The Dilemma of the Simple RPG

In my experience with contemporary college game clubs, there are many younger people who have not yet tried tabletop RPGs. I was also told that many of the players coming to the evening games at a local shop have been new to tabletop RPGs. This is different from my pre-Internet, pre-video gamegeneration (Boomers), where most game-minded people were exposed to D&D because it had so little competition for leisure time.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Another reason for the difference may be the “crunchiness” of many contemporary RPGs. That is, the fiddliness and time needed to generate a character and start actually playing the game is offputting. Then there is the difficulty of running a character because there are so many details and numbers (such as skills) involved. The rules interfere with the adventure.

Yet we continue to see the most popular RPGs loaded down with vast rulebooks. Unfortunately, the seeds of long-range destruction of any RPG edition are built into the capitalist economy.

You don't need a Ph.D. in history to know a lot can be explained if you "follow the money". To make money you need to sell product. If your primary business is RPGs you have to produce a game that is not only large but very extensible, so that you can sell additional rules. In the long run, that makes the game crunchy and unwieldy, dooms it to become too complex to appeal to the less than hard-core players.

Complexity may be a boon for some players. 3rd Edition D&D (3e) became "find rules somewhere that give me an advantage." This is a complete contrast to my advice to GMs dating back to the 70s: prevent players from gaining unearned advantages. When I GMed 3e I said "core rules only, no add-ons." When the highly-tinkered-by-additional-rules "one man armies" are present in a game, the more casual players are left behind in several ways.

"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstien

Complex games also make the GM's job harder. As there are more rules, there's more work for the GM. The biggest problem of tabletop RPGs, compared with other games, is that GMing is work, not play. We need more GMs to "grow" the hobby, yet complex games with constant rules add-ons lead to fewer GMs available.

The typical course of events is that RPGs get more complex as more rules are added, until the entire edition is abandoned and a new one comes out. While D&D Second Edition wasn't much different than 1e, and many more or less ignored 2e (I did), each succeeding edition has changed the game drastically to help persuade players to buy the new version, coming full circle with 5e. In each case, a new edition led to lots of sales. And each was then subjected to the rising pyramid of additional rules.

Money talks. Unfortunately for RPGs, money argues for complexity, not simplicity.

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher

SaveSave​

 

[thzero]

but people who are uncomfortable with storytelling don't like it as much. I think that is a reaction to the type of player who insists that they want to somehow "win" at RPG.

Just because someone isn't "mr. all I want to do is write a novel, or be an actor" does not mean that all they want to do is "win" at RPGs. People can play RPGs for many reasons, with many different styles (even at the same table), and all equally enjoy the time spent.

 

[thzero]

Now WotC has taken a quite different approach to 5E: less is more.

Thats not a different approach. As pointed out there are plenty of systems out there that are lighter to almost nonexistent as far as rules goes.

Now I don't think that WotC necessarily thought, "What is the most we could publish that every serious player would buy everything of?"

If they didn't, then they were fools. 5e may have less rules that 3.X or 4e, but it was at its core another money making change - crunch doesn't carry forward, so everyone needs to buy everything over again. And also gives them another marketing opportunity... in effect it was 'all new, and 20% less!'

 

[77IM]

Mutants and Masterminds is an excellent example of a system that's sold lots of supplements WITHOUT adding rules bloat. The core rules are so comprehensive and flexible that additional crunch isn't really needed. So instead the supplements tend to support different fiction genres, game-play styles, and campaign settings. Of course the core rules of M&M aren't exactly simple, but I would argue that they are streamlined in a way that makes them easy to understand.

My point is that rules bloat through supplements is NOT an inevitable consequence of the RPG industry.

 

[S'mon]

Think of it this way. Which would more likely to be an enjoyable 3 hour session - a 3 hour 5e session with a completely new DM running some module, or a 3 hour session of Dread with a completely new DM? Yup, that Dread game might be fun. It might also be absolutely horrible.

No idea about dread, but I'd bet on eg Moldvay Basic D&D over both. My experience is pretty much the opposite of yours. I would say the easiest games to run successfully combine simple rules with lots of
procedural content generation. All the Moldvay GM needs is that book (it even has an adventure in it) and maybe a sketch of a wilderness to support long term play.

I also think simple games better support GMs learning how to adjudicate, to my mind the most
important GMing skill. Moldvay has just the right level of support for that, with advice on various d6-related checks and the optional ability check rule.

 

[SerHogan]

You have a poor understanding of how capitalist economies work.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

You have a poor understanding of how capitalist economies work.

That's because they don't work. Even such capitalism-friendly nations as the United States don't practice true capitalism for exactly that reason, due to learning that lesson the hard way.

The U.S. economy, for example, is more of a socialism-capitalism hybrid.

So, really, no one knows how they work because we've yet to see one actually work.

That said, could you enlighten me what your point was in saying that?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In board and card games, we’ve seen significant “dumbing down” of hobby games in the past decade to accommodate the influx of new gamers as the hobby gets larger, who are often from “party game” roots. Games on average are much simpler and considerably shorter.

Really? Now that I do not agree with at all. While, sure, you don't see games like Advanced Squad Leader coming out too often anymore, frankly, you almost never did before either. Until the 90's, the vast majority of board games were the fairly bog standard Monopoly style games.

Now, you have all the Eurostyle games, starting with grandaddy Catan on forward, where you have levels of complexity from fairly simple, like Catan to extremely complicated, like Eclipse or Civilization. The notion that board games have been "dumbed down" is not something I agree with at all.

This is now a world where many people cannot do simple arithmetic in their heads - even college students. Where people want the “Easy Button”. It’s the Age of Convenience as well as the Age of Instant Gratification. You don’t have to read any rules to play video games. The more complexity in a tabletop game, the fewer people will want to play and especially, the fewer who will want to GM.

What do you mean "now"? Sorry, but, I'm 45 years old. Nearly no one my age or older can do simple arithmetic in their head. Again, this smells a lot like "git off my lawn". No, sorry, people's math skills have not attrophied. People today are the same as they were thirty or fifty years ago. Except possibly better read considering that reading for pleasure was virtually unheard of in my generation.

JeffB, there’s a large college-aged segment who go to game clubs to play tabletop board and card games regularly, but never buy any. Besides a (self-perceived) lack of money, they’re been “trained” in video games to expect games to be free in many cases. I’d say most of them are “naturally” RPGers (the focus on an avatar), but I don’t think they spend on RPGs either.


Lew Pulsipher

Oh, that's crap. I'm sorry, but, that's complete crap. Back in the day, groups often had 1 PHB and 1 DMG. The idea that they've been trained by video games for games to be free is a load of hooey. Casual players who never buy anything have made up a majority of players since day 1.

This thread has gone from an interesting comparison between heavy and light systems, to someone sitting on their front porch blaming all the young'uns about today's problems.

 

[Evenglare]

Eh, I dont know. Everyone seems to point at some sort of golden RPG which defines some kind of money vs complexity that would be ideal, and its not that simple. If you define an RPG's success by money, then you get complexity, if you define it by people wanting simplicity then you get more people introduced to the genre. There are tons of other lenses to look at the industry and there simply isn't a right answer. There exists different types of RPGs for different people who have different amounts of money for the game, time to learn the game, etc. And even the game with the biggest player base, doesn't mean the game is making money, and vice versa. Some people love obscure games and they shouldn't be left out because they aren't in the majority. I view the RPG industry at least tabletop wise as a place where a homebrew setting can thrive right next to an industrialized powerhouse where honestly both can provide similar levels of enjoyment. Money, complexity and popularity are simply one of a near infinite amount of viewpoints to take.

 

[Hussar]

No idea about dread, but I'd bet on eg Moldvay Basic D&D over both. My experience is pretty much the opposite of yours. I would say the easiest games to run successfully combine simple rules with lots of
procedural content generation. All the Moldvay GM needs is that book (it even has an adventure in it) and maybe a sketch of a wilderness to support long term play.

I also think simple games better support GMs learning how to adjudicate, to my mind the most
important GMing skill. Moldvay has just the right level of support for that, with advice on various d6-related checks and the optional ability check rule.

Well, a couple of things.

1. Moldvay Basic isn't exactly a rules light system. Look at the combat rules. That is not a rules light system.

2. I've played Moldvay Basic with what you're talking about and the experiences vary wildly. It is SO dependent on the GM. Sure, if they have the natural aptitude for it, it can be fun. Otherwise, it devolves into a whole host of arguing about rulings and fairness issues.

As I said, my experiences are quite different from yours. I come from a LOOONNNG history of very, very poor DM's. IME, a good DM is not a common thing to find. So, going from 2e to 3e was a huge breath of fresh air as 90% of the table arguments that we used to have vanished practically overnight.

So, no, I'm not a fan of rules light systems when it comes to a new GM. Most of the rules light systems I've seen generally depend on experienced GM's to already know how to run a game.

 

[PMárk]

Yes, you could sell a less complex game to more people, because new or casual gamers tend to favor them.

Still, a lot of people want more depth and complexity, enough that those games are still viable for business.

There's also a migration from the first group to the second and also there are plenty of people who are long-term players, but favor minimalist games.

I don't think any of them is the saint grail of the rpg hobby, or the 'future' (at least I hope so, I want complex games on the scene), there is demand for all kind of games, but yes, probably you could sell light and lower-medium games for the largest number of people.