Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[Eric Tolle]

At high levels in older editions everybody gained followers. Fighters just tended to get more of them.

The quantity and quality of the cohort was less dependant on Charisma than in 3.X, where Bards and Sorcerers are better leaders than Fighters. On the other hand, followers, as level 1 warriors, are pretty much useless.

A far more fundamental difference between editions lies in the changes to the saving throw system between AD&D and Third Edition. While reducing the number of saves was a good idea in theory, in practice the unified save system crippled non-spellcasters, especially fighters. Either nobody bothered to run the basic math, or it was deliberately done to handicap non-spellcasters.

• No discussion whatsoever regarding the original topic, which was (just to remind folks) that 4e, 3e, frankly any game that involves buying more than one hardcover book, are heavy and complicated games and not at all congenial to new or casual players.

Well, based on my observations over the last 20 years, I strongly disagree that rules complexity is actually much of a turn-off to new players. Aside from the complexities of AD&D, I've seen numerous complex games, ranging from rpgs to board games, to crpgs where the complexity is regarded as a bonus.

What's important is not simplicity, but accessibility. The game needs to be presented in such a way that as the players are introduced to the complexities of the game, it draws them in, rather than confusing or repelling them. Having ready made templates or example characters ous a start, as is the gradual introduction of systems. Games that a good job of introducing systems would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer rpg, and Persona III the crpg.

I do think that needless complexity that doesn't add to the game experience should be avoided. For example, on D&D, skills like professions, and creating really should have been put in the appendix or GM's manuel, for those few souls who really desired to play Shopkeepers and Seemstresses. Likewise 3.X had too many useless and redundant skills (To Pathfinder's credit at least they consolidated the skill list).

There's also the fact that allegedly "simple" systems often hide a different form of complexity; for example. Profession systems where a character is assumed to know all the skills subsumed in a brief profession description can lead to confusion and negotiation over what a profession actually encompasses.

The bottom line is that well-organized complexity is an asset to a game, but it needs thought as to how to be presented.

 

[Darwinism]

I don't. I have yet to see any evidence that the weasels at Paizo can actually write a game on their own. I imagine that the Beginner's boxset will just be Pathfinder -15 levels, flat-footed AC and all.

It would be nice to have a modern version of D&D that doesn't feel like I'm building a magic deck, so that I can actually stand to play it without popping Zyprexa like M&M's.

Unfortunately that won't happen because instead of producing fun, well designed games in multiple genres with carefully controlled crunch support and a metric asston of modules, WotC will just decided to take a giant crap in D&D's toilet again, so that we'll have ANOTHER bloated, cancerous mass of feats and powers that will have no business being there.

That's a lot of vitriol amounting to, "It's not 2E AD&D or earlier! It's bad! They should just continuously rerelease what I got started on!"

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't. I have yet to see any evidence that the weasels at Paizo can actually write a game on their own. I imagine that the Beginner's boxset will just be Pathfinder -15 levels, flat-footed AC and all.

It would be nice to have a modern version of D&D that doesn't feel like I'm building a magic deck, so that I can actually stand to play it without popping Zyprexa like M&M's.

Unfortunately that won't happen because instead of producing fun, well designed games in multiple genres with carefully controlled crunch support and a metric asston of modules, WotC will just decided to take a giant crap in D&D's toilet again, so that we'll have ANOTHER bloated, cancerous mass of feats and powers that will have no business being there.

Sorry, but I am afraid that I have disagreed with several of your posts, and this is another such.

First off - in what way are Paizo weasels? They produce good solid games with good solid support. They have built upon a system that WotC abandoned, with a license that allowed exactly that, a license that I believe was intended to allow exactly that, going by several of the authors of said license.

They did not create the rules in their original form, but did improve them - and have claimed nothing more than exactly that. In what way does this make them weasels?

Also, the Beginner's Box is levels 1-5, which may have been what you meant, not 1-15, which is what you wrote.

Feats do have a place in the 3.X architecture, and while I do not play, nor have any desire to play, 4e, I have no trouble believing that they serve their purpose in that architecture as well.

I will take three saves as opposed to the overly narrow focus of saves in AD&D 1 & 2. I will keep the feats, and the systems that hold together in a coherent hole over the mixed systems of the TSR days - I will take an attack bonus over a THAC0 any day of the week.

I also don't think that 3.X or Pathfinder is overly complicated, nor do I think that non-casters are as gimped as you seem to think. If the games are such that you need medication, perhaps you should see a doctor?

More seriously, it sounds like you should avoid D&D from AD&D on - there are other games out there that might suit your tastes better. Have you tried True20? True20 has become my default for when I want a generic system that I can tailor to fit a setting.

Perhaps you should focus more on what you want in a game rather than rant about games that are not to your personal tastes. C&C is not to my personal taste, but there are folks who like it. Osric is much the same in regards to my preferences, but perhaps it would be more in line with your own tastes?

Find a game and shout its praises rather than rail against an uncaring sky. Do not call a company 'weasels' because they do exactly what they claimed to be doing - keeping the edition they enjoyed alive. Why rant at either Paizo or WotC because they do not cater to your own niche? Find something that you do like and play it, leave the medication in its jar.

The Auld Grump

 

[delericho]

Well, based on my observations over the last 20 years, I strongly disagree that rules complexity is actually much of a turn-off to new players. Aside from the complexities of AD&D, I've seen numerous complex games, ranging from rpgs to board games, to crpgs where the complexity is regarded as a bonus.

What's important is not simplicity, but accessibility. The game needs to be presented in such a way that as the players are introduced to the complexities of the game, it draws them in, rather than confusing or repelling them.

Indeed, I think that's the major problem.

Existing players buying a new edition will want to buy the 'complete' game. For D&D, this has traditionally meant the PHB/DMG/MM combination. This presents all the rules, all the races, classes and other options, and is generally the full deal.

The problem is that that typically represents the better part of 1,000 pages of text (and $100). Put that in the hands of a new potential player, and watch the enthusiasm in their eyes die. I have seen it. "You mean we have to read all of this before we can play?"

And the reality is that, yes, someone does have to read it before you can play - someone needs to read and understand the rules, create characters, create an adventure, and then they can start having fun. (Or buy an adventure, at the cost of more money and reading.)

And all this for a game they might like? No wonder they'd rather play WoW!

The solution to this would seem to be the Starter Set. Unfortunately, these typically use not just a restricted set of options, but a dumbed down ruleset to avoid the complexity. Worse, they tend to be designed as a throwaway product (or a pay-for preview, if you will) - play this to 2nd level, and then buy our Essentials books! (Oh, and do all that reading anyway, and unlearn what you have learned.)

Faced with that, it's no wonder that the Starter Sets always fail. (It doesn't help that there really hasn't been a good one since the last Red Box.)

I've gone on about this before, but I'm convinced the solution is as follows:

1) Present the core of the game in its simplest form. The Core Rulebook should be a 1-book game, with a limited set of options but the actual rules of play, containing everything you need. When you want more, there are plenty of supplements.

2) Build a Starter Set that includes pre-gen characters and adventures, and a quick-start guide, but also include the same Core Rulebook as everyone else uses.

 

[nedjer]

If anyone has been holding their breath, it's maybe time to gasp a couple of lungfuls of air before oxygen deprivation destroys your brain stem.

 

[Bluenose]

The quantity and quality of the cohort was less dependant on Charisma than in 3.X, where Bards and Sorcerers are better leaders than Fighters. On the other hand, followers, as level 1 warriors, are pretty much useless.

A far more fundamental difference between editions lies in the changes to the saving throw system between AD&D and Third Edition. While reducing the number of saves was a good idea in theory, in practice the unified save system crippled non-spellcasters, especially fighters. Either nobody bothered to run the basic math, or it was deliberately done to handicap non-spellcasters.

Saving throws, hit point inflation, the changes from NWPs to the skill system; all hurt the Fighter. I'm not persuaded by any argument that the designers simply didn't realise this. Were they really incapable of doing simple mathematics or realising the implications of teir choices?

Well, based on my observations over the last 20 years, I strongly disagree that rules complexity is actually much of a turn-off to new players. Aside from the complexities of AD&D, I've seen numerous complex games, ranging from rpgs to board games, to crpgs where the complexity is regarded as a bonus.

One of the problems with complex systems is that complexity increases the number and amount of interactions between various parts of the system. This makes playtesting a lot harder, especially since it's quite common for variables to be altered during the testing to take account of difficulties. That doesn't make it easier to get a good game out of what you're doing. Also, if you're aiming at simulation, and it turns out your starting assumptions are incorrect, rewriting the whole system involves a lot more work with the complex system. I suspect what is far more likely is the addition of more mechanics, increasing complexity, in an attempt to make a bad initial assumption 'work out' without having to change that and restart a lot of work.

 

[catastrophic]

This is why I was arguing for seperate systems earlier. It's all well and good to have complexity, but testing it, learning it, and making it work is another matter. And it's the interactions, including the unforseen interactions, that end up getting you.

A set of bounded subsystems are a far better option, than a system that tries to grade castles, dungeons, blacksmiths, magic missiles, and dragons-fire on the same curve.

It's not as if you can't have interactions between your systems, but they have to be very simple. So for instance, your noncombat system could define how many bonus healing surges you have when you go into the dungeon. Your mass combat system could define the stakes for the pivotal battles the heroes fight during the war. That sort of thing- simple granular differences, instead of a bucketload of minutia interacting in ways that are only going to thrill a very small subset of players, and cause big problems for everyone else.

 

[Lanefan]

I have hopes for Pathfinder's Beginner's Box. But, much as I love it, I will admit that the Pathfinder Core rulebook is intimidating.

I was at GenCon the year PF was released - I remember bumping into a few guys that had the books and remarking that if they didn't like the game they could at least still use the books to kill bears.

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

That's a lot of vitriol amounting to, "It's not 2E AD&D or earlier! It's bad! They should just continuously rerelease what I got started on!"

That's not actually correct. Older versions of D&D were more fun for people who don't have personality disorders, this is true. But the actual mechanics were a .

What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions more than it rewards locking oneself in their basement and fapping over a 4ft. stack of source books until they spurt out their latest character build masterpiece.

I want modern D&D that requires more player interaction than just skill rolls ("I don't give a turd what your thievery skill is...tell me HOW you are disarming the trap), rewards experience for ALL in-game accomplishments rather than just slaughtering things uglier than the PC's, and something that pushes the mechanics back behind the screen where they belong...behind the screen.

3.x characters were pretty much magic decks with names written on them, and 4th edition games are like playing spreadsheet wars. All I want is a return to the basics. My opinion might not be popular...but it IS right.