Why simpler - much simpler - is better

[delericho]

And I ask, again - how often is someone actually getting into the hobby without someone guiding them?

We don't know. Even WotC may well not know, since it's hard to track potential sales that were lost.

What I do know is that even for people who do have someone to guide them, the sheer size of the rules can be discouraging. I also know that it is trivially easy for a supplement to add complexity, but near impossible for one to remove it.

That suggests to me that a simpler, lighter entry route would be preferable. That way, the people who want light can get it, the people who want complex can get that, and everyone is happy-ish.

(Of course, the best method would be a really good Starter Set fully compatible with, and leading into, the 'real' game. But given that WotC have never managed that, and given that D&D hasn't had a good one for decades now, I wouldn't like to bet on them doing it right this time.)

 

[Umbran]

That suggests to me that a simpler, lighter entry route would be preferable.

I fully acknowledge that no one product will please everyone. A simpler, lighter entry route may be a good thing for some subset of potential players, but that subset needs to be of some minimum size before producing that entry route would make sense from either an overall design or from a business point of view.

Basically - that some such potential customers exist is not sufficient. There has to be a critical mass of them to make it profitable.

 

[delericho]

... that subset needs to be of some minimum size before producing that entry route would make sense from either an overall design or from a business point of view.

Not quite: WotC have to believe that adopting that strategy would gain them more sales than it loses for it to make sense from a business point of view.

I believe that doing so would gain them more sales; you appear to believe otherwise (though if I've misread you, I apologise). But neither of us can prove our points, or even give anything approaching real evidence. So, as I'm sure you know, all I'm really doing is giving a preference, and what poor reasons I have for that preference.

But, ultimately, it doesn't matter. What matters is what WotC believe. It will be interesting to see.

(Edit: I should probably note that the safe option is indeed to stick with the status quo, with the Big Three books, and 1,000ish pages of core rules. Though the safe option does seem to see the game in a long, slow decline, so maybe it's not that 'safe' after all.)

 

[Umbran]

I believe that doing so would gain them more sales; you appear to believe otherwise (though if I've misread you, I apologise).

As noted "more sales" is not itself sufficient. In order to be a good business choice, there should be evidence that it will generate more sales than other things they could spend the money/resources to develop. Make a profit, and overcome opportunity costs, basically.

I believe we don't have enough information, which would make the proposition "risky". Historical evidence seems to say the old model isn't really broken - 2e, 3e, and 4e all produced good sales numbers with just the big books. Fixing that which is not broken calls for some evidence beyond anecdotes that the other approach really is notably better.

I am not against the idea on principle - I am simply unconvinced of its practical value.

 

[Desdichado]

To a certain degree, RPGs are a matter of taste and personal preference.

Unfortunately for your thesis, that degree is so large that it overwhelms any other factor by a large margin.

That said, I mostly agree with you. I'm fairly sympathetic to your thesis (although not entirely. I like a character sheet, traditional dice, and monster books as a bare minimum, even as I find myself wandering further and further into really rules-lite interpretations of the game.)

But that's just because our taste and personal preference happen to align.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, my other hobbies include
[...]Hiking

All of which are free.

Not to jump on an (apparently) kindred spirit a second time, but hiking isn't likely to be free either, unless by hiking you mean walking around your neighborhood. I've got hundreds of dollars worth of hiking/backpacking gear, and I'm eyeing new boots (close to $200), a new lightweight pack (again, close to $200), a SteriPEN ($100) and a few other things before my big trip this summer, even though I'm a minimalist hiker, just as I'm a minimalist gamer.

And the cost of getting to the places I want to hike is not insignificant. Hundreds of bucks, even if I don't fly. I daresay... I've spent an order of magnitude more money on hiking as a hobby than I ever have on RPGs as a hobby.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There are different aspects of 'simple' to be considered in all of this. The rules of chess are fairly simple, but actual play can be very complex. Thats the beauty of a well designed game- to put the complexity into the parts of the game that are interesting and leaving them out of areas that would just be tedious.

I enjoy simplicity in rules that still allow for complexity in play. Simplicity, much like complexity, for its own sake isn't very useful. Tic-tac-toe is very simple but thats hardly a virtue because the game isn't that interesting.

In games powered by the imaginations of the participants, such as rpgs,maintaining simplicity in rules while allowing for complex play is one of the strengths of the medium. That was the lightning in a bottle that caught on like wildfire and spawned a new hobby.

The secret to maintaining that simplicity/complexity formula is to not make a rule unless it is needed, and to make sure the contributions of the game participants (contributions here being meaningful ideas and actions that are created in play) are central to the resolution of play. Complexity is therefore as prominent as the participants want to make it, and not tediously added by a non-participant such as a well meaning overzealous game designer.

 

[delericho]

As noted "more sales" is not itself sufficient. In order to be a good business choice, there should be evidence that it will generate more sales than other things they could spend the money/resources to develop. Make a profit, and overcome opportunity costs, basically.

I believe we don't have enough information, which would make the proposition "risky". Historical evidence seems to say the old model isn't really broken - 2e, 3e, and 4e all produced good sales numbers with just the big books. Fixing that which is not broken calls for some evidence beyond anecdotes that the other approach really is notably better.

I am not against the idea on principle - I am simply unconvinced of its practical value.

Fair points, on all counts. And "more sales" was definitely poor wording, for the reasons you give.

 

[Meatboy]

Simplicity is a double edged sword. Don't get me wrong I am all in favor of simple games, my current game is only a few pages of rules and works jus t fine, but simple games tend to lack staying power.. I like hooks upon which I can hang my imagination. It's daunting when 'you can attempt anything' is the premise of play. As both a player and DM a game needs enough rules to be engaging.

 

[JamesonCourage]

"To a degree?" Are you saying there's some sort of absolute measurable yardstick of RPG goodness that also exists?

There apparently is one for "fun", according to the OP (right around post 67):

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?336796-Percentile-Systems-Just-Say-No!/page7