D&D 5E Why Don't We Simplify 5e?

[Helpful NPC Thom]

You're not going to have a simple spell system as long as you're using exception based design for them. And that's pretty much a sacred cow in D&D.

Nyet, my friend. Exception-based design doesn't need exceptional complexity.

D&D takes pains to make its exception-based design complicated, but spells could be drastically simplified from where they're at. Cut out the extraneous text.

Sleep: Cast this spell and a small group of creatures near you falls into a magical slumber (Wisdom save to resist).

Animal Messenger: Call forth a small creature appropriate to your environment who will deliver a message or perform a simple task.

Arcane Lock: You cast this on a chest, door, or other container and magically seal it. You can cast this spell again to unseal it.

Those are all perfectly serviceable spells, but they don't satisfy a lot of D&D players, so they are given more crunch rather than relying on GM adjudication.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Nyet, my friend. Exception-based design doesn't need exceptional complexity.

D&D takes pains to make its exception-based design complicated, but spells could be drastically simplified from where they're at. Cut out the extraneous text.

Sleep: Cast this spell and a small group of creatures near you falls into a magical slumber (Wisdom save to resist).

Animal Messenger: Call forth a small creature appropriate to your environment who will deliver a message or perform a simple task.

Arcane Lock: You cast this on a chest, door, or other container and magically seal it. You can cast this spell again to unseal it.

Those are all perfectly serviceable spells, but they don't satisfy a lot of D&D players, so they are given more crunch rather than relying on GM adjudication.

I would push back on this idea: "just make it up yourself" isn't really simplifying the game, it's offloading design work to the dm, thus making it harder and more complex for the dm, since they have to think through how stuff works every time a player asks a question.

In a challenge-based game, making the parameters unclear is not 'simplifying', it's merely reducing word count in the rulebook.

 

[overgeeked]

I would push back on this idea: "just make it up yourself" isn't really simplifying the game, it's offloading design work to the dm, thus making it harder and more complex for the dm, since they have to think through how stuff works every time a player asks a question.

No, it's really not. Like really, really not "harder and more complex" for the GM to run a game like that. It's infinitely easier. I do that kind of minimalistic gaming regularly. It's far more of a chore to worry about the complexity of the system as written than to make a call and/or declare a DC and push forward. If the GM and players know the world well, you can get a game up and running inside of five minutes (including character creation). If you're worrying about game books and mechanics, it'll take you longer than that just to talk about which game system to play.

In a challenge-based game, making the parameters unclear is not 'simplifying', it's merely reducing word count in the rulebook.

It is simplifying because instead of wondering what the rule book says about physics and how the game differs from physics, you can start with everyone's rough idea of cause and effect and just get on with it. It's only things that change physics that take a moment longer to suss out. If you can't agree, pick some dice and make an opposed roll. Whoever wins is right and that's how it plays out. And you move on. Remembering all the ways the game mechanics break physics is a lot more of a mental load.

ETA: If you roleplay your character as person living in a real-to-them world, the game mechanics don't matter. So you don't need to worry about them. Not only do you not need to know them, you mostly don't need to have any. If knowing the game mechanics will change the decisions you make for your character, that's metagaming, and playing to the rules of the game rather than playing a person living in a real-to-them world.

 

[Malmuria]

No, it's really not. Like really, really not "harder and more complex" for the GM to run a game like that. It's infinitely easier. I do that kind of minimalistic gaming regularly. It's far more of a chore to worry about the complexity of the system as written than to make a call and/or declare a DC and push forward. If the GM and players know the world well, you can get a game up and running inside of five minutes (including character creation). If you're worrying about game books and mechanics, it'll take you longer than that just to talk about which game system to play.

It is simplifying because instead of wondering what the rule book says about physics and how the game differs from physics, you can start with everyone's rough idea of cause and effect and just get on with it. It's only things that change physics that take a moment longer to suss out. If you can't agree, pick some dice and make an opposed roll. Whoever wins is right and that's how it plays out. And you move on. Remembering all the ways the game mechanics break physics is a lot more of a mental load.

I guess it really depends on dming style. wotc's editions, especially 3e, was a very "low trust" game, where it was assumed that both dm and players could turn to a common reference (the written rules) for a definitive answer to most or at least many common questions. So dms might feel the need to refer to the rules, either to justify a ruling, or for consistency, or for the sake of the players (to make sure they aren't hindering the players by messing up a rule).

For me, that's too much to have to do at the table. Moreover, if you've been playing dnd for any amount of time, you basically 'know' the rules. Not in an encyclopedic sense, but you can figure it out based on memory and a general understanding of how the game works. I know as a child playing 2e a lot of the rules went out the window as soon as we started playing (I have a specific memory for some reason of reading the very detailed rules on climbing in the 2e phb and thinking to myself, 'who would ever use this?')

 

[overgeeked]

I guess it really depends on dming style. wotc's editions, especially 3e, was a very "low trust" game, where it was assumed that both dm and players could turn to a common reference (the written rules) for a definitive answer to most or at least many common questions. So dms might feel the need to refer to the rules, either to justify a ruling, or for consistency, or for the sake of the players (to make sure they aren't hindering the players by messing up a rule).

For me, that's too much to have to do at the table. Moreover, if you've been playing dnd for any amount of time, you basically 'know' the rules. Not in an encyclopedic sense, but you can figure it out based on memory and a general understanding of how the game works. I know as a child playing 2e a lot of the rules went out the window as soon as we started playing (I have a specific memory for some reason of reading the very detailed rules on climbing in the 2e phb and thinking to myself, 'who would ever use this?')

Sure. But that cognitive load doesn't need to only be on the GM. The players at the table can share it. If the GM has a good idea of the chances of something working or failing, go with that. If the GM doesn't have an idea for the likelihood of something succeeding or failing, they can ask the players. And what better source do the GM and players have in common than real world physics. Not physicist or scientist-level physics, but just daily life. Anything that's not inherently magical is going to have some basis in reality...hell, even some of the purely-magical stuff will have a basis in physics.

 

[jmartkdr2]

No, it's really not. Like really, really not "harder and more complex" for the GM to run a game like that. It's infinitely easier. I do that kind of minimalistic gaming regularly. It's far more of a chore to worry about the complexity of the system as written than to make a call and/or declare a DC and push forward. If the GM and players know the world well, you can get a game up and running inside of five minutes (including character creation). If you're worrying about game books and mechanics, it'll take you longer than that just to talk about which game system to play.

Well sure, if you establish the things the rules set out ahead of time, and everyone has the same understand of the limitations and boundaries of what's possible in the game despite no listed set of guidelines, then the rules don't need to set those things out.

It is simplifying because instead of wondering what the rule book says about physics and how the game differs from physics, you can start with everyone's rough idea of cause and effect and just get on with it. It's only things that change physics that take a moment longer to suss out. If you can't agree, pick some dice and make an opposed roll. Whoever wins is right and that's how it plays out. And you move on. Remembering all the ways the game mechanics break physics is a lot more of a mental load.

Sure, if everyone has the same understanding. Which, IMO, almost never happens consistently, and is usually much less consistent than people's understanding of the rules of the game.

ETA: If you roleplay your character as person living in a real-to-them world, the game mechanics don't matter. So you don't need to worry about them. Not only do you not need to know them, you mostly don't need to have any. If knowing the game mechanics will change the decisions you make for your character, that's metagaming, and playing to the rules of the game rather than playing a person living in a real-to-them world.

Because everyone already knows how everything works, with no variances in understanding.

The rules clarify. Removing clarity does not make things easier.

 

[Faolyn]

The only sticking point I have is the cross-referencing. Consider Skill Proficiencies. Each choice you make in character gen can interact with that. Should I take proficiency in Perception from choosing Rogue? Oh, no, I'm an Elf, I already get that. Or was it from my background?

Yeah, one of the BIGGEST hurdles of cross-referencing for new players is definitely with spells.

Since I've never met a character sheet I really liked, I always make my own sheets and type everything up. After each trait, I put something like (C) for class/archetype or (R) for race. I also write up a grimoire with each of my spells and their abilities. Why yes, I do have a fair amount of spare time.

 

[overgeeked]

Well sure, if you establish the things the rules set out ahead of time, and everyone has the same understand of the limitations and boundaries of what's possible in the game despite no listed set of guidelines, then the rules don't need to set those things out.

Exactly. If you know the world, the game rules are irrelevant.

Sure, if everyone has the same understanding. Which, IMO, almost never happens consistently, and is usually much less consistent than people's understanding of the rules of the game.

Because everyone already knows how everything works, with no variances in understanding.

As long as you’re in the same ballpark you’re close enough. Variance of understanding is fine. We’re talking about an elfgame, there’s no need for perfection.

The rules clarify. Removing clarity does not make things easier.

LOL. Really? The rules clarify? Okay, so then explain all the rules arguments and disagreements that happen around these games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Nyet, my friend. Exception-based design doesn't need exceptional complexity.

D&D takes pains to make its exception-based design complicated, but spells could be drastically simplified from where they're at. Cut out the extraneous text.

Sleep: Cast this spell and a small group of creatures near you falls into a magical slumber (Wisdom save to resist).

Small being?

Animal Messenger: Call forth a small creature appropriate to your environment who will deliver a message or perform a simple task.

How long? How far away?

Arcane Lock: You cast this on a chest, door, or other container and magically seal it. You can cast this spell again to unseal it.

Can nothing force it? How about magical creatures?

Those are all perfectly serviceable spells, but they don't satisfy a lot of D&D players, so they are given more crunch rather than relying on GM adjudication.

Because there's big gaps missing in what you tell them. That was what OD&D did with those spells.

But you know, they still took up more space than almost anything else, because even that much text takes up a lot of space when you have a lot of spells (and again, I'm not even talking as many spells as people are now used to, as a lot of staples didn't even come in until AD&D).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would push back on this idea: "just make it up yourself" isn't really simplifying the game, it's offloading design work to the dm, thus making it harder and more complex for the dm, since they have to think through how stuff works every time a player asks a question.

In a challenge-based game, making the parameters unclear is not 'simplifying', it's merely reducing word count in the rulebook.

In practice, it does one of two things: makes the DM write his own addenda to the rules (in his head or on paper), or induces frequent inconsistency (and if there's one place I absolutely expect this would be occur its with extending spell descriptions into utility, because again, not written to any common metric).