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

[Mercurius]

First, some clarification: by "21st century D&D" I mean 3E and later, including 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder, which I will collectively call 21c D&D. What is the problem with it? Well, I think it is simply that it is too complex. Or rather, it is too complicated.

OK, there are a few things to explain here. First, let me differentiate between complex and complicated. I would say that a game can be both simple and complex, but not simple and complicated. Complexity is the nature of reality - it is multiplicity, diversity, and choice. Complications are stressful, unbalanced, with numerous unnecessarily parts. An unbalanced, awkward, and overly rules-heavy game system is too complicated. A balanced, sophisticated and detailed game system is complex. Nature is complex, bureaucracy is complicated.

21c D&D is supposed to be complex but it has become complicated, not just through endless splats and rules options, but more than anything (imo) through the countless modifiers, conditions and adjustments that come through feats and powers (including spells). This is why it is virtually impossible for anyone but a very knowledgeable D&D player to create a high level character from scratch and play it without looking up rules for every action.

Don't get me wrong, I like some crunch. I think 4E combat, which is arguably more complicated than 3.5 combat, is the funnest version of D&D combat yet. There are more options, it is more tactical, and overall more satisfying in that it isn't just a slugfest that is predetermined (at least until about halfway in, but that's another discussion); the choices of the PCs actually matter - it isn't just up to stats and luck via dice rolls. I also think that 3.5 character creation and development has much to offer - it is, perhaps, the pinnacle of detailed character design and play in the D&D tradition.

But it is all a bit too much, imo, at least for anyone who prefers a slimmer, less crunchy version of D&D. Not only because both rules sets (3.x/Pathfinder and 4E) cater mainly to people who like crunch-heavy games, but because it has crippled one of the most crucial aspects of the D&D legacy: the House Rule.

OK, before you get into a tizzy and say "I've been playing 3.5 or 4E for years and have tons of house rules!!!" let me explain. 21c D&D has so many rules, so many intertwined options and modifiers that it is virtually impossible to create a house rule without effecting something else. An image that comes to mind is pick-up-sticks, where you try to pull out a stick from a pile without moving any other sticks. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes hard. But I think it is safe to say that it is much harder in 21c D&D than in 20c D&D (I'm sure some will disagree, but this is my initial post so I can say what I want for now ).

The result of this difficulty is that people are forced to either create foolproof house rules that consider every possible effect they might have, or just buy into the RAW, which leaves many playing a version of D&D that isn't customized to their preference.

As I see it, the designers of 3E thought, "Wow, the core rule set is so simple, so elegant, that we can slap on an endless number of modifiers and conditions and it won't get too complicated!" Wrong. It happened, in both 3.x and 4E. Furthermore, it created a situation whereby because of the simplicity of the core rule set, the designers of 3.x and 4E decided that they could include a rule for everything - all you had to do was look it up and make the necessary adjustments to the d20 roll. Sounds simple, right? Well, it didn't work out that way.

Maybe this is just fine - each edition is what it is and everyone has the right to play what they want to play (and how to play it). But that is a bit naive, imo. Why? Because all versions of 21c D&D present a rules package that is a bit daunting to the newbie. The best way to learn to play D&D is the same as it has ever been: play with people who know the game and learn as you go. But I would guess that this is more daunting than it has ever been. Furthermore, there remains the problem that hasn't been solved for decades of a good starter set.

For some time now I've been advocating what I would call a "modular approach" to D&D. Obviously it is too late for 4E, but if and when the good folks at WotC start thinking about 5E, I would hope they take this sort of approach to design. A modular approach would provide a much simpler basic, core game. Splat books would all be optional and would be designed to be added to a game as desired; even different PCs in the same campaign could have more or less detail in their character without either approach (basic or advanced) being more powerful or at an advantage or disadvantage. It would be a matter of player (and DM) choice: want simple skills? Easy - just use your ability scores with some kind of level and class adjustment. Want more detailed skills? No problem - just add skills, either groups like Athletics and/or specialties like Jump.

The same approach would work well for feats. Want a simple character? Do away with feats and have better class features and builds. Want feats? Sure - they could be modifications and specialties off of class features.

And so on. Best of all, a simple, core game would better allow for house ruling - you just paste it onto the core game and, voila, a house rule. The Pick-Up-Sticks Problem (PUSP) isn't as much of a problem because there aren't as many sticks.

OK, unleash the dogs...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree totally on the concept of a simple core game. Complexity and additional complication are much easier to add then to try and remove or change once in place.

 

[MinistryOfGame]

My knowledge of constant stream of 4E stuff is limited... but isn't D&D Essentials meant to be a starter set? Or perhaps the board game Castle Ravenloft?

Apart from that, though, I agree with you for a lot of what you say. Complex games are fun, complicated games are tiresome. I love my 2E, and I've got to say that when my players go up a level, and I tell them, "Thac0 down, HP up, get a non-weapon proficiency, and you're done" (depending on the level of course), that's a great feeling of efficiency.

Whereas in the 4E game I play in, levels take ages, as people scour over tomes looking for feats or powers, comparing every one against every other one etc. I found 3E similar. I don't really like the Pathfinder concept of 'dead levels' - in my game, that's every level!

The thing is, of course, that my games are still complex - you can do anything in my 2E game that you can do in a 4E game or a 3.5E game. It's just not hard-coded into the rules. It's house-ruled, as you say - either on the spot, or in a more permanent form. That gives players a lot of flexibility for creativity, without having to flip pages to find out whether a restrained character grants combat advantage, or whatever (not that you can't just make snap judgments in any edition - but when the rules for it are in a book, people can get all pedantic about it, and enforcing DM fiat can be more painful).

 

[NewJeffCT]

Part of the problem with your argument, however, is that 2E is pretty complex when you added in non-core books - skills & powers, kits, Complete Books of everything and so on & so forth. If you stick with just the core rules for 3E or 3.5E, the game remains nearly as simple as 2E core rules.

1E was simpler in a lot of respects, but was also horribly balanced and had odd complexities like weapon vs AC tables.

the main difference between 1E/2E was that they were pretty compatible with one another - the stats from one edition were pretty portable either way. And, a lot of people like me grew up playing D&D, so knew the rules backwards & forwards because we had played essentially the same game from the late 70s or early 80s through 2000 when 3E came out. Playing the game was so easy because we practically knew the PHB, DMG and MM by heart. Everybody just knew what to do.

3E was not nearly as backwards-compatible as 2E was with 1E... and 4E is a whole new animal in regards to being backwards-compatible.

Because the edition lifespans are now shorter, it makes it almost impossible to become a rules-master in the 3 1/2 years of 3E and 3 1/2 years of 3.5E, and now with 4E. Nobody out there is walking around with 15-20 years experience playing 3.5 or 4E and knowing the rulebooks by heart. Sure, maybe a few people know the rules by heart, but in my last 3.5E campaign, we had a guy in our group who edited d20 rulebooks and we still had rules questions every session because there were things that came up that nobody knew for sure. And, nobody was as much of an expert on 3.5E and sometimes we just didn't know what to do.

 

[MinistryOfGame]

Part of the problem with your argument, however, is that 2E is pretty complex when you added in non-core books - skills & powers, kits, Complete Books of everything and so on & so forth. If you stick with just the core rules for 3E or 3.5E, the game remains nearly as simple as 2E core rules.

True, but the difference with all those books (and even rules like weapon vs AC tables) was that they were generally listed as 'optional rules'. That is, the books would actually have them in a different coloured box with the heading 'optional rule', or say in black and white in the book "Ask your DM before you use anything in this book". Psionics is the classic example - it was never in a core rulebook until 4E (because I don't think you can call PHB3 an 'optional rulebook' per se - although I must admit I haven't read it thoroughly, and it may have a "you don't need this to play" bit in it), and you could always just ignore it.

Nobody out there is walking around with 15-20 years experience playing 3.5 or 4E and knowing the rulebooks by heart.

This is definitely true, and a very valid point. But the 2E game I'm running currently has one person in it who is a D&D veteran - all the others are RPG newbies more or less, and yet are doing fantastically.

 

[pawsplay]

3e is no no way too complicated. The case can be made that the core books are too information heavy simply by dint of being so exhaustive.

4e is probably not more complicated, but looks somewhat harder to reduce. My understanding, however, is that the Essentials line has made a credible attempt at breaking it down into bite-sized pieces.

 

[GreyLord]

I would tend to agree the systems are TOO complicated for a general audience these days.

When AD&D was actually played by everyone and their dog for those two or three years way back before many of the people here were born, and when I was much younger, MANY of the rules such as wpns vs. armor tables and such weren't actually used all that much. In essence, the game played was MUCH simpler. Because of that, it was EASY for Joe down the street to pick up the game, for Jill up the way to pick up the game, and Don the guy across the road to pick it up as well.

Simplification and streamlining is normally the way to appeal to a broader audience.

You have the same difficulties with Wargaming, or other games with complex rules. People take one look and throw up their arms and walk away. This is one reason Monopoly is so popular (and people don't even read half the rules with THAT game). It's simple and easy to learn. You take a very LIGHT step up...simply to Risk, and you suddenly have a LOT of people that think that game is too complex, too long, and too heavy for them to play or learn.

You get it shaved off even more with a game such as Axis and Allies or Acquire. Sure, they aren't the heaviest boardgames out there by FAR, in fact most big time boardgamers consider those games actually rather light in relation to other games...and yet that's about the limit where the general audience says...this is WAAAAY to complex. Even those games have a limited audience simply because they are more complex than Monopoly or Risk.

D&D the original was actually pretty simple at it's core...where it probably appealed to those who could play at the level of Axis and Allies...or maybe even Risk. They'd shave off a lot of rules (aka...houseruling, but many times simply because they didn't want to bother with such things as wpn initiative or wpn vs armor types...etc) and stick with a simpler type game...but when the fad was on, it wasn't a complex game that most were playing.

Now days, if you consider A&A or Acquire complex...you're going to simply faint when you see all the rules D&D has. It's not as easy to simply say...hey we're ignoring feats, skills and other items because of how closely integrated into the system they are.

It's good for the niche that it appeals to, but for the general audience (beyond the fact that the fad has been over for over 20 some odd years, going closer to 25 years) they are probably going to view someone who can grasp all that as someone who tends to be more into numbers, heavier rules, math, etc. (sometimes they may refer to that type of person with a sort of derogatory remark in regards to how smart they actually feel someone would have to be to actually comprehend all of the stuff in the D&D books of today).

In some ways, you DO have those who are rather inclined more towards a LOT of math, a LOT of number crunching, and who prefer rules heavy games with a lot of options as the main audience of the 21c D&D, as one would put it.

That can actually be a good thing for those types of people, as they now have a game more to their style of play, more to their desire for multitudes of options with game based rules, and more to their wishes in what they are looking for.

The downside is that the common Joe will probably never look twice at the game since they consider it too complex...unless they have a friend that somehow convinces them to play and introduces them to the game in a way that they understand...and then actually enjoy it and want to play some more.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare 21c D&D to earlier D&D though. Back in 1980, there were extremely few games (barring a few board games) that came anywhere near the complexity of AD&D.

Compare that to today. Many video games, particularly MMO's are probably every bit as complex as D&D. Everquest was many things, but simple wasn't one of them. Nor would anyone call Civ 4 a simple game. CCG's have shown that even young people can grok very complex interactions between rules and my students have built bewildering decks of madness out of Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon.

And, speaking of the little yellow beastie, there's a game that is hardly simple. Yet my six year old daughter is enjoying it on her mother's DS.

I think the people really underestimate the complexity of games out there that are quite popular. It isn't complexity that drives people away from RPG's. If it was, then games like The Sims or Civ Galaxy or whatnot wouldn't be doing so well. What drives people away from RPG's is two things:

1. Time sink. RPG's require too much time. I enjoy spending the time, you enjoy spending the time, but convincing someone that they'll enjoy spending hours and hours and more hours a week on a hobby that, from the outside, doesn't provide a whole lot more than what you can get in front of a computer screen is an uphill battle. ((Yes, I KNOW that's not true. There are all sorts of things that RPG's offer that MMO's don't, but, dude, you're preaching to the converted here.))

2. Options. There are just so many options for someone's free time that RPG's are facing a level of competition that was virtually unheard of thirty years ago. In 1980, what did you do on a Saturday afternoon? In my tiny hometown? Go outside and dig holes, watch one of the three channels we got on the TV (and no VCR) or play D&D. Today? There's a million and one things I can do that are all fun. The battle is convincing someone that it's more fun to play an RPG.

 

[billd91]

I think people are forgetting how complicated 1e and 2e could be and I have a theory why. 1e had some fairly complicated rules about shield use, facing, helmets, and that's all without getting into weapon vs armor type modifiers. 2e preserved a lot of those complexities, added a few more, relaxed others. But there's a major difference between 1e/2e and 3e. While 3e reduced the complexity of rules systems to the core d20 mechanic, it pushed other complexities out to the player with tons of build and tactical play options rather than left them on the DM's shoulders as they tended to be in 1e/2e. That shared the complexity burden, widening the impression that 3e (and now 4e) are much more complicated games, when they're really only moderately more complex in the long run.

I think the trend started with 2e in some ways. Remember the differences between the 1e and 2e rule books. In 1e, the combat section of the PH was not nearly as detailed with rules as the DMG. But in 2e, most of the combat sections were identical (which I think also increases the impression that the 2e DMG was a less essential source than its 1e counterpart). Players Option: Combat and Tactics pushed the game in the tactical player direction leading right to 3e's focus on tactical moves via feats.

There's no doubt. 3e and 4e can be startlingly complex when it comes to building characters. There's a lot of choices out there, not all of the implications of which are immediately apparent. These complexities, if the table isn't willing to pare down the sources, can be intimidating - hence, I think, you see a lot of people in later 3x days saying "Core only". But I think this is more about front-end complexity - complexity you encounter before you sit down to the action of playing than play complexity, which I don't think is as much more complex than 1e/2e complexity because of the standard mechanical structures.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think complexity is a Modern term. By that I mean it refers to quantity, math, and act of attempting to recognize patterns. Chess is complex, Tic-Tac-Toe is simple. But neither are complicated by your terms. Each has a fairly small number of rules to learn in order to play. Go may be the best example of game complexity with the shortest rules given their number and the total quantified game state (something like 1x10¹⁶⁰ power.)

Sophistication and complication, on the other hand, are more Postmodern terms, a understanding that there is no repetition or accurate understanding of our experiences.

I think what we are talking about is more in line with the first understanding, something akin to mathematical elegance. d20 has a high degree of complexity, but also a high elegance, 4E even more so. CCGs have this as well. Lots of complexity, low entrance requirements and learning curve.

What the earlier games attempted to do, IMHO, is retain all the skill compiled by the wargaming designers in both elegant and complex game design, while removing all the rules from sight. The DM or referee has these behind the screen in a sort of "fog of war" mechanic and the game is played with autonomy, though within the scope of the suggested social roles offered. At the table play does require a common understanding of what it means to engage with a simulated reality from an anthropomorphic POV, but it's also understood the people playing will be humans... relatively speaking*.

I think computer games are designed similarly as well. The code behind the screen, software coding in this case, can be extraordinarily complex, but game play is relatively easy. I think this is in part due to the controllers. Plus, there exists an upfront manual on how to use the controller or keyboard to effectively manipulate the game. By attempting realism with the graphical output, the intuitiveness of the software design enables easier use - at least in theory. "If it looks like a button, works like a button, it's a button" even if it's a mishmash of pixelated lights on a computer screen.

I think Bill91 has a good point about the changes in design over the decades. It hasn't been about removing complexity - I think it's all still there, if in different places - but about putting quantified options in front of the players, rather than behind a DM screen. Is it better? I see that as subjective. Is complexity necessary? Pragmatically no, postmodern storygames are as little as one page. Is elegance still a game design value? I think it is and recognizably so from the bigger names like Wizards and Paizo. But I believe the player learning curve has increased given the philosophical underpinnings of their designs. And so they feel more difficult, while not necessarily meaning the same thing as challenging.

*EDIT (I don't mean characters here, but the players themselves)