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

[MichaelSomething]

If you're looking for a rules light game, it doesn't get lighter then Microlite D20.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I have the book and have skimmed through it a bit but not read it in-depth. I'll check it out.

If you decide to give it a brief whirl, I recommend starting characters between 3rd and 5th level, and playing only with AE. It will mix into 3E or 3.5 without breaking them, but you won't get the "cleanup" effect where AE carefully leaves things out.

That's not what I'm talking about at all, but rather making a simpler, core game that allows for modular "attachments" that are all optional. I've used the analogy of Basic and Advanced D&D, but imagine if they could be used interchangeably. I think this is a bit what they were going for with Essentials but it wasn't simple enough, imo.

So the "padding" would still be there, it would just be optional. It is now to an extent, but the problem is that the simple core to 4E is mixed in with everything else. It is hard to separate out the signal from the noise.

I gathered, but I guess one of my criticisms of Essentials and other such efforts (all of them since RC), is that trying to keep that padding option as an option is a big reason why it fails. If you design for the padding, then not including it in the core set (whatever defines that set) leaves gaps.

The 4E skill system is a good example of doing it the right way. Whatever its other merits or flaws, it is a closed system. Other products do not even think about adding skills, except perhaps with things that are largely out of the scope of the base skills. That is, people talk about adding crafting skills, but no one wants to put something in that steals a little thunder from Sneak and Thievery.

A well designed set of feats and powers will necessarily have that same (mostly) closed nature. That doesn't mean you can't have a few new feats and powers. If your closed set doesn't address, say, magic item creation at all, then you could come out with a supplement that did. But you can't keep tacking on feats that let dragonborn longsword wielding fighters do X, Y, and Z. Either you had a few feats that covered being uniquely dragonborn or uniquely a fighter with a longsword--or you didn't. If you did in the well designed set, then they covered that scope.

 

[enpeze66]

Well it seems that MM has at least recognized the main problem which P&P rpgs are suffering today. The question is if he is ready to take the necessary actions in order to simplify the game? (maybe in the next edition?)

Here the link.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Incredible, Expanding Gamer Brain)

 

[OSEZNO]

Well it seems that MM has at least recognized the main problem which P&P rpgs are suffering today. The question is if he is ready to take the necessary actions in order to simplify the game? (maybe in the next edition?)

Here the link.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Incredible, Expanding Gamer Brain)

I don't think he quite recognized or posed it as a problem.

Moreover, it's a game. Simple games might be fun for simple people, but they provide little interest for others. Older editions are still viable and simple, there is no reason to continue to put out simple(r) editions. And, I would also remark, that if oversimplified you risk removing the game from RPG completely and are left with what is merely roleplaying. Which is fine, but different.

A well designed set of feats and powers will necessarily have that same (mostly) closed nature. That doesn't mean you can't have a few new feats and powers. If your closed set doesn't address, say, magic item creation at all, then you could come out with a supplement that did. But you can't keep tacking on feats that let dragonborn longsword wielding fighters do X, Y, and Z. Either you had a few feats that covered being uniquely dragonborn or uniquely a fighter with a longsword--or you didn't. If you did in the well designed set, then they covered that scope.

I don't disagee with this, but in a market that seeks to make money, failing to continually produce supplements is (for the most part) a failure to produce continual profit, so while it may be in the players' interest and the interest of making a good, solid game, it doesn't really seem to fit with any of WotC business model.

 

[enpeze66]

I don't think he quite recognized or posed it as a problem.

Moreover, it's a game. Simple games might be fun for simple people, but they provide little interest for others. Older editions are still viable and simple, there is no reason to continue to put out simple(r) editions.

Well, as it has been explained several times in this thread, by (as you would say) us "simple" people, there is of course a reason to put out simpler editions, if you like or not. I dont repeat these arguments now, but feel free to skim through the thread to learn them.

Now as it is the second WotC article about a simplification in some weeks with included polls and also regarding the fact that MM as chief of WotC R&D is playing simpler game versions (privately he plays AD&D) its not far to assume that he is checking out the ground for a change to a simpler and more casual friendly 5th edition D&D version. Even as non-casual, I would like this of course. If you dont, thats not my problem. WotC will decide the question soon enough.

 

[Zhaleskra]

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.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well it seems that MM has at least recognized the main problem which P&P rpgs are suffering today. The question is if he is ready to take the necessary actions in order to simplify the game? (maybe in the next edition?)

Here the link.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Incredible, Expanding Gamer Brain)

If you started playing D&D back in 1974, you soon learned the basics of the character classes and perhaps gave each one a play. At some point, you’d start to hunger for more options. You probably also spotted a few areas where you thought a few new rules or changes would improve the game.

He's got it backwards, still. In an RPG, you decide what to do in any given situation and then the rules help to adjudicate the consequences. Looking first at what your "unit" is capable of doing then trying to manipulate the circumstances to allow your predetermined schtick to shine isn't what RPGs are about. The reason we didn't "Left, Left, Up, Right" in 1974 and so many years since isn't because the game had yet to be defined in those terms. We didn't do that because it is antithetical to RPGs.

 

[OSEZNO]

Well, as it has been explained several times in this thread, by (as you would say) us "simple" people, there is of course a reason to put out simpler editions.

Except there isn't. If, as you say later, "MM" still plays AD&D because it is 'simpler' than there is no reason to produce a (similarly) simple edition. That edition still exists. Maybe republish those books, but not to produce a new edition.

Its not far to assume that he is checking out the ground for a change to a simpler and more casual friendly 5th edition D&D version. Even as non-casual, I would like this of course. If you dont, thats not my problem. WotC will decide the question soon enough.

The poll on that page that had posted results (not the one that was asking questions) had a 70%/30% support for powers and feats that make fighters like 4E fighters. This, undoubtedly, supports the 4E "complicated" version of play.

Part of the problem may be a dichotomy in the player base. Those (older) players who play (older, "simpler") editions may be more drawn to the "roleplay" than the "game" and are probably less prone and comfortable with the "video game (sometimes called "WoW-ish")ness" of 4E. But I have found it to be much more relate-able amongst new players of my generation.

Though it may be complex, it is a complexity we are used to. All it needs is an "experienced" DM to guide them through some of the basics and then to corral them back from treating it merely as a game and as a roleplaying experience that works in combination with the game.

 

[Mark CMG]

Part of the problem may be a dichotomy in the player base. Those (older) players who play (older, "simpler") editions may be more drawn to the "roleplay" than the "game" and are probably less prone and comfortable with the "video game (sometimes called "WoW-ish")ness" of 4E. But I have found it to be much more relate-able amongst new players of my generation.

CRPGs are really just wargames where a computer handles the calculations and gives results. This isn't about age, at least not in my case, since I have been wargaming since some years before D&D came out in 1974. Your statements needed a response regarding the misconception but I won't dive down the rabbit hole of that false premise into a discussion of that nature.

 

[pawsplay]

Part of the problem may be a dichotomy in the player base. Those (older) players who play (older, "simpler") editions may be more drawn to the "roleplay" than the "game" and are probably less prone and comfortable with the "video game (sometimes called "WoW-ish")ness" of 4E. But I have found it to be much more relate-able amongst new players of my generation.

I'm gathering that you are young... perhaps too young to realize that twenty five years ago, many role-players were also fiendish video game players. Certainly, if an older generation rejected complex, video-game like play, it's hard to understand the appeal of the Wizardry computer games, Pool of Radiance and the "gold box" series of games, Nethack and Rogue, and later, turn-of-the-millenium stuff like Diablo and Everquest, avidly played by people of my generation.