D&D 5E Why D&D? - Complexity is not fun for me

[Unwise]

Most of my RPG history has been with Rolemaster and MERP, games that many people deride as extremely over-the-top rules heavy. Rolemaster was interesting, because it was incredibly complex to make a character (comparatively, in hindsight) but really simple to play. That suited me very well, you could tinker with building just the character you wanted, but in the end, that complexity did not slow down the game sessions. I thought that that is what I wanted for a very long time.

I have been playing 4e, then 5e and enjoying it, but still niggled by the lack of customization. I don't mind complexity that plays quickly at all, neither do my players. In fact, for a long time I thought it was married to character customization. I thought that adding in more complexity was the answer to cookie cutter characters.

Then I played some PDQ, where the entire system is basically, roll 2d6 against a target number. Character design is basically, make four statements about your character, if any of those apply to a roll you are making, add +2/4/6. Suddenly, the most simple system available was adding in character customization at an astounding level. Not just the "oh, its all in the way you RP it" stuff, but actual mechanical differences. There were no stats, no skills, just character concepts as the core building blocks of the character sheet.

I still don't mind complexity at all, if it does not affect game speed. Now at least I have learnt that it is not tied to character customization. So far it seems that very rules light games and very rules heavy games tend to have the level of tinkering I am interested in.

 

[ceiling90]

You know, I love the BESM (3rd) and the Tri-Stat Dx system with a passion. The resolution for anything and everything was pretty simple, but the Char-gen was a nightmare (and so was balance).

But there's something I love about that system, and it's nightmarish char-gen - the simple ability to literally build anything and everything.

I dunno though, just like you, I always end up going back to DnD. Maybe it's the ingrained Gamist theory in it, versus having to wing it on narrative and straight up GM Fiat (it is a class based system with levels) or maybe it's just in that middle space where it's not too overwhelming for newbies and veterans a like make a character and beat up some monsters and take their stuff.

Games where strong narrative and character driven mechanics are tough for me to enjoy thoroughly because the players have to commit just as much as me to the game - if they don't, I don't enjoy it as much either. But DnD can have a great drop in, drop out type of play.

Maybe it's more habitual or Stockholm....

 

[TreChriron]

I think using D&D 5e as a model, I could create new classes with the three Archetypes for other genres or settings. You could splice in setting specific options and then restrict core classes that don't fit. Instead of the "kitchen sink" approach, a tailored approach with the appropriate abilities, powers and spells would make the game fast, easy to play and fun. Throw in custom backgrounds and you basically "front load" the concept, taking away all the confusion (and potential issues) in complicated character creation. I'm seeing lots of potential here.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

D&D has been the baseline I return to ever since. I always steered away from it, reading oh so many complex and complicated games systemns wanting to run them. I ran campaigns using other rule sets as well, including WRFP 1st, Midgard, GURPS and even Harnmaster, but alway returned to D&D.

Two points I want to add to your list of observations and relevations:

D&D is something like Common. If one uses D&D terms other gamers understand you. If you use the same term but with a different meaning (spellcasting dwarves prior to 3e, for example) people are confused by it.

D&D itself shows this cycle on a larger scale. During third and fourth edition it became more and more complicated, shifting the balance between storytelling and gaming. I loved 3e in the beginning for its systematic approach and the multitude of character options, but learned to hate it in double-digit levels due to the many complications and necessary bookkeeping. I loved 4e for its balanced approached, the great tactical options, and the shift of bookkeeping from the DM to the players, but learned to hate it for the ungodly amount of time combats can take.

The next campaign I'll be offering will be a simpler version: 5e, 2e, or even RC.

 

[transtemporal]

I suppose if my revelations are too verbose to ponder through, I can summarize;

I'm getting back to my roots. I like the new edition of D&D. I'm going with simpler rules because complexity hasn't helped me find what I thought I wanted, takes too long to make characters and has likely irritated my players. I'm ditching the digital stuff because I feel it's getting in the way.

How are you today?

P.S. Nice Burn. Point taken. I guess I should be grateful you took the time to post in the thread...

Lol, sorry man I must've been in a grumpy mood yesterday

For the digital stuff, I personally use it where its practical and easy, so I don't use a dice roller when I can roll dice, I don't use a program to create maps when I can scribble on a dry-erase board, I don't keep track of encounter init and monster hp in a program when its easier to simply write it on paper.

The key point there is "easier". The point at which its easier or more practical to use software to do these things is the tipping point for me.

 

[GameOgre]

Well, while I do like the new direction D&D is headed I really don't think you could call it rules lite. At first I was totally.in thrall with the new edition but as I played it more I realized that while it's a vast improvement over 3.5 / 4E, it really isn't hitting my B/X tastes like I truely wanted.

Just totally going by your post and the limited info It gave me to work with (and perhaps my seeing myself in it) I would question if perhaps you are not in the same boat as I.

This edition is indeed a huge improvement but once the new glow and excitement fades, it just is too crunchy and has far too many fiddly bits for those of us who still seek simple in our D&D.

 

[GMMichael]

Well, while I do like the new direction D&D is headed I really don't think you could call it rules lite.

This edition is indeed a huge improvement

Seconded. They did some good streamlining - removal of grids (Miniatures Handbook), partial actions, and loose bonuses were great steps. But the game still fills three rulebooks.

So, I've come full circle. I'm back with my first love - D&D.

Welcome back? I've been with the current edition for a while now, if you consider 5th edition more of a 3.8th edition.

Revelation two: Complexity adds useless time to doing EVERYTHING in the game which detracts from actually playing the game. Looking back at all the complexity my "perfect medium complexity depth because #feelings" games introduce into play has added zero fun to the games.

Some people actually love this. I'm not one of them.

Revelation five: I'm not as digital as I once thought I should be. I'm feeling like the computer is getting in the way of me engaging the game. I'm faster with 3-ring binders, physical books, notes, a GM screen and 3x5 cards.

It's a tricky transition, but I find that a laptop can free up lots of table space.

Thanks for reading my diatribe. I'm really excited to have my feet under me again.

Viva la TRPG!

 

[Mercule]

There's a balance, IMO. Too rules-light (or interpretive rules) and you end up with an arbitrary game of "the GM said so", which can work well for some groups, but not for everyone. Too rules-heavy and it gets bogged down, unless everyone at the table is really into mechanics -- again, that works for some, but not all groups.

D&D (at least BECMI, 1E, 2E, and 5E, IME) occupy a middle ground. It provides enough structure to stave off the majority of ham-fisted GM rulings, but is still light enough for most newbie or casual players. The classes, races, and implied setting also provide enough pegs for folks to hang their hats upon. To me, that's why it endures and that's what it should strive to be good at. It's a large-grained, but "complete" system. It requires little prep time, but prep and tinkering provide a linear rate of benefit.

For my part, I prefer character creation to be more like Hero -- for PCs. For GMing, I tend to prefer quick and dirty NPC creation, with just a couple of tweaks. My players tend to prefer easier PC creation with greater appearance of options that are generally ignored (until they aren't). Since I almost always sit behind the screen, D&D works great. I can ad lib all I want and have enough interpretive space to make appropriate use of DMO, while the players have a menu-driven system from which they choose the same options for 90% of what they do.

Savage Worlds handles that 90% just as well as D&D, but has the appearance of being less precise, so it's not appealing to the group, even though I'm pretty sure it would suit the casual nature of the table better. Hero provides all the options a body could want, and has a couple real fans in the group, but we're mostly professionals with kids and busy schedules looking for something that is friendly to chilling out. That puts us square in that middle ground.

I would also say the the WoD/Storyteller system fits into the middle zone, just emphasizing "fluff" tinkering instead of mechanical tinkering, which is why it saw a nice ride, for a time. Pathfinder (and d20, in general) is on the upper end of that zone. It has strong ties to traditional D&D, and most tables can use it casually, but it strongly presents itself to the crunchier crowd while remaining menu-driven -- which isn't a bad thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd say 5e is on the "heavier" side of medium-complexity. It's not the complex beasts that 3e/4e/late 2e were, there's games that *LAP* D&D for complexity (Rolemaster!), but 5e is going simpler, and a lot of what appears in the DMG/PHB/MM is options, not essentials (hence, the Basic game!), but it's still got a lot of moving parts. A game like FATE or Dungeon World indeed strips out a lot of that -- and has some interesting stuff!

Personally, I like it when play feels different for different critters, so FATE is a little too monolithic for me. But it is very simple and streamlined! Dungeon World has a bit of a "white box" feel, in terms of complexity, which is still a little dull for me, but contains significant depth.

 

[painted_klown]

Being a PC in Pathfinder and a DM for 5E (new at both), I must say that I don't think I would like to try running a game of PF until I am a well seasoned PF player and 5E DM.

When I compare the two systems, I see a lot more similarities than differences. Sure, the mechanical bits differ, but I get the same "rpg experience" from both of them. Both are fun, but admitedly, I do find 5E rules "easier to digest" if that makes sense...