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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sometimes the couple hours of play that such a set provides isn't enough to hook someone with a casual interest. A basic game that doesn't require hours of study and is replayable might get played with enough to cause one member of the casual group to become curious enough to see what all those books are about.

So ... Castle Ravenloft / Ashardalon, then?

 

[Thunderfoot]

This game has already been invented: Castles & Crusades.

And while I like the game, it is also complex in a way because the rules read like it was written by someone with a learning disability. Interpreting the rules because they are written in a clunky English-like language is enough to put some people off right out of the gate.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think the real question is not how long it takes to make up a character, but how much reading you need to do before you can do so. Even in essentials, supposedly an into book, there are 79 pages before the first class appears. Sure, some of that is rules, and some fluff, but still, 79 pages?

A good into game is a must, and it must be the real rules, just really really simplified.

 

[Lanefan]

I therefore dispute any claim that 21st Century D&D is more complicated as opposed to more complex than AD&D. The big enabler of the house rule in AD&D was the sheer level of complication - to the point that any sane group started by throwing out rules (weapon vs armour type being an obvious one) in order to preserve their sanity. The biggest enabler of house rules was that people were already houseruling in order to make AD&D playable, even if only to ignore rules right there in the PHB.

No, the biggest enabler of house rules in 1e was the fact that the rules as written were specifically presented as guidelines - a framework, rather than the be-all and end-all - with the intent that each DM would likely end up messing with them to arrive at the game she wanted to run.

In other words, the system itself not only enabled house rules but encouraged them. And yes, the result tended to be a slight simplification of the system - many groups including ours threw out weapon-vs.-armour type, weapon speed, and so forth - but each group ended up with what was a playable and enjoyable game for them.

So it didn't seem like a jump. 3.x and even more so 4e can be played straight out of the box. Which makes houseruling a mental hurdle.

3e-4e are presented as hard and fast rules rather than guidelines; couple that with the much-decreased modularity so well highlighted by Plane Sailing and house-ruling becomes the worst kind of female dog.

The Gygax design kinda said "here's the basics, we don't have many inherent expectations as to how you'll play it, we hope you have fun."
The modern design says "here's the whole game, here's how we expect you to play it, have fun or else."

Lan-"in all cases I'm referring to core only; splats are another issue entirely"-efan

 

[Stormonu]

Seriously, we need a basic D&D, not the Red Box "introduction" that WotC put out.

Basic, but modern. AC goes up, three saves. But dump the powers except for the Wizard and Cleric. Don't try and make it compatible with 4E, just "close enough". And make it something that doesn't try to force you to go to 4E, but is comfortable and confident enough in its own usability that you can have hours - if not weeks, months or years - of fun with it by itself. Done well, more likely than not they'll pick up the "full" game on their own. Its certainly how I wandered from B/X to AD&D and beyond (picking up the likes of Star Frontiers, TSR Marvel and such).

 

[pemerton]

I agree that complication is a factor - I couldn't imagine a new gamer picking up 4e, for example (in either PHB or Essentials form). And if I had to introduce a new RPGer, I would definitely build that person's PC, using their descriptions of a fantasy flavoured paragraph to guide my mechanical decision-making.

But I also think that Hussar has a very good point. 20 to 30 years ago, RPGs were a good way to experience the thrill of a first-person adventure game with combat and exploration elements. Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks flourished around the same time. But who, now, would pick up a FFG rather than a computer game? (Well, I would, because I don't play computer games, but I think that puts me in a pretty atypical category.)

For me, the main thing that RPGs offer is the opportunity of moving beyond merely exploratory play, and playing a game where the participants can actively build a world and shape a story that says something that they want to say. But as I said on this thread, with 4e WotC have built a game that offers this opportunity only to those who also love the rules crunch of RPGs like Runequest or Rolemaster, or of CCGs. As Pawsplay wittily retorted, it's as if WotC were trying to recruit Mearls himself.

I wonder how a mechanically completely different RPG, like HeroWars/Quest, would do if it had the brand recognition and market power of a company like WotC? Are there players out there for a non-exploration rules-light RPG? Maybe. Or maybe RPGs, like FFGs, really are a lingering relic of a pre-computer age.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So ... Castle Ravenloft / Ashardalon, then?

I'm not familliar with these. Are they boardgames or rpgs? Can you create a character and design your own adventures with these?

 

[Ourph]

I don't buy it. I houseruled the crud out of my 3e game and didn't spend hours (or even minutes) agonizing over how each rules tweak was going to affect the balance of the game. Our games never exploded or left a wake of dead bodies in the FLGS.

Likewise, I've tried introducing various changes to my 4e games. Notably, tweaking the way PCs earn Action Points and Experience (i.e. two fairly major changes to the core of the game) and haven't experienced any problems at all.

Are 3e and 4e more complicated than earlier editions? Sure. I totally agree on the plethora of modifiers making the game unwieldy at times. I wish WotC would stop making feats that grant situational bonuses or powers that give one-round bonuses or penalties. But I feel (and have felt since the edition wars of 2000) that the "so complex that you can't houserule it or it will fall apart like a house of cards" meme is just as silly and untrue as the "all Fighters were mechanically identical" or "only Thieves could hear noises" memes for 1e.

 

[billd91]

So ... Castle Ravenloft / Ashardalon, then?

They might prime the pump a little bit like the old fantasy miniature war games prompted Arneson and his friends to start playing the figures as individual characters. But I'd be concerned that it sets the expectations for D&D and RPGs at a very low level - to be a table-top miniature skirmish game. That's why I think a role-playing based introductory game is an important niche that the Castle Ravenloft board game can't really fill.

 

[NewJeffCT]

See my point above - it is easier to pay a simplified version of 20c D&D than it is 21c D&D.

I think you're correct on that to a point. However, in 20C D&D, the campaign typically went from level 1 to "name" level, around level 9 or 10. With 3E/3.5, the game was doubling the level range to 18-20 at the end of a campaign. With the additional levels, there are additional complications. When I ran games in 20C D&D, using those high level wizard & cleric spells almost never happened, as it never came up... Time Stop, Wish, Limited Wish, Meteor Swarm, Otto's Irresistable Dance, Delayed Blast Fireball. Things like Raise Dead & Resurrection were done by NPC clerics once you gave a sizeable donation to their church.

I think if the game ran from level 1-9 or 10 might even be easier in 3E/3.5E Core Rules than it was in earlier editions because the d20 system, streamlined saves and logical multiclassing is more intuitive than the previous methodology. (excepting the old Basic, of course) After you get into those higher levels in 3E and start having players casting or being subjected to Raise Dead/Slay Living, Heal/Harm, Resurrection, Cloudkill, Mass Bull's Strength, Mass Fox's Cunning, etc, then things start getting more and more complex.

I don't know 4E well enough yet to comment on 4E and its complexity at higher levels.