The Problem with 21st century D&D (and a solution! Sort of)

[Lanefan]

I might be weird here. A game with a lot of complex rules might seem daunting. A game, that in my opinion simplifies too much, may seem insulting.

Not sure why it would be insulting; if you like you can always add complexity in to a simple system, but if the system already comes pre-loaded with complexity it's much *much* harder to strip it out and make it simple.

Lanefan

 

[Zhaleskra]

Not sure why it would be insulting

Pretty much if the game seems like it's talking to someone in the 5-9 year old range because of its simplicity rather than the 10 years and older range. 10 was chosen somewhat arbitrarily because my first every RPG books said "for ages 10 and up", and that was AD&D2E!

 

[Glade Riven]

All this talk about simplification runs into a major problem...people are going to be unhappy with what is cut. Heck, I remember all the complaining that went on when 4e moved gnomes to the monster manual and monks to a later core book.

Oh, and now that it's simple, the game feels too much like WoW (which isn't simple at all). Or now the game feels too much like a video game (nevermind that RPGs have fueled a sizable chunk of videogame development). Or "why is there not a rule for x?" Or "why is this simple game seemingly incompatable with the complex game?"

Accurate or not, those things come up.

 

[Blackwind]

I haven't been on this forum in ages, but thought I'd toss my hat in the ring.

I've played Basic, 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5, 4E, C&C, and a number of other RPGs over the years. What I have found in recent years is that complicated rulesets get in the way of what are, to me, the most important aspects of the game: roleplaying and storytelling. I'm not saying they will get in the way for everyone, but they certainly have for me.

I like combat and exploration as much as the next guy, but I also find both of those things way less fun with what are, for me, overly complicated rules. I find both 3.5 and 4E combats incredibly tedious, for example. These days, if I want to play D&D I run Basic. The combats we had using Red Box were way more fast-paced, exciting, and tactically interesting than our 4E combats. But I'm not really an OSR guy, either--the old editions have a lot of design features that I consider, frankly, inelegant, and I always come up against them when I try to play the old editions. I know why they're there: because rules were tacked on piecemeal as the original players made things up as they went along.

That's fine, but I like simplicity and elegance, and I especially like rulesets that not only don't obstruct, but actually facilitate the kind of play I like, which is heavy on roleplaying and storytelling in addition to combat and exploration. In fact, what's really fun for me these days is the shared experience of co-creating a story (preferably one set in an awesome fantasy world).

My friends and I played a 4E campaign a while ago and I found that the preoccupation with powers left players thinking more about developing their builds than developing characters. Eventually it got to the point where I flat out had to tell a couple of the other guys, "I don't want to hear about your powers. I don't care." Interestingly, this problem didn't occur at all when we later (i.e. after that campaign collapsed) played In a Wicked Age. FWIW, after that first night of In a Wicked Age (which I GMed) everyone said it was the most fun night of gaming they'd ever had, and a couple of them were hardcore nerd/computer game dev/4E fans. Not the kind of people you'd expect to dig an artsy/indie/pretentious storytelling game.

Computer games are more than capable of delivering a satisfying exploration/combat experience. What tabletop RPGs can do, that nothing else can, is provide that shared, imaginative storytelling experience. With rules to facilitate that process, of course.

I've also found that now, at the ripe old age of 26, with a kid and in grad school, etc, I simply don't have the patience for complicated rules. Not as a player and even less as a DM. And I sure as hell don't have the patience to explain them to new players, who often these days aren't gamers or even nerds, necessarily (until they sit down at my table )

I understand the argument that WotC needs the complexity because they need to keep publishing supplements in order to survive. IMO, that is because their business model is flawed and not good for the game. 21st century D&D is bloated out of all proportion, especially 4th edition.

At the same time, people love the D&D brand, and it is so retro that it is almost cool. I used to be self-conscious about people knowing I played D&D, but now I make D&D jokes even in mainstream and indie/hipster type circles and someone always laughs. I walked into the hipster coffee shop I always go to yesterday and the barista was wearing a Red Box t-shirt from ThinkGeek.com.

If I owned the game, I'd create a one-box or one-book new edition, something of a bastard lovechild of Basic/1E, 3.0, and Narrativist goodness (think 3E without skills or feats, just ability checks vs DC, action points, and some mechanics designed to facilitate improvisation and player influence on story), slap a retro cover on it, get it in mainstream outlets like Barnes & Noble and market the crap out of it in all the places WotC never would. I wouldn't make more than half a dozen supplements. Ever. I'd just focus on selling as many copies of the core game as possible.

You may say that wouldn't be viable, but then again in my fantasy I don't have to worry about paying all those employees I wouldn't need (no splatbooks for them to write) or about making money for Hasbro.

Hmm, who else can I offend...

Anyway, people, remember this is all just my biased opinion and subjective fantasy etc. YMMV.

 

[Argyle King]

I think the idea of a more modular game is good. That's pretty much exactly how the folks over at SJ Games built their game - simple core mechanic; later suppliments build off of what is already established in the core.


As for D&D, I'm not sure where I am personally at right now. As I've said in past threads, I have a very love/hate relationship with 4E. There are many things they did with the game that I ike and that make it so that I don't think I could go back to 3rd Edition; however, the few things that I dislike, I really really really (really and so on...) dislike - to the extent that I credit 4E for prompting me to look outside of D&D for my rpg fix.

I still play in a regular 4E game, and I do enjoy it. However, I also find that I get burned out on it quickly. For some reason I can't seem to stay interested in a 4E character for very long. I can't quite place my finger on what causes it, but I'll play 2-3 sessions, and then get the urge to try a different character. I can't seem to lose myself in the game like I did before. I thought Essentials might suck me back in, but I think they've actually moved D&D away from me even more.

 

[enpeze66]

Excellent post, Blackwind. I always thought the "defenders" of complex rule sets are usually members of younger generation (15-30y) because they often have no kids, family obligations, a lot of spare time to learn rules and used to video games and CCGs. But posts like yours show that I am possibly wrong in that assessment and that it is not a issue of generation. Finally it gives some hope that someday WotC will give up their unfortunate design decisions of the past decade and produce an simple edition with only a few pages of rules for normal players which dont have the intention to spend a whole week of their free time for just reading a paper mountain of ridiculous rpg rules .

In short: Worlds leading rpg 5th edition should return to its focus on roleplaying, setting design and good adventures again.

 

[enpeze66]

As for D&D, I'm not sure where I am personally at right now. As I've said in past threads, I have a very love/hate relationship with 4E. There are many things they did with the game that I ike and that make it so that I don't think I could go back to 3rd Edition; however, the few things that I dislike, I really really really (really and so on...) dislike - to the extent that I credit 4E for prompting me to look outside of D&D for my rpg fix.

I still play in a regular 4E game, and I do enjoy it. However, I also find that I get burned out on it quickly. For some reason I can't seem to stay interested in a 4E character for very long. I can't quite place my finger on what causes it, but I'll play 2-3 sessions, and then get the urge to try a different character. I can't seem to lose myself in the game like I did before. I thought Essentials might suck me back in, but I think they've actually moved D&D away from me even more.

IMO the problem you (and many others) are suffering is that the new editions of D&D are mostly about rules and not roleplaying anymore. (you all remember - roleplaying: playing in a mostly logical persistent world and acting like your character would do)

Current rules are so complex that you have to focus on them, so they are damaging the immersion of older editions like 1st or BEMC where it was more important to act in-role in order to have a good rpg experience than to skim through a massive rule book for another +1.

Last week I played an old BEMC module (Isle of Dread) and it was refreshingly easy going without all this heavy rule mongering. We had only one smaller 10min combat and the rest was conversation and acting in-role without having to look for any rules. We all were fondly remembered to all the great sessions we had in the 80ties and the session perfectly showed what is wrong with the newer editions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IMO the problem you (and many others) are suffering is that the new editions of D&D are mostly about rules and not roleplaying anymore. (you all remember - roleplaying: playing in a mostly logical persistent world and acting like your character would do)

Current rules are so complex that you have to focus on them, so they are damaging the immersion of older editions like 1st or BEMC where it was more important to act in-role in order to have a good rpg experience than to skim through a massive rule book for another +1.

And IMNSHO, current rules are actually simpler than they ever were for AD&D. I can not remember the last time I was DMing and needed to crack open any book other than the monster manuals other than at level up. Which isn't the case for older editions as soon as you get a spellcaster involved. Modern math is simple; it doesn't require lookup tables (1e), arbitrary subtraction (2E/THAC0), or have negative AC meaning that it's simpler to evaluate. There are no numbers not on your sheet you need to worry about (2e NADs - what don't you have?) and everyone is assumed to have basic competence all round. The skill system is the same for everyone (d20 + skill - none of this thieves roll percentages, sometimes you roll under your attribute...)

In short, 4e is in play the simplest D&D system since BECMI although the power system is more of a conceptual leap than previous systems have had. 3e core actually simplified from 2e core (cutting down the saves to three that made sense, making ability score bonusses less arbitrary, a much more intuitive weapon attack system, skills that were less arbitrary). Unfortunately they then used this simplicity as a foundation to pile as much as they could on top.

Last week I played an old BEMC module (Isle of Dread) and it was refreshingly easy going without all this heavy rule mongering. We had only one smaller 10min combat and the rest was conversation and acting in-role without having to look for any rules. We all were fondly remembered to all the great sessions we had in the 80ties and the session perfectly showed what is wrong with the newer editions.

Other than the combat length (and if you're going to die I'd rather you had time to at least try and escape and some control over the situation), that sounds like my 4e games - with the occasional D20 roll to keep track thrown in.

 

[pemerton]

Computer games are more than capable of delivering a satisfying exploration/combat experience. What tabletop RPGs can do, that nothing else can, is provide that shared, imaginative storytelling experience. With rules to facilitate that process, of course.

<snip>

I understand the argument that WotC needs the complexity because they need to keep publishing supplements in order to survive. IMO, that is because their business model is flawed and not good for the game. 21st century D&D is bloated out of all proportion, especially 4th edition.

<snip>

If I owned the game, I'd create a one-box or one-book new edition, something of a bastard lovechild of Basic/1E, 3.0, and Narrativist goodness (think 3E without skills or feats, just ability checks vs DC, action points, and some mechanics designed to facilitate improvisation and player influence on story

I don't agree with all of this, but I agree with a lot of it.

I think your point about combat and exploration, and about the alternative that tabletop RPGing offers, is especially good. As it happens, I think that 4e does offer some of what you are looking for as an alternative - improv-facilitaing mechanics and narrativist goodness - although obviously it also has some of the features you identify as bloat. I wish that WotC, in its marketing of 4e, its adventure design, etc, had tried harder to pitch 4e in the way that you describe, instead of releasing adventures and talking about the game in a way that presents almost a caricature of it as a combat-and-exploration game.