Is D&D too complicated?

[Ridley's Cohort]

I never got that either, or why the new system is so much better. It is exactly the same system except now you add instead of subtract from 10.

Because you do not have to task switch between adding and subtracting. Because you do not have incongruity between hitting a "higher/lower AC" and a "lower/higher AC"


I have tried various THAC0 systems, by the book, homebrew roll low, etc. with an extremely numerate play group. The 3e system is head and shoulders better.

 

[teitan]

Having a separate "lite" line is a mistake - TSR proved it, and if it made sense financially, WoTC would have already done it.

Just not true. The Basic D&D line sold extremely well which is why they tried to keep the Mystara line going when they cancelled Basic. The problem with basic sales occurred when the boxed sets started to go out of print and the lackluster job that was done on the Challenger set. There was almost no indication that the set would lead to the Rules Cyclopedia and the set appeared to be a board game and was a rather unwieldy size, comparable to other board games, but not as compact and bookshelf worthy as the basic boxes.

Basic was a great product line and was a financially proven success.

Jason

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

To complex? hmm, for newbe yeah, but as said by Torm most people get brought in and helped when they start. And if you don't get it you can just use the whack things with big sword/axe aproch, (like me, lines: I attack or I kick the door in)
come to think of it I've been playing for over a year and (if in dungeon) I still do that (but more effectivly).

 

[Philip]

3e's concept is fairly simple:

If you do something its: d20 + skill modifier + ability modifier +situational modifier for your success rating (where skill is intrepreted broadly, attack skill is represented by HD or lvl).

This sets the DC for anyone else to counter or avoid. The only real exception is Armor Class.

You can play it just like that, don't look up the monsters, just give them save modifiers of HD/2 + ability modifier. Good warrior races/classes attack at d20 + HD + ability modifier, bad attack at d20 + HD/2 + ability modifier. All the monsters powers work at 10 + HD/2 + ability modifier, you can even let all their spell function at save DC's of 10 + HD/2 + ability modifier. You can play it like that, and it will be balanced.

All the extra rules they piled on top of this increases you options, but also makes it more complicated.

 

[d4]

I never got that either, or why the new system is so much better. It is exactly the same system except now you add instead of subtract from 10.

i've seen studies (though i don't have anything to point you at right now) that show that subtraction requires more time and mental effort than addition for the vast majority of people.

this means that in most cases, combat rolls can now be determined much faster and with less effort on the part of the person. that's a good thing, because most people don't enjoy doing math -- some even see the math they have to do in adding their attack modifier to their die roll as a necessary evil of the game; something they put up with but don't enjoy. THAC0 was even worse in this regard, because it involved subtraction.

 

[Theron]

It's complex, but not overly so. I've spent twenty-plus years playing and GMing the Hero System, which is often held up as the poster child for complex game systems. It's just a different skill set to master.

But therein can lie the difficulty.
On the surface, d20 has a very simple core mechanic. So does the Hero System. So does WW's Storyteller 2.0 (used in Exalted) for instance. But as a Hero veteran, D&D (and ST) vex me because both are exception-based rules systems.

With Hero, if you want a particular effect, you purchase it with points. Whether you're creating an elf's low-light sight, a mage's spell to draw life from his enemies, or a warrior's magic sword, mechanically the process to create these effects is the same, and no matter how convoluted the computations might be to figure out the point cost of the effect, the mechanics and the inter-relationships of the various effect never change, no matter how deeply down you drill.

As a result, even though the game is complex, and there are a myriad number of ways to accomplish various tasks, it's reasonably easy for a GM to keep things balanced once he understands a few basic principles and how they inter-relate. It's not perfect or flawless, and I don't want to paint it as such. But the consistency goes a long way to making it simple.

With an exception-based game, you don't have a consistent means of constructing effects. In the case of D&D, you have hundreds of Feats, each of which allow the character an exception to the standard rules in some greater or smaller way (ditto for Exalted's charms). I've heard more than one person describe this as being similar to the underlying design philosophy of most CCGs, but having never gotten into that end of the hobby, I really can't comment on it; it's not new in RPGs, by any means, just brought to a whole new level with D&D.

With an exception-based games, the inter-relation of the exceptions almost becomes a game within itself. Each new Feat is a potential game-breaker and must be viewed in terms of Feats it might make more or less attractive, and the ultimate impact it could have on the game. With so many Feats, so many factors to examine, the potential for things to break down is significantly higher.

Which is not to say that a game like the Hero System is free from game-breaking effects. I do, however, think they're easier to catch because of the design philosophy of the game.

So, for the purposes of the GMing firm of Me, Myself, and I, D&D is overly complex, because I find extensive exception-based rules systems require me to juggle too many factors as a GM. As a player, all I have to do is worry about my own character, so it's not nearly such a big deal. But GMing is what I mainly do.

 

[teitan]

3e's concept is fairly simple:

If you do something its: d20 + skill modifier + ability modifier +situational modifier for your success rating (where skill is intrepreted broadly, attack skill is represented by HD or lvl).

This sets the DC for anyone else to counter or avoid. The only real exception is Armor Class.

You can play it just like that, don't look up the monsters, just give them save modifiers of HD/2 + ability modifier. Good warrior races/classes attack at d20 + HD + ability modifier, bad attack at d20 + HD/2 + ability modifier. All the monsters powers work at 10 + HD/2 + ability modifier, you can even let all their spell function at save DC's of 10 + HD/2 + ability modifier. You can play it like that, and it will be balanced.

All the extra rules they piled on top of this increases you options, but also makes it more complicated.

Yeah except you have experience with the system and are probably older than 13 which is about the right age for someone to get into gaming. Most people wouldn't approach it that way, especially beginners. While D&D isn't complex in exection as far as the core mechanic, it is complex in the sheer amount of rules and exact approach. No body is debating the core mechanic at all, but the sheer amount of options and the way they affect the game. STacking, that can be complex to someone just starting out. Spells can be complex to someone just starting out. Feats can complicate matters. Until 3.5 we dabted the whole 2 sword thing til the sun came up. SO yeah, the CORE Mechanic is as simple as it gets, its the various implementations that get complex.

Jason

 

[Psion]

i've seen studies (though i don't have anything to point you at right now) that show that subtraction requires more time and mental effort than addition for the vast majority of people.

THAC0 also subdivided steps, making for more total operations, and concentrated half of the operations on one person - the DM.

 

[:: TrigCove ::]

Q: Is D&D too complicated?

A: It is neither too complicated nor complicated enough.

Back in the day when I was DMing Basic/Expert, not one of my players ever said, "This game has too many rules!"

We never obsessed over feat chains, skill selection, or bemoaned the class imbalances. We played the game in all of its broken glory, and the game never let us down.

After much discussion about the type of gaming experience we all wanted, our group recently ditched the 3rd Edition ruleset and has returned to the simpler game. The general consensus was, "I want to play Dungeons & Dragons, not Actuaries & Accountants!" That 'good old days' feeling has been rekindled, and I've never seen the players happier.

I think a lot of groups probably never talk about what type of gaming experience they want to have. Thus, the rules lawyers and munchkins and roll-players and role-players are often found bunched together at the same table, and although they all want to play the same fantasy-based rpg, each often comes away from the sessions unfulfilled due to the group members' vastly differing expectations...

-Cheers-

ps - The guidepost for me as to whether a game's ruleset is too complicated or not is the character creation process. How long does it take to create a character? Keep in mind that most games that have 'classes' have them because it's a way for the new player to man up and get in the game quickly...because the rules are complicated

:: Trig ::

 

[Indivar]

WAY to complex

Hey there folks. A noob here, so I figured I'd start it off with a bang.

The group I play with has left d20 behind as we have decided it is a good idea taken way to far. Some people just didnt like certain mechanics (flatfooted for example), and other just didnt memorize other minor rules that come up more often than not. People 'winging it' on a rule once in a while would draw all kinds of fire when the rule was looked up and played correctly later.

The best example of why we left it behind is that we had a character in the group that had a ring of jumping. The jumping rules were so heavy that he had to write out A WHOLE PAGE just to handle whenever he wanted to use his ring. This is ridiculous.

Someone in this thread talked about winging an npc in the middle of a fight. Think about that. Memorizing stuff like how many/which feats he might have,(hundreds of choices here), his BAB, what his skills might be (dozens of choices here), what his Stats might be, maybe his spells, ect. This makes my head hurt just thinking about it. To some this may be really easy to calculate off the cuff, but think about all the time one has spent memorizing these little figures that could have been spent working on a decent game setting or memorable encounter. How much time does it take to advance a simple animal up a little for example? It would take a good chunk of time to find the stats for a horse, make him bigger, then maybe slap a template on him. And we all know that if you wing it there will be someone at your table that will bring that up later and turn it into an arguement.

Well the group I play with has switched to Savage Worlds (a core book of less than 150 pages) and havent looked back. Character generation takes maybe 10 minutes. A monster is about the same or less. The lists of hundreds of spells has been cut down to around 20-25, based on the theory that some spells pretty much do the same thing (magic missile and melfs acid arrow both deal damage at a distance). Combat takes half or less of the time and is way less crunchy and a lot more fun.

Anyways I think d20 has become more fluff than stuff.