Complexity as a Barrier to Playing Dungeons & Dragons

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Fair enough. I don't know that there is any particular point beyond I find this stuff interesting and I'm hoping that others might as well. I worked for a few years as a game designer in the video game industry, so I tend to spend far too much time thinking about these type of things.

Heh. No worries. I mean, I spend an awful lot of time thinking about this sort of stuff too; I don't have the luxury of claiming game designer status to justify it either. I'm just an involved hobbyist.

I mean, right now I'm working on an SRD project which I need to complete because it's the skeleton for a revised set of rules that is what I really want to do; parallel to that is another project focused on SRD monsters, a hack of a d12-based dicepool system, some thinking about a whole different system that relies on a d20 roll and degrees of success, as well as thinking some about japanese rpgs and what they're doing, and work on a couple of other projects that aren't far enough along for me to feel comfortable really talking about them.

I'm a huge believer in the idea "System matters". Game systems reward certain behaviours overtly and implicitly, so thinking about what it is you want out of a game and the setting you're pairing with it (whether it's a homebrew or commercial setting, completely independent of whether or not it's the system that actually came with the rules being used) is something that kicks around in my head quite a bit.

For example, if you want a "tactical" focused game that doesn't rely on miniatures (like D&D), there's "Fate" (used in Spirit of the Century and the Dresden Files rpg, among others) which is pretty tactical and focuses on getting your bonuses lined up.

Another one that's different from both is "Spellbound Kingdoms" which looks to be quite good for doing a "Thief"-styled game (as in the videogame series) or even Assassin's Creed perhaps. It's approach to tactical play is that there are weapon styles and the option you pick allows certain maneuvers; it includes sheets so it's easy to "slide" along the sheet and know what you can/can't do. Where the real trick comes in, is figuring out what your foe is going to do and either having a counter ready for it or trying to change things so that it plays to your character's strength.

This exercise primarily came about as a means of deciding which version of D&D to use for my current group

Ok, that's a decent enough premise. Not like you need my approval or anything, just saying it make sense to me.

I found that the exercise of writing down what each version of the game requires a new player to understand from the get-go to be very enlightening and useful in figuring out the right fit for my group. When I see the assumptions in writing, and the minimum amount of information that needs to appear on a character sheet, it paints a very clear picture for me.

Makes sense. I'm one of those folks that looks at a character sheet first; if it looks to complicated/messy or I can't figure out what's happening with a character by just looking at the sheet? I don't even bother picking up the game. *shrug* Some folks might not think that's fair, but it's how I roll these days.

One thing I find interesting is that almost no character sheets explicitly contain information on where to look for what they're referencing. For example, "Skills" doesn't say what page the skill descriptions start, or the various powers you slap down don't have a place to list where said power actually is in a book. I think that's a huge mistake, especially given the amount of things that need to be kept track of in something like D&D.

We've had endless discussions on these boards about the complexity of the different editions. I'm trying to narrow down that focus to what each edition expects from the player in order to be able to sit down and play with the most straightforward character types supported by the system. It's not necessarily the same thing as the complexity or number of rules in the system. It's the whole "easy to pick up and play, difficult to master" idea. Earlier editions were much more approachable, and the complexity tended to increase more gradually as you continued to play the game. Modern versions throw a lot more at you right from the start, which is likely to turn away many potential players.

Oooooook. I think I get what you're saying... it's that system mastery thing you're talking about, right? By which I mean, earlier editions were less complex in terms of:
1. The amount of rules overall
2. The difficulty in understanding the application of a particular rule
3. When new rules were introduced.

When 3.x hit the scene, there was a fundamental shift in design. First, a huge number of rules showed up. Second, while some of the amount of rules was geared towards trying to provide a tool _in case a GM wanted a specific rule instead of relying on their own understanding_, not all of the rules were geared for that. In fact, system mastery was explicitly introduced, relying on Magic as a source of inspiration for interacting/manipulating the rules at different levels of skill. And of course third, 3.x just dumps the whole thing in your lap and walks away, leaving you to sort it out. Later supplements might expand slightly or modify them, but there really is/was no option for increasing the complexity of the game as your experience with it grew.

I do tend to ramble.

At the very least, it was kind of fun spending a few minutes here and there putting this together. If other people find any of what I've written useful and interesting, then that's great. If nobody finds it interesting and I'm just sitting here replying to myself, then that's fine with me too. This exercise has helped me see my own preferences much more clearly.

Nah, that's fine. I tend to blog that way: a message in a bottle chucked out to sea and then waiting to see if anyone comes back.

One thing that I think would be interesting, would be to sit down with the BECMI books and rewrite 3.x that way. By which I mean, not as a single tome (which is what the Rules Cyclopedia was) but actually as a series of several books. Each one intended to cover not just levels, but additional rules as well. One thing that immediately occurs is how limited D&D is these days; previous editions had provisions for characters doing something more than killing and looting. The whole running a kingdom and trying to become a god. Now, it's just kill kill kill your way along and eventually you sort of stumble into godhood.

But that would be a fundamentally different design than what the majority of gamers are after: simple game with optional added complexity being introduced.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm of the view that a game needs both simplicity and complexity. Simplicity makes it easy to get into the game. Complexity keeps you engaged with the game.

One of the best examples of a game that is both simple and complex (IMO) is chess. You can learn how each of the pieces move in less than ten minutes. However, there are probably millions of ways to combine those moves into potentially viable strategies.

Excellent point.
Out of interest, I find myself looking more for added "elegant-complexity" and mechanical simulation rather than raw simplification under either basic mechanical or gamist principles. The need for a basic game to break through the complexity barrier is important for novices, but is quickly discarded once one becomes a veteran.

As the OP's posts point out, even a 1st-level character in 3e and especially 4e is fairly complex. And that complexity is probably needed to sustain continued interest in the game. However, what I think is missing is some way to break up that initial complexity into bite-sized chunks for a player that is just starting to get into the game, something like the introductory tutorials that most recent CRPGs have.

This reminds me though of a booklet to play magic the gathering. It was horrendous, even with a play by play walkthrough. Some games are better learnt by playing. An interactive tutorial or even just an educative youtube video would be useful. I think perhaps tackling the "problem" from an education point of view is just as cogent as relaxing the rules/decision/information density of a game.

For 4e, I have considered the idea of having a "Novice" level, where the PC just has access to at-will abilities, and an "Apprentice" level, where encounter abilities are introduced, before the character "graduates" to first level and gets access to his daily abilities.

I'm not as sure about this - I think the 4e designers got the number of powers pretty well right for novices - particularly if you print them onto cards. To me, powers gave you a good connection to what was happening or going to happen in the game. It is the periphery of opportunity attacks, the importance of key words and other minutiae less related to the action that would stop a novice in their tracks. At this point, I'm fascinated to see what Paizo does with their basic set.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I'm of the view that a game needs both simplicity and complexity. Simplicity makes it easy to get into the game. Complexity keeps you engaged with the game.

One of the best examples of a game that is both simple and complex (IMO) is chess.

Hmmm.

So first, I'd say that complexity keeps _some_ folks engaged in the game. Not everyone. Which is part of the problem; D&D caters to the hardcore crowd and the "casual" and/or beginner are basically told "you don't belong". What one of the top pieces of advice that I see handed out to people wanting to learn the game? Find someone else somewhere to teach them, because it's overwhelming/too much to try and do it completely cold from the books.

It's interesting you bring up chess. I think it's sort of illustrative of the problem. Chess is a complicated enough game actually. A bunch of pieces moving in different ways and then a few odd things like Castling and En Passant. I've known a few folks that played pretty high level chess and after a certain point it's... I'm sure folks would argue with this characterization, but it's sort of a rock/paper/scissors sort of thing. One player will go with a gambit and the other player will try to recognize the gambit and counter with one. It almost seems like it's not really about the "strategy" so much as it is about who's got the better mental database and how quickly they can access it.

D&D relies on a boardgamey/poor-wargame approach for a fair chunk of it's complexity. Chop out miniature-based play and the funky rules exceptions given to you by feats and you've got a much more streamlined game. "Simpler" in the context of this conversation.

And this is the problem that the OP is talking about... that initial barrier. Chess (and D&D) aren't games you just sit down with and start playing. They require an investment of effort. And it's not just an investment of effort to get started, but it's also an investment of effort and time (and money in the case of D&D) to keep on playing.

Or... ok, let's flip things slightly. Magic: the Gathering.

I used to play this way back when; I had an almost complete Beta set and a nice chunk of Alphas too. Anyway, the game started with a set of rules that were printed on a piece of paper stuck into a deck of cards. Easy peasy. Time goes on and more and more rules are added. The desire for complexity developed as people's skills improved. Along with that was the development of explicit strategy in the form of deck-building.

Last time I looked, the rules for MTG were a book and everything seemed to revolve around what sort of build people were using. A select group of folks actually develop them and a large number of folks rely on it, perhaps with their own customizations.

These days, I wouldn't even consider touching a CCG. I don't have the time, money, or inclination to try and develop the skill necessary to "enjoy" the game.

One could say that MTG is both "simple" and "complex", but I'd disagree. The rules are relatively coherent (consistent) and there aren't necessarily a large number of them, but it's complex because of the specialized vocabulary, the need to keep track of stacking rules, and everyone's favorite "exception based design" which is so integral to both MTG and D&D.

I'm of the opinion that what would really need to happen is that D&D would need to be redesigned from the ground up; one of the explicit goals being simplicity and modularity. You need to basically have the "basic" and "advanced" game and actually support _both_. Continue evolving new rules etc for the hardcore to mess around with, while providing nifty gee-gaws and other bits for the basic game.

But that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

The need for a basic game to break through the complexity barrier is important for novices, but is quickly discarded once one becomes a veteran.

And I most strongly disagree with this. This is part of the problem; there's this entrenched notion in gamers that "simple" = "novice" and "veteran" = "complex".

Not everyone is playing an rpg because they want or enjoy the rules mastery/game mastery aspect. The fact that there's a "game" there is fine and even enjoyable; it doesn't mean they need or want it to be expanded.

As long as this sort of thinking persists, it's going to continue hobbling the community in terms of expansion. The people that _want_ the game and are hardcore about it? They're catered to. They've been catered to for the past 3 decades and they continue to be catered to. The goal shouldn't be to get some poor slob off the street that doesn't know any better, teach them how to play D&D, and then triumphantly declare "you're a gamer! Don't forget to buy the supplement coming out next month, and remember that DDI is an invaluable tool that you're a fool not to have."

Anyone here go to the gym and lift weights? Jog? Ride a bike? Play Rockband?

Ok now... what if everyone that was involved in your activity insisted that you compete at the professional level? No, going to the gym and doing your little circuit training isn't good enough; the expectation is that you're going to be competing in body-builder competitions. It's not good enough to just ride a bike or jog, you're supposed to be doing Iron Man competitions.

That's basically what's happening with rpgs. Folks show up and want to dabble in it, do a little here or there... and every time they turn around they're being pushed to invest more in it. "Oh, well you're a beginner... of course you want simpler rules. Don't worry, eventually you'll know what you're doing and be ready for the _real_ fun".

Some games are better learnt by playing. An interactive tutorial or even just an educative youtube video would be useful.

It should be an option, not a requirement.

Generally speaking, rpgs seem to suffer from a similar sort of thing as Linux; proponents are in love with the complexity and obtuseness. Yeah, linux might rock on toast and be able to do lots of stuff. But I can actually just fire up a Windows machine and it works. I don't have to "grep" this or do console anything unless I _want_ to.

Some people just want to show up and have something work and be straightforward. The fact that we don't want to invest the great flipping amounts of effort to learn Linux doesn't mean that the only kind of machine we're fit to use is an XBox.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Generally speaking, rpgs seem to suffer from a similar sort of thing as Linux; proponents are in love with the complexity and obtuseness. Yeah, linux might rock on toast and be able to do lots of stuff. But I can actually just fire up a Windows machine and it works. I don't have to "grep" this or do console anything unless I _want_ to.

Ubuntu.

Basically, Linux for the Windows user. And sorry to those who simply like it for some other reason altogether - I do not mean it as an insult. Simply a huge sweeping generalisation, and yes, I know it won't apply to everyone. Right, pretty sure the statement has been sufficiently qualified now.

Anyway, I largely agree with what you're saying. I think many "classic gamers" fall into the equally classic pattern of either assuming that most/many potential gamers will be significantly like them (e.g., maths heads / engineering or IT types / whatever) or not really giving it much thought either way.

I know for a certainty that quite a few potential gamers have been turned off TTRPGs, or very nearly so, because of both complexity and obscure gamer-oriented references, memes, etc. (i.e., bit of a Catch-22, with some of it). I've seen it happen, have heard about it enough, and hey, I do suspect it's one of the various reasons the hobby has seemingly shrunk, through the years.

Overall, the Linux analogy isn't a bad one, the more I think about it. Ubuntu aside, 'n all.

 

[jdrakeh]

The need for a basic game to break through the complexity barrier is important for novices, but is quickly discarded once one becomes a veteran.

Speak for yourself. My preferred editions of D&D are still the original edition and Basic (of the Holmes and BECMI varieties). The same holds true for a large-ish portion of other OSR fans, too, if the relative success of clones like Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry are any indicator (which I think they are). Some people just prefer simpler systems.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And I most strongly disagree with this. This is part of the problem; there's this entrenched notion in gamers that "simple" = "novice" and "veteran" = "complex".

Not everyone is playing an rpg because they want or enjoy the rules mastery/game mastery aspect. The fact that there's a "game" there is fine and even enjoyable; it doesn't mean they need or want it to be expanded.



That's basically what's happening with rpgs. Folks show up and want to dabble in it, do a little here or there... and every time they turn around they're being pushed to invest more in it. "Oh, well you're a beginner... of course you want simpler rules. Don't worry, eventually you'll know what you're doing and be ready for the _real_ fun".


It should be an option, not a requirement.

Yes a thousand times over. As a veteran gamer playing these things for over 30 years I still appreciate the appeal of simplicity. I have played complex games and over time have found that for me, they do not add enough extra fun to the experience to justify the effort.

I do enjoy fiddling around with mechanics just for fun in itself, but during gameplay I want to deal with them as little as possible.

There are certainly people who enjoy complex games more and its a good thing that we have games to suit either preference.

The notion that simple = for noobs, is a mistake much like the "well known" fact that animated entertainment is automatically suited for children.

 

[Keldryn]

D&D 4th Edition (Core)

D&D 4th Edition (Core):

Regdar, 1st-level Human Ranger
Alignment: Good

Strength 14 (+2 to melee attack and damage rolls; +2 to Fort defense)
Dexterity 18 (+4 to ranged attack and damage rolls; +4 to AC and Reflex defenses)
Constitution 13 (+1 healing surge)
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 12 (+1 to Will defense)
Charisma 11

Languages: Common, Goblin

Hit Points: 25 | Bloodied: 12
Healing Surges: 7 | Surge Value: 6

Move: 6 squares
Initiative: +2
Action Points: 1

Armor Class: 17 (+3 [Hide armor], +4 [Dex]); 19 against OAs | Skill check penality: -1
Fortitude: +4
Reflex: +5
Will: +1

Weapon Proficiencies: All simple and martial weapons
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide.

Trained Skills (6):

• Nature +6 (+1 [Wis])
• Endurance +6 (+1 [Con])
• Perception +6 (+1 [Wis])
• Athletics +7 (+2 [Str])
• Stealth +9 (+4 [Dex))
• Acrobatics +9 (+4 [Dex))

Common Untrained Skills:

• Intuition +1 (Wis)

Feats:

• Weapon Focus (Bows): +1 feat bonus to damage rolls when attacking with a bow
• Lethal Hunter: increase your Hunter's Quarry extra damage dice from d6 to d8.
• Defensive Mobility: +2 bonus to AC against opportunity attacks

Class Features:

• Archer Fighting Style: gain Defensive Mobility as a bonus feat
• Prime Shot: If none of your allies are nearer to your target than you are, you receive a +1 bonus to ranged attack rolls against that target.
• Hunter's Quarry (At-Will * Minor Action): You may designate the nearest enemy to you that you can see as your quarry. Once per round, when you hit your quarry with an attack, you may inflict an addition 1d8 points of damage. If you have dealt his extra damage since the start of your turn, you may not deal it again until the start of your next turn. The quarry remains in effect until the end of the encounter, or until you select a new quarry.

Basic Attacks:

• Longbow (+6 vs AC; Damage: 1d10+5; Range: 20/40)
  +7 vs AC if Prime Shot is in effect
  Damage: +5 + 1d8 if target is Quarry
• Longsword (+5 vs AC; Damage: 1d8+2)
  Damage: +2 + 1d8 if target is Quarry

Powers:

• Twin Strike (At-Will * Standard Action): Make two ranged attacks with your longbow. These attacks may target different creatures if you choose.
  Two Attacks: +6 vs AC; +7 vs AC if Prime Shot is in effect
  Damage: 1d10; + 1d8 on one of the attacks if target is Quarry
  Range: 20/40;
• Nimble Strike (At-Will * Standard Action): Fire one arrow at your target. You may shift 1 square either before or after the attack.
  Attack: +6 vs AC; +7 vs AC if Prime Shot is in effect
  Damage: 1d10+5; + 1d8 if target is Quarry
  Range:20/40
• Careful Attack (At-Will * Standard Action): Make a single, more accurate attack with your longbow.
  Attack: +8 vs AC; +9 vs AC if Prime Shot is in effect
  Damage: 1d10+5; + 1d8 if target is Quarry
  Range: 20/40
• Two-Fanged Strike (Encounter * Standard Action): Make two attacks against a single enemy with your longbow. If both attacks hit, you do extra damage equal to your Wisdom modifier (+1);
  Two Attacks: +6 vs AC; +7 vs AC if Prime Shot is in effect
  Damage: 1d10+5; 1d10+6 if both attacks hit; + 1d8 on one attack if target is Quarry
  Range: 20/40
• Split the Tree (Daily * Standard Action): Fire two arrows against two creatures within 3 squares of each other. Take the higher result of the two rolls, and apply it to both targets.
  Two Attacks: +6 vs AC; +7 vs AC if Prime Shot is in effect
  Damage: 2d10+5; + 1d8 on one attack if target is Quarry
  Range: 20/40
• Second Wind (Encounter * Standard Action) - you may spend one healing surge (regain 6 hit points). Until the end of your next turn, you gain a +2 bonus to all of your defenses.

The Basics:

Identical to the 4e Essentials entry, with this change:

Daily Resources and Extended Rests: a daily power may be used once per day. Daily powers, healing surges, and hit points are restored to their full capacity after taking an extended rest (6 hours of non-strenuous activity). You may only take one extended rest in a 24-hour period. An extended rest also resets your action point total to 1.


In Combat:

Identical to the 4e Essentials entry.


Notes:

I felt that 4e core should be represented as well, but the PHB fighter is not a good choice for a beginner. An archery-focused ranger seems to be regarded as the most straightforward class for a new player, so I swapped the Strength and Dexterity scores, gave him hide armor, dropped the shield, and focused on using a longbow instead of a longsword.

he Hunter's Quarry and Prime Shot class features come into play frequently, so it speeds up play and helps the new player remember to use them by including those permutations in the power write-ups. It may look like I'm adding excessive details to make this look more complicated than it is, but these are the calculations which a player will have to make in order to use their powers and attacks.

This is an archery-focused character, but the odds of getting stuck in melee combat are high enough that melee attacks should be accounted for as well, or gameplay will grind to a halt as soon as the character needs to switch weapons and the player needs to re-calculate all of his attacks. I originally wrote this up to use two longswords to allow some of his powers to be used in melee as well, but in the interest of keeping the character as simple as possible, I left him with just a single longsword to make a MBA attack with if needed.

The assumed party includes a PH1 cleric, so it is very likely that this character will encounter some of the following effects and need to apply them:

• 1 to 3 temporary hit points [at-will power]
• +2 power bonus to next attack roll against a specific target [at-will power]
• +3 power bonus to melee attack rolls until end of cleric's next turn [at-will power]
• +1 power bonus to AC until end of cleric's next turn [at-will power]
• +2 power bonus to attack rolls until end of cleric's next turn [encounter power]

So long as the party includes a leader, similar effects to the above will be in play throughout each combat encounter. The most effective use for many of these leader powers is to grant these bonuses to a striker. And a striker, being the most straightforward character type to play in 4e, is the best choice for newer players.


Attack Calculations:

• Longbow:
  Attack: +4 [Dex], +2 [Proficiency] = +6
  Damage: +4 [Dex], +1 [Weapon Focus] = +5
• Longsword:
  Attack: +2 [Str], +3 [Proficiency] = +5
  Damage: +2 [Str]

 

[Keldryn]

So what does all of this mean?

I find the "minimal" write-ups for a simple character in each edition to be interesting just in terms of how much stuff needs to be written on a character sheet.

However, I am more interested in the gameplay concepts and rules that a player actually needs to know before they can contribute meaningfully to the game.

When I look over these examples, I see a gradual increase of complexity from Basic D&D through AD&D and even into 3.x. For me, the biggest leap is from 3.5 to 4e. Now, 3.5 is certainly a more complex ruleset than 4e when taken as a whole (even if we're just looking at the core rules). However, it doesn't hit you in the face with all of it at once. Skills and Attacks of Opportunity are the most significant concepts above and beyond what needed to be understood in earlier editions.

One of 4e's stated design goals was to extend the "sweet spot" of 3.x through the whole spread of levels. I don't recall the exact range, but I think the sweet spot was identified as about 4th to 9th level, when characters have a lot to do but aren't too complex. And therein is the issue; 1st level characters in 4e feel a lot like 3rd or 4th level characters in 3.x, with a similar number of options and game concepts in play. However, there was no gradual build-up to this point -- players have a number of abilities available right at the start. And these abilities bring a wide variety of gameplay concepts into play from the start as well.

I've tried to run 4e for two different groups now. The first group included two members of my current group and three of my former co-workers (professional video game designers and programmers). With both that first group and my current group, I was initially puzzled as to why half of the players were struggling with understanding the game. The system was more streamlined than 3.5. They only had 2 at-will, 1 or 2 encounter, and 1 daily power to manage, and everything was contained on the power cards. It seemed so simple to me, but I spent more time and effort helping the players make in-game decisions than I did running monsters or NPCs. Likewise, I spent more time and effort out-of-game revising PCs and trying to find a better way of presenting their abilities than I did working on adventures.

What I didn't think about was the fact that having self-contained write-ups on each power card didn't mean a thing if the players didn't understand the concepts behind them. When I started to think about what the game system requires of the players, everything became much more clear, and I understood why some of my players were struggling with the system. I was always reading about how 4e was so much easier for new players to learn and was the simplest version of D&D since BECMI, but I wasn't seeing that in practice.

4th Edition simply asks for far more player investment up-front than did any previous version of the game. Whereas in earlier versions, I could explain about hit points and attack rolls and then sort of wing it from there, touching on concepts as they came into play, I found that I couldn't do that in 4e.

Explaining what at-will, encounter, and daily powers are and how they work also brings short and extended rests into the mix. The distinction between hit points and healing surges is important, and there are a lot of at-will powers that grant temporary hit points, so those end up being part of the equation very quickly. Many at-will powers cause forced movement or conditions such as slowed, so those concepts also need to be explained before players can make a decision in the first round of the first combat. New players don't know enough to decide whether attacking for 2[W] is better or worse than attacking for 1[W] plus slowing the enemy until the end of your next turn.

I wish that I had taken a more gradual approach, and played out a simple first battle with just at-will powers before tacking the next set of powers, and so on. It might have made things a bit simpler.

But even the simpler classes like the ranger have features that are essentially powers-in-disguise, like Hunter's Quarry, which has three paragraphs to say "you may select a single opponent as your quarry. Once per round, you may inflict 1d6 extra damage on a successful hit."

Features like Prime Shot are overly fiddly for what they do. If you are closer to your target than are your allies, gain a +1 bonus on ranged attack rolls? It feels a lot like Point Blank Shot (+1 to hit on ranged attacks if target within 30') in its intent, but is way more of a hassle to use ("is my target within 6 squares? Cool!" vs "how far away is my target? 5 squares? How far is my target from each of the other 3 party members? One, two, three...").

When you are just learning the game and you have half a dozen or more options to consider on each of your turns, it is very difficult to make a decision when many of those options involve concepts that you aren't familiar with. Adding abilities and effects that require mental effort to track just compound the problem, and the game starts to feel like too much work before you've even really given it a chance.

There is a lot more to say on this subject, and many points were made in the replies that I would like to address, but I'm probably not going to be on here again today. This post is hard on 4e and might make this thread come across as an elaborate and long-winded 4e rant, but that isn't my intent. I'm focusing on 4e in the "what does this all mean" part because it represents the current state of the game and where this growing front-loaded complexity has brought us.

 

[rogueattorney]

The main reason I don't own 4e is because I picked up the 200-whatever page PHB in my FLGS, thumbed through it for a couple minutes, and then realized that I just had no interest whatsoever in buying another multi-volume, 600-plus-pages-of-core-rules role playing game. The very thought just makes me feel tired. Seriously, I'm done with it. That's no statement on 4e. It may be a perfectly fine game. I don't know.

If you've got something new and can get your game across to me in 120 or less pages, I'm all ears. Let's check it out. But I just don't have any desire to invest any time whatsoever in learning a massive new system, or even spend the time to figure out what in that massive new system is vital to know before playing and what can just be skimmed.

There are just too many awesome games that come in a single box or volume, have about 20 or 30 pages of actual rules, and fill in the rest of the 40 to 100 pages with some spells, monsters, equipment, entry-level adventures, campaign background and the like, then leave me alone to get gaming. Star Frontiers, Cthulhu Dark Ages, B/X D&D, Tunnels & Trolls, Lords of Creation, Marvel Super Heroes, Dragon Age, Paranoia, Everway... I could go on and on.