D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[sunshadow21]

But they have stated that simplicity is of tantamount importance in this edition,

This is what worries me the most. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity rarely works well; some things are just plain not simple. Grappling in 3E was confusing, but that's because grappling is not a simple maneuver to resolve, and never will be; even in PF, you're constantly rolling contested rolls the entire time you're grappling. A single dice roll will never accurately resolve it without creating other problems, and that's my problem with the whole reliance on just DMs winging it on everything. Rules can slow the game down, but arguing with the DM can slow it down even more and cause hurt feelings to boot. I'm willing to accept the game slowing down for those things that it genuinely needs to slow down for rather than trying to make everything resolvable with a single dice roll; game time is precious, but it's not a sprint that has to go full bore the entire time.

 

[Wulfgar76]

This is what worries me the most. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity rarely works well; some things are just plain not simple. Grappling in 3E was confusing, but that's because grappling is not a simple maneuver to resolve, and never will be; even in PF, you're constantly rolling contested rolls the entire time you're grappling. A single dice roll will never accurately resolve it without creating other problems, and that's my problem with the whole reliance on just DMs winging it on everything. Rules can slow the game down, but arguing with the DM can slow it down even more and cause hurt feelings to boot. I'm willing to accept the game slowing down for those things that it genuinely needs to slow down for rather than trying to make everything resolvable with a single dice roll; game time is precious, but it's not a sprint that has to go full bore the entire time.

I don't think D&D Next is espousing simplicity for simplicity's sake per se, but rather an overall design methodology to make sure the game never, or at least rarely, bogs down into rules quicksand.

Take a look at the four main mechanics of the game: the attack roll, the saving throw, the ability check and the contest.

I am hard-pressed to find a situation where one of those four rolls would not sufficiently resolve things in a satisfactory way to everyone at the table. If you can think of a circumstance where this over-simplifies the situation so much it become unrealistic, disruptive or cheats a player out of something deserved – please elaborate. I think those four types of rolls will cover 95% of the situations that might arise. And if it means some realism is sacrificed for the other 5%, then that's a price I'm willing to pay for a fluid, fast-paced and immersive game.

Bear in mind the past two editions have been horrendous as far as game speed and rules bloat goes, so you can expect the pendulum to swing back the other direction, which isn't a bad thing at all.

 

[the Jester]

This is what worries me the most. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity rarely works well; some things are just plain not simple. Grappling in 3E was confusing, but that's because grappling is not a simple maneuver to resolve, and never will be; even in PF, you're constantly rolling contested rolls the entire time you're grappling. A single dice roll will never accurately resolve it without creating other problems...

I have to disagree. 4e has the "grab" attack that is very simple, effective and not broken. Good design can simplify almost anything; the question is whether it should.

 

[SkidAce]

Various supplements would try to patch these holes, but no two books would apply the same patch. You'd end up with one rule from The Complete Something Handbook, another from Skills & Powers, another from some Forgotten Realms suppliment, and another one from a Dragon Magazine article. . .leaving each group to choose which of the various official option for the same rule would be used.

Sounds modular, like I remember it.

 

[Jester David]

I have to disagree. 4e has the "grab" attack that is very simple, effective and not broken. Good design can simplify almost anything; the question is whether it should.

And Grab exists solely so WotC can say "grappling is simpler in 4e".
No one ever uses grab because it's not worth the action. It's better to simply attack, or find an At-Will that prones or immobilizes. Even the Free Hand Fighter, the grab based class, doesn't use the action as she has At-Wills that do the job.

 

[the Jester]

And Grab exists solely so WotC can say "grappling is simpler in 4e".
No one ever uses grab because it's not worth the action. It's better to simply attack, or find an At-Will that prones or immobilizes. Even the Free Hand Fighter, the grab based class, doesn't use the action as she has At-Wills that do the job.

I think it's more accurate to say that, in the wake of 3e's difficult and painful grapple rules, they made simpler grappling a priority for 4e.

You're right that grabbing doesn't get used often, but it does get used; a pc in my game just used it repeatedly in a naked, oil-covered wrestling match with a goliath, and a lot of the free-hand-fighter powers include a grab. And of course, there are a lot of monsters with grab-based abilities, though I'll grant not nearly as many as 3e had.

But regardless, does it matter if it gets used a lot? The proposition was that it was impossible to make simple grappling rules. I present grab as a counterexample. And I'd argue that 90% of the time, if you were grappling in 3e OR in 4e, it's because either you or the monster grappling with you had some grapple-based feats or abilities.

 

[sunshadow21]

I don't think D&D Next is espousing simplicity for simplicity's sake per se, but rather an overall design methodology to make sure the game never, or at least rarely, bogs down into rules quicksand.

Take a look at the four main mechanics of the game: the attack roll, the saving throw, the ability check and the contest.

I am hard-pressed to find a situation where one of those four rolls would not sufficiently resolve things in a satisfactory way to everyone at the table. If you can think of a circumstance where this over-simplifies the situation so much it become unrealistic, disruptive or cheats a player out of something deserved – please elaborate. I think those four types of rolls will cover 95% of the situations that might arise. And if it means some realism is sacrificed for the other 5%, then that's a price I'm willing to pay for a fluid, fast-paced and immersive game.

Bear in mind the past two editions have been horrendous as far as game speed and rules bloat goes, so you can expect the pendulum to swing back the other direction, which isn't a bad thing at all.

We'll see what it ends up looking like; in the end, swinging back to far may end up hurting them just as much. Simpler rules require a much more skilled DM that is used to maintaining internal consistency without external help, and the number of people who could pull it off in the pre third edition era was small enough; matching even that small number today would be difficult, and that means that a lot of people are more likely to have truly bad experiences that completely turn them off, whereas with 3.x and even 4E, there were at least some limits that would keep a mediocre game from turning into a horrible waste of time.

I never had much problem with game speed or rules bloat with 3.x/PF, as I found taking 5 minutes here and there in between sessions to make sure that I was good on the rules I needed for my character was ample, and a lot of the stuff that was inherently complex like crafting and leveling up could be shifted to emails in between games. I don't have it with PF because I continue to do the same thing as a player and as a DM I insist that my players do likewise. They don't have to read the entire book, but I am not there to run their character for them, and I won't; if they want to use a strange or unusual mechanic, it's on them to understand it forward, backwards, and sideways.

What little I played of 4E basically shifted it back all the way to the point I couldn't go five minutes without playing 20 questions with the DM, but it was definitely a simpler and faster paced game, so don't assume that fast paced and simple automatically leads to immersive or fluid. It's as immersive as the DM makes it, and there aren't very many DMs out there that can truly pull off a true rules lite system, or even a psuedo rules lite system like 4E. And unlike in a more rules heavy system, there's no safety net; one bad DM, or even a mediocre one, could easily turn a player away from being interested enough to try again, whereas with 3.x/PF, you have to work to have a truly horrible experience with the system itself, making it less likely to drive people away permanently after one bad session. Most of the stuff that people scream about being broken or overpowered is simply a case of someone didn't bother to read the entire description or applicable counter measures, not the system itself.

The biggest misconception I see with rules heavy systems is the idea that you have to learn all the rules and that you have to keep up with all the supplements, especially as a DM; the reality is you don't, not even as a DM. You learn the basic stuff, and if a player wants to do anything new or exotic, it's their responsibility to learn it properly so that they can teach everyone else as needed. If they want to be a grapple monkey, it's their job, not the DM's, and not any of the other players, to learn those rules by heart so that when they come up, the required rolls can be whipped out, outcomes determined quickly, and the scene continued. This does mean that everyone at the table has to do at least some reading, but if you aren't engaged enough in the game to at least know your own character and how their capabilities work, you probably need to make a simpler character or find something else to spend your time doing that you actually enjoy enough to put effort into. I've sat at enough tables to understand that the vast majority of the time that people just show up and roll dice when told to aren't bringing anything to the table and limit the experience for everyone else due to their inattention and apathy, so I have a hard time accepting reasons why people shouldn't have to read at least a little and put at least some effort in between sessions.

If Next can find the sweet spot that provides enough rules and common background to allow players to fully take the burden of their own character on their own shoulders while keeping the game itself simple and reasonably quick, I'll be impressed. I don't see it happening though; 4E didn't, despite their best efforts, and the sweet spot for Next is even smaller, because it's competing with 4E as well.

 

[bogmad]

What little I played of 4E basically shifted it back all the way to the point I couldn't go five minutes without playing 20 questions with the DM, but it was definitely a simpler and faster paced game, so don't assume that fast paced and simple automatically leads to immersive or fluid. It's as immersive as the DM makes it, and there aren't very many DMs out there that can truly pull off a true rules lite system, or even a psuedo rules lite system like 4E. And unlike in a more rules heavy system, there's no safety net; one bad DM, or even a mediocre one, could easily turn a player away from being interested enough to try again, whereas with 3.x/PF, you have to work to have a truly horrible experience with the system itself, making it less likely to drive people away permanently after one bad session. Most of the stuff that people scream about being broken or overpowered is simply a case of someone didn't bother to read the entire description or applicable counter measures, not the system itself.

That's interesting. I started with 2nd and got back into D&D with 4e and skipped over 3e entirely. I've witnessed the opposite problem with people that knew 4e, but then went back to try out 3.5 or pathfinder, and were annoyed with game stopping to figure out all the "complicated" details involved with simple tasks like reloading a crossbow. I've since gone back myself and currently play 4e and Pathfinder. I think it's about as easy to have a horrible experience with either system. They're complicated in different ways, but I like the simplicity I've seen with 5e so far.

 

[Mistwell]

We'll see what it ends up looking like; in the end, swinging back to far may end up hurting them just as much. Simpler rules require a much more skilled DM that is used to maintaining internal consistency without external help, and the number of people who could pull it off in the pre third edition era was small enough; matching even that small number today would be difficult, and that means that a lot of people are more likely to have truly bad experiences that completely turn them off, whereas with 3.x and even 4E, there were at least some limits that would keep a mediocre game from turning into a horrible waste of time.

Basic edition probably introduced more people to D&D, successfully, than any other edition of D&D. And Basic was about as rules-lite as the game has ever come, in an official capacity. So, I think history says you're wrong on that count.

I never had much problem with game speed or rules bloat with 3.x/PF, as I found taking 5 minutes here and there in between sessions to make sure that I was good on the rules I needed for my character was ample, and a lot of the stuff that was inherently complex like crafting and leveling up could be shifted to emails in between games. I don't have it with PF because I continue to do the same thing as a player and as a DM I insist that my players do likewise. They don't have to read the entire book, but I am not there to run their character for them, and I won't; if they want to use a strange or unusual mechanic, it's on them to understand it forward, backwards, and sideways.

Rules bloat seems to be the single largest complaint about 3e/PF.

What little I played of 4E basically shifted it back all the way to the point I couldn't go five minutes without playing 20 questions with the DM, but it was definitely a simpler and faster paced game, so don't assume that fast paced and simple automatically leads to immersive or fluid. It's as immersive as the DM makes it, and there aren't very many DMs out there that can truly pull off a true rules lite system, or even a psuedo rules lite system like 4E.

4e was not, in any way, even vaguely rules-lite. It was not pseudo rules-lite, and it was not a fast paced game. Indeed, the slowness of the game was the single largest complaint about the game

And unlike in a more rules heavy system, there's no safety net; one bad DM, or even a mediocre one, could easily turn a player away from being interested enough to try again, whereas with 3.x/PF, you have to work to have a truly horrible experience with the system itself, making it less likely to drive people away permanently after one bad session. Most of the stuff that people scream about being broken or overpowered is simply a case of someone didn't bother to read the entire description or applicable counter measures, not the system itself.

Having to read a lot to get a full grasp of the system IS a fault of the system, and it's again the single largest complaint about that system, that rules-bloat made it an overwhelming amount to read for a new player (and even for many experienced players and DMs). On the other hand, your claim that rules-lite systems require a more experienced DM simply is not backed up by any evidence, given Basic D&D was wildly successful in introducing players to D&D, and it was the most rules-lite of the official systems.

The biggest misconception I see with rules heavy systems is the idea that you have to learn all the rules

You have to learn all the rules, or else wing it, or pause the game to figure it out. So if you wing it, you might as well play rules-lite. And if you pause the game, you're providing a significantly worse experience. Pick your poison.

I've sat at enough tables to understand that the vast majority of the time that people just show up and roll dice when told to aren't bringing anything to the table and limit the experience for everyone else due to their inattention and apathy, so I have a hard time accepting reasons why people shouldn't have to read at least a little and put at least some effort in between sessions.

Right. So we have now established you have no interest in new players being introduced to the game, and come at the game thinking of them as people who simply should not be playing the game. Because, almost by definition, a new player is just sitting down at the table (maybe with some dice) waiting to be told how to play.

Your entire viewpoint seems to be drenched in that of system mastery. You've mastered the system so the quantity of rules is not a burden for you. You've mastered the system so it seems superior to having to work out fair answers in a rules-lite system as you go. You've mastered the system so others should be expected to master the system as well. Every answer you gave was from the perspective of a body of players and DMs who have already achieved long ago system mastery. But you're commenting on a new game (so zero system mastery) and a rules lite system (you do not appear to have much current experience with such and have some unusual beliefs about them) and new players (who appear to not be considering their perspective at all). And you're of course entitled to your perspective, but I think if it were widely shared by the 5e design team, it would be certain death for the game.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I never had much problem with game speed or rules bloat with 3.x/PF, as I found taking 5 minutes here and there in between sessions to make sure that I was good on the rules I needed for my character was ample, and a lot of the stuff that was inherently complex like crafting and leveling up could be shifted to emails in between games. I don't have it with PF because I continue to do the same thing as a player and as a DM I insist that my players do likewise.

If you've never had a game bog down in 3.X/PF then that is indeed rare and miraculous. That has not been my experience as a DM for 2e, 3e, PF and 4e.

First, rules bloat is intimidating to players who aren't 'system masters'. For players who love to optimize their characters it's great, and there is nothing wrong with that style of play - I've played in that style of game and its a blast. However most of my group is older casual players who not likely to read the rulebooks beyond their own class entry, and don't care about their build and being as powerful as possible. They play for the story, exploration, immersion and wild cinematic combats.

Second, the issue with 3.5/PF is, even if a player is a master of the rules that pertain to his own character, the game still comes to a screeching halt when those complex rules come into play. The combat maneuver system adds additional layers of complexity to that even the smartest DM and players can't ignore. Plus, in my opinion, those additional complexity layers add nothing to the game, and more often that not wreck the simulation with some unrealistic, tiresome and usually overpowered tactic. Ex: 3.5 Spiked Chain tripping specialist.

What little I played of 4E basically shifted it back all the way to the point I couldn't go five minutes without playing 20 questions with the DM, but it was definitely a simpler and faster paced game, so don't assume that fast paced and simple automatically leads to immersive or fluid.

I don't see how that's possible. 4e has major problems, but nebulous clunky rules aren't one of them. Immersion suffered in 4e because the powers and mechanics were artificial to simulationists.

It's as immersive as the DM makes it, and there aren't very many DMs out there that can truly pull off a true rules lite system, or even a psuedo rules lite system like 4E. And unlike in a more rules heavy system, there's no safety net; one bad DM, or even a mediocre one, could easily turn a player away from being interested enough to try again, whereas with 3.x/PF, you have to work to have a truly horrible experience with the system itself, making it less likely to drive people away permanently after one bad session.

IMO its not a DM's bad ad hoc ruling that drives people away, but a game that becomes more boring and tedious than fun. The perfect example I would point to is 1e and 2e D&D. The rules were an inconsistent mess, but people had loads of fun playing it because of the immersion and pace of play.

Most of the stuff that people scream about being broken or overpowered is simply a case of someone didn't bother to read the entire description or applicable counter measures, not the system itself.

Its not about broken things. Pathfinder was essentially a huge rebalance of 3.5 which nerfed overpowered things and buffed weak things. Yet for me, Pathfinder is still a slow tedious rules slog that bogs down early and only gets worse as you increase in level.

so I have a hard time accepting reasons why people shouldn't have to read at least a little and put at least some effort in between sessions.

I would say 3.5/PF is the perfect system for System Masters and Optimizers. I think players who prefer that sort of play will have less fun with D&D Next.

If Next can find the sweet spot that provides enough rules and common background to allow players to fully take the burden of their own character on their own shoulders while keeping the game itself simple and reasonably quick, I'll be impressed. I don't see it happening though; 4E didn't, despite their best efforts, and the sweet spot for Next is even smaller, because it's competing with 4E as well.

Well I played 3rd through its entire run, and 4th through its entire run, and I don't prefer one over the other. For me, D&D Next delivers a superior gaming experience to both.