I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Oni]

Maybe its just me, but I've never been able to create a 2E or 3E character in just 10 or 15 minutes. Not that that's not fun once in a while too.

I've been going back and rereading 2e recently. I have a hard time seeing how you couldn't whip up a character in no time flat as long as your not dragging in a bunch of stuff from supplements. I guess it might be cumbersome if you drag in all the optional rules that are presented in the core rules, but all that stuff is optional, even weapon and non-weapon proficiencies are clearly optional by the book. If you set all the toggles to simple, 2e seems like a pretty darn sleek game, and if Osric is any indication, possibly sleeker than 1e (I'm no expert on 1e or Osric so take that with whatever grain of salt you think it deserves).

 

[tyrlaan]

But more simplicity tends to reduce diversity. Therein lies the dilemma I struggle with. How much simplicity vs how much diveristy do you want?

 

[ExploderWizard]

let's ignore the DM side of business for a bit.

What does simplicity get a player?

A fighter? That usually the standard newbie tool to teach them the game.

A fighter at its simplest ruleset was:
know how to add up your attack roll with modifiers
know how to calculate your AC
know how to roll damage when you hit
know how to subtract damage from you HP
know how to do saving throws

At higher levels, depending on the rules, you could get multiple attacks.

What sucks about that is that once you got it down, it gets old. Thats why other classes were made, and why other classes can be percieved as more powerul. They are also more complex. Because they can do all the basic stuff, and a lot more.

D&D was traditionally played by smart people, college kids. They get the basics down pretty quickly. From there, they are going to desire more complexity, to keep it fun for them. To give them stuff to think about.


Thats why it isn't simple.

To that I say that it only gets as old and stale as the actual adventures that are run. Oodles of fiddly mechanical differences can likewise entertain and keep things fresh for a certain duration. Once the new shinies are known and used you are back to the same level of boredom as before yet saddled with complexity that no longer provides anything but extra work.

But more simplicity tends to reduce diversity. Therein lies the dilemma I struggle with. How much simplicity vs how much diveristy do you want?

Diversity usually manifests itself as hyper specialization. I have no problem making up diverse characters that are mechanically close to identical.
Hyper specialized characters easily become one trick ponies that become boring much faster than a simpler, more broadly focused character. Complexity and diversity can come from actual gameplay, it doesn't have to be encoded into the rules.

 

[Bullgrit]

Maybe its just me, but I've never been able to create a 2E or 3E character in just 10 or 15 minutes. Not that that's not fun once in a while too.

I'm assuming the character being created is 1st level, and we're talking about just the core rules. I made a D&D3 9th-level PC cleric (including equipment, but sans daily spells) in 15 minutes. I made a D&D3 20th-level PC monk (including equipment) in 30 minutes -- min/maxed in detail for a gladiatorial tournament. I've made dozens and dozens of NPCs, each only taking a few minutes.

Just off the top of my head, I'd say a 1st-level PC can be made in 10-15 minutes. Add another minute for each level above 1st.

I've watched people create D&D3 characters, and what I see is a lot of time and effort put into picking the exact perfect combination of feats, skills, spells, and equipment. You don't *have* to put that much time and effort into those choices.

The only new choices in D&D3 from AD&D1 are feats and skills. The only new choices in D&D3 from AD&D2 is feats. And really, how long does it take to choose a couple of feats?

Now, if the OP is talking about making up a 20th-level PC using all published suppliment books, then all bets are off.

Bullgrit

 

[Grimstaff]

I've been going back and rereading 2e recently... even weapon and non-weapon proficiencies are clearly optional by the book.

Nope, not optional, unless you mean in a "rule 0" sense.

 

[Clavis]

I suggest the OP look into Castles & Crusades. It fulfills all of his criteria, and is 90-95% compatible with ALL pre-4th editions of D&D. I currently run both Classic RC games and C&C games, and C&C can run even faster than Classic (and Classic runs many times faster than 4th Edition), C&C takes the idea of a unified mechanic (the best part of 3rd edition), and applies it in a way that actually speeds up game play, rather than bogs it down (the way 3rd edition made combat crawl). Gygax himself endorsed C&C, and starting writing up his version of "Castle Zagyg" for it. The biggest advantage is that C&C is that it is still in print and actively supported.
On the other hand, the Rules Cyclopedia (if you can track one down) is the most complete version of D&D ever published. While the basic system is quick and light, it includes some very crunchy optional rules (i.e. Weapon Mastery) for those who are so inclined. Of course Rules Cyclopedias in decent shape can be very expensive... because they're worth it.
The simulacrum of Classic is Labyrinth Lord, so if you can't get your hands on a RC, try that. Of course, it doesn't include the mass combat rules, optional weapon mastery rules, paths to immortality, rules for running dominions, or many of the other things that made the RC the single version of D&D.

 

[malraux]

Even if I could create a character exclusively on a piece of paper, I wouldn't want to. My handwriting is so poor that I have to print it to be able to read it.

 

[Oni]

Nope, not optional, unless you mean in a "rule 0" sense.

I'm looking at the 2e PHB as I type this, the heading for chapter 5 reads as the following.

Chapter 5: Proficiencies (Optional)

I'd say that's pretty conclusive.

 

[Grimstaff]

I'm assuming the character being created is 1st level, and we're talking about just the core rules. I made a D&D3 9th-level PC cleric (including equipment, but sans daily spells) in 15 minutes. I made a D&D3 20th-level PC monk (including equipment) in 30 minutes -- min/maxed in detail for a gladiatorial tournament. I've made dozens and dozens of NPCs, each only taking a few minutes.

Just off the top of my head, I'd say a 1st-level PC can be made in 10-15 minutes. Add another minute for each level above 1st.

I've watched people create D&D3 characters, and what I see is a lot of time and effort put into picking the exact perfect combination of feats, skills, spells, and equipment. You don't *have* to put that much time and effort into those choices.

The only new choices in D&D3 from AD&D1 are feats and skills. The only new choices in D&D3 from AD&D2 is feats. And really, how long does it take to choose a couple of feats?

Now, if the OP is talking about making up a 20th-level PC using all published suppliment books, then all bets are off.

Bullgrit

I suppose that, yes, if one were sufficiently motivated one could whip out a 3E character in 5-10 minutes flat, just by jotting down stuff as fast as possible with no consideration for skill point allotment, synergies, feats, and so on, but that's kind of like a hot dog eating contest: not the way you do it when you really want to enjoy it. Not to mention this would require a pretty thorough knowledge of the system; no new 3E initiate is going to be creating characters that fast.

Conversely, I suppose one could even spend a couple of hours creating a B/X fighter, if one were so inclined.

However, I imagine OP's point is more with an eye toward "average" character generation time.

 

[delericho]

Nope, not optional, unless you mean in a "rule 0" sense.

This is incorrect. The 2nd Edition Player's Handbook marked the entire Proficiencies chapter as being optional, and then marked the non-weapon proficiencies as being extra optional. (In fact, it provided at least two different ways of handling non-weapon skills.)

(They may have removed this when the reprinted the books with the black covers.)

Edit: If you were using the character kits from the "Complete X Handbooks", these assumed you were using either proficiencies or secondary skills. And the "Player's Option" material made NWPs non-optional. However, in the core rules, they were definately marked as such.