditional modifiers (seems to me way more than 1E). So while the mechanic is streamlined, the devil is in the details. Then there are AOOs., etc... It's alot for new players, even if you have an experienced player/DM to help out. I imagine it's much worse for brand new, never played RPGs folks with no guidance. It was much easier in the 80's with the Basic set(s). WotC has obviously recognized this. (Witness the new basic set.)

 

[francisca]

For instance, in the game I ran the players tried to send the mercenaries on suicidal attacks. On the spot, I had to make up morale rules for them. The players were annoyed that they couldn't use their NPCs as cannon fodder, since there wasn't a rule against it.

Here's an idea: common sense. I don't think I need a rule or a die roll that tells me the reaction of an NPC sent on a suicide mission.

 

[Corinth]

Ryan's spot-on, as usual, about D&D.

I don't see what the problem is about D&D, either 3.0 or 3.5. It's the simplest and most intuitive ruleset for the game in its history. Once you understand the foundation of the rules and master those general concepts, it's very easy to apply that mastery to the specific spot-rules--the specific conceptions--that often come up during actual play and from there it's just as easy to make rulings for those corner cases that come up once in a while where the rules don't handle the situation. Teaching the game to new players involves repeating that process of acquiring mastery, starting with those basics and moving upward.

I understand that the rules now do most of the work. Why fight that? Instead, I use it to my benefit; I let the rules run the game and focus my attention on those aspects of gameplay that requires a human intelligence. Hell, I can do that and not use any miniatures, and yet I still enjoy the precision and definition that the miniature-friendly rules provides. I focus upon adventure gaming, with just enough politics & economics to maintain verisimlitude and provide the players--through their PCs--a means to make a larger mark upon the milieu. (It helps when I go outside WotC products to put rules to that stuff when I need them, and I am very thankful to the third-party publishers for filling that niche.) Most of the time, however, WotC products are sufficient for all of my D&D gaming needs.

Players, by the way, need only the Player's Handbook. That's only $30 (US), so it's not like this is as expensive as it seems either.

 

[mearls]

Here's an idea: common sense. I don't think I need a rule or a die roll that tells me the reaction of an NPC sent on a suicide mission.

Right. I know that, and you know that. DMs are blessed with plenty of common sense. Unfortunately, players seem to have an appalling lack of it, and they're willing to argue their cases.

 

[Bards R Us]

To me, it's not so much an issue of mechanics. The d20 mechanic is indeed simple: roll a d20, add the modifiers. The problem, for new players, is coming up with everything which goes into the modifier. The ability and level-based modifiers (BAB, saves) are easy. Skill modifiers are a bit tougher, as you need to thumb through the PHB and figure out how you want to spend them. Then there are synergies. And feats. And conditional modifiers (seems to me way more than 1E). So while the mechanic is streamlined, the devil is in the details. Then there are AOOs., etc... It's alot for new players, even if you have an experienced player/DM to help out. I imagine it's much worse for brand new, never played RPGs folks with no guidance. It was much easier in the 80's with the Basic set(s). WotC has obviously recognized this. (Witness the new basic set.)

I totally agree, thats how it was for me, being a new player and having never played DnD before in the past. There's not much math involved, the calculations are easy. Its the all various modifiers that one may forget to include that is the problem. Creating a dual-wielding character still trips me up. My first time creating my very first character took quite a bit of time and often need help from the more experienced people in my group. A short, concise guide to creating a basic character in the PHB would be a HUGE help in that regard.