Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[Hussar]

Wait, are you guys trying to define fun?



For me though, simplicity or complexity in available character options isn't really as big a factor as how the group itself plays.

Can you have more fun playing Checkers or Carcassonne?

Debatable, really. Let's go even further - Checkers to Star Fleet Battles. One is a game you can play in a matter of minutes, the other is a game that takes hours to play.

Which one is more fun? Well, depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with the game itself - Do you have hours to play or only a handful of minutes? Are you playing with die hard Trekkers or your six year old? On and on.

Like you say, group will impact this more than the game itself. I've had a blast with both checkers and SFB's but there's lots of people I wouldn't play either game with.

As was mentioned, the degree of granularity is totally dependent on what you want to achieve. And, play should be directed towards that level of granularity. In other words, play the game in front of you, not the game you wish it was.

 

[scourger]

I agree. I've run core games since 2e. Even my 3e game is too much complexity for me right now. I've just started using DDM as the basis for a new D&D game, with simple advancement from the Miniatures Handbook and the old secondary skills table from 2e. It's off the chain so far.

In the same vein, I really like Savage Worlds. It has more fine granularity of options for the players but more coarse granularity for the GM. Really makes it easier to run.

 

[scourger]

I wrote an article for A KotDT mag on pretty much this topic. They were nice enough to publish me .

Can you link or give the issue number?

 

[scourger]

To address some of these issues, I created my own version of 3.5 "basic". Classes include a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Thief. Feats are pre-set and are tied to level progression (for example, fighters get "Power Attack" at second level, wizards can create scrolls at third, etc.). Skill system is revamped -extremely consolidated and progression is pre-set (based on class again). Spell selection more limited. Good fun.

That sounds great. You should make it available or talk to those Pathfinder dudes.

 

[Particle_Man]

I am surprised no one has mentioned Castles and Crusades yet, since that is meant to be a simpler version of OGL D&D. Another "option" for 3.5 would be to use only the three generic classes form Unearthed Arcana (warrior, expert, spellcaster) also in the SRD.

I can see options getting overwhelming if people feel that a game requires them to take the strongest options. Less so if they do not. If I am happy playing a Human Samurai (yes I deliberately picked a Tier 6 class) in 3.5, then I don't have to worry too much about options, particularly if I make my feats the once that only have to get factored in once, like Iron Will. Similarly, I could play a Warlock in 4.0 that only uses fey based powers, and fey based paragon and epic lifestyle choices, and rock the house with it, but I bet it is not anything near to optimal. Mind you, that already covers at least 2 player books in 4.0, but that is a slightly separate issue.

Similarly, some complexities go away by ignoring them (assuming the DM lets you). So the weapon vs. armor tables of 1st ed. AD&D, encumbrance rules in, well, every single iteration of D&D and D&D-like games, etc., can just drop out.

That said, there is a reason I like point-based games like GURPS and M&M more if there are templates available to just take (a reason I like Warriors and Warlocks and likely will like the DC Superheroes stuff for M&M - "I wanna be like the Flash? Well here he is!"). It takes away the "did I leave the oven on?" problem of failing to consider a character creation option that was kind of important to take.

And of course some options seem to come dripping with flavour. The Warlock in 3.5 was one of those. It also was a good option IMHO because it simplified things considerably. I would make it the go to character for a new player wanting to be a magic using type, as well as for a DM that needs a fast villain. It has practically no paperwork!

Another option is to try replacements rather than additions. Like (these are all 3.5 examples) take out arcane magic but allow psionic powers. Or only allow the PHB II 4 base classes and Races of the Dragon races and see where that goes. Or go heavy on a book like Sandstorm. I guess in 4.0 one could try something like "only primal as a power source" and see what happens.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It can be hard to keep game balance if the DM doesn't "know anything about that splat book."

True, but there's not much in the way of a DM learning about a splat book. He doesn't have to read it cover-to-cover to gain a basic idea of it. At the very least, a DM concerned with balance can run the splat book by a game forum to red flag any issues that might pop up. Or just tell his players "I'll allow it, but if anything turns out to be crazy broken, I reserve the right to retro-ban it."

IME, "I don't know anything about that book" is often followed by an unspoken "And I don't want to" statement.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
IME, "I don't know anything about that book" is often followed by an unspoken "And I don't want to" statement.

Too true.

In my case, practicalities are the problem. My players are scattered all over the world and I don't get to see them face to face. I am most certainly not a book collector anymore, so, it's pretty difficult for me to actually read most of the splat books.

The table rule at my table was that someone HAD to own the book - no *ahem*borrowed*ahem* copies. Totally on the honor system, but, it was usually pretty obvious who actually owned the book and who didn't. You ask someone to send you a passage, and they cut and paste a jpg to you - it's probably not a legal copy.

 

[jujutsunerd]

You ask someone to send you a passage, and they cut and paste a jpg to you - it's probably not a legal copy.

I'd say a jpeg is a sign of someone who owns a scanner. I know everyone in my group owns a scanner or multipurpose printer with a scan function, and most have OneNote or some other ocr software (some limited version is usually included on the scanner software disk.)

Of course, you're most likely right if you mean that the jpeg they send you is not a legal copy. At least it's debatable, especially if the jpeg goes from one country to another. (What's 'fair use' in one country may or may not be 'fair dealing' in another country.

/Jonas

 

[Pig Champion]

I find that less options mean more fun for me. Less rules across the board usually means a focus on story, character and team tactics rather than having a bunch of players pre-occupied with their splatbooks or character sheets working out math while you're trying to describe dramatic battle scenes.

Like all DnD incarnations I start off enjoying them thoroughly only for them to suffer serious rules glut and having to wade the murky waters between players complaining about dis-aloud options and players complaining about too many rules.

For this reason my favourite incarnation is BECMI restricted to red/blue box only. I'm really hoping essentials will be in a "lite" vein.

 

[Hussar]

I'd say a jpeg is a sign of someone who owns a scanner. I know everyone in my group owns a scanner or multipurpose printer with a scan function, and most have OneNote or some other ocr software (some limited version is usually included on the scanner software disk.)

Of course, you're most likely right if you mean that the jpeg they send you is not a legal copy. At least it's debatable, especially if the jpeg goes from one country to another. (What's 'fair use' in one country may or may not be 'fair dealing' in another country.

/Jonas

Heh. In my experience, a jpeg means someone has access to a P2P network of some sort. I've had more than a few players fess up to having downloaded copies of stuff.

I find that less options mean more fun for me. Less rules across the board usually means a focus on story, character and team tactics rather than having a bunch of players pre-occupied with their splatbooks or character sheets working out math while you're trying to describe dramatic battle scenes.

Like all DnD incarnations I start off enjoying them thoroughly only for them to suffer serious rules glut and having to wade the murky waters between players complaining about dis-aloud options and players complaining about too many rules.

For this reason my favourite incarnation is BECMI restricted to red/blue box only. I'm really hoping essentials will be in a "lite" vein.

Y'know, it wouldn't be difficult to turn 3e or 4e into BECMI as far as chargen goes. Simply restrict choices. All fighters (for example) have the same feats/powers (depending on system) and skills. The only thing that mechanically differentiates one from another is gear.

Wouldn't that give you the best of both worlds? You get a more comprehensive ruleset while removing the rules glut. You could bang out a PC in a couple of minutes this way.