D&D (2024) A simpler game is a better game...for us

[mamba]

A game that depends on players to being new players in needs to be enjoyable for the existing players. And it's possible to be so simple that is stops being that.

in the abstract you are correct, it can become too simplistic. I see no indication that 1DD is that however.

 

[mamba]

A simpler game removes "system mastery" which was a big part of 3rd Ed, finding clever little combos, knowing what disadvantages you could avoid or offset by exploiting something else.

removing that sounds like a good thing to me, ymmv of course

 

[Andvari]

Could be a thing to have a basic Player's Handbook without feats or subclasses, and a set selection of skills for each class. And then an Advanced Player's Handbook adding more rules and mechanics by introducing subclasses, feats and skill choice options. This way, the basic game can have a simple ruleset that is easy to get into, while offering more complexity for those who seek it. The basic book would also be a lot lighter and cheaper, further reducing the hurdle of getting into the game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The game will never be simple enough for some players, nor complex enough for others. An unfortunate but true statement. The game cannot and will not be all things to all players.

However, I do agree with @Shardstone that it tends to be easier to start with a simpler foundation and then let other companies build upon it, rather than have a more complex game and companies try to strip components away to create a simpler one. It can be done, obviously (as we have Level Up going in one direction and @Sacrosanct 's game going the other for instance)... but I suspect that WotC will always try and split the difference. 2014E had some parts very easy and some parts that were more complicated, and 2024E will do the same thing (even if different parts get changed along the easy/difficult axis.)

The only thing I wish would be for players to finally get over the idea that they must play the "official game" published by Wizards of the Coast for it to count as being a "valid D&D player". That attitude is silly and unhealthy. If you want a more complex game, then just play Level Up - Advanced 5E and you can BE that "D&D player" who plays a more complex version of D&D-- rather than stick with the "official game" you don't like and are constantly complaining that the game and its designers are unwilling for it to BECOME the game that you would like. To me... that's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Just play the game you like more! It's fine! D&D is D&D, no matter WHO publishes it! Isn't that why so many got so hurt about the OGL debacle in the first place? What was the point in getting all bent out of shape about the OGL potentially going away if you don't consider any of those products to be "real D&D" as you constantly keep trying to push the 2024E game to become the game you want (even if it seems obvious that the game in those instances will never be)?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I think the cardinal sin of OneD&D is confusing simplicity with accessibility. The two are usually related, but you have to actually approach it with care. Having three spell lists is "simpler" than having spell lists for each class, but it's not making the materials more approachable for the average user (especially if they then have to figure out which of the giant Arcane spells list are of a school their Bard can cast, rather than just look at a convenient list).

The important thing is not simplicity for simplicity's sake, the important thing is limiting how much complication someone needs to digest at a given time. And, in fact, sometimes the more complicated rule is actually more memorable and easier to digest than the simpler one, and hence, in a way, simpler.

I respect the goals of the evangelists of simplicity, but they often fail to understand how complicated making things simple actually is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the cardinal sin of OneD&D is confusing simplicity with accessibility. The two are usually related, but you have to actually approach it with care. Having three spell lists is "simpler" than having spell lists for each class, but it's not making the materials more approachable for the average user (especially if they then have to figure out which of the giant Arcane spells list are of a school their Bard can cast, rather than just look at a convenient list).

They already adress this by giving the bard a spell list that is just 4 schools from the other ones. I posted treantmonks reasoning, which I agree with, why having unified spell lists makes the game easier to design and thus better.
It is just that the bards needs to start with druid spells from those schools too.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

No. It should be even more friendly. 1D&D generally makes the game more fun. I also think, that some people are way overreacting about good changes, just because they look at that single change and not the whole thing.
Of course, no one likes their most loved class nerfed. But sometimes a nerf is warranted to allow more room for other classes. Druids for example are and always have been offenders. Hey rogue you want to scout? Don't bother. I am now a spider, noone will notice me. Hey fighter stand aside. I will turn in a brown bear and maul the enemy to death, without draining any healing resource...
As much as I loved bard's early magical secrets... it was often used to take level 3 half caster spells to make them look weak next to them. So let's don't act as WotC took our lollys when a nerf hits us and look at what we get to compensate.

OP: We should make D&D less complex because it will be more friendly to new players.

Me: That's what the Starter Set is for.

You: No, the Starter Set should be more friendly.

Me: ? (Sounds like you agree???)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

OP: We should make D&D less complex because it will be more friendly to new players.

Me: That's what the Starter Set is for.

You: No, the Starter Set should be more friendly.

Me: ? (Sounds like you agree???)

More or less. I disagree that the base game should not be more accessible and structured.
Having a good starter set is not an excuse for making the actual game too complex.

 

[cranberry]

A simplified game will bring more players in, but they are likely to lose interest more quickly and leave.

People will get bored of wading in the shallow water.

A certain level of complexity is needed to generate a certain level of commitment (and retention). Where that line is drawn is up for debate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is the point. LevelUP does this. But OneD&D should not. At least not in the PHB. With a solid base, we can later have advanced books.

Do you think we're likely to? WotC has made its position pretty clear I think.