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

[Micah Sweet]

what are you adding on top?

More gear, more heritage/class/archetype options, more monsters, various subsystems pulled from a variety of 3pp sources. I have a voluminous homebrew document.

 

[Micah Sweet]

well, if you consider 5e too simplistic then I agree, 1DD will not be for you either.

I do not see it as too simple however, and going by how many games try to provide a simpler experience vs a more complex one, you are a minority

That philosophy leads straight to banality.

 

[mamba]

No idea why that matters or how that's supposed to change my mind. Or how 'lol, you're in the minority' adds anything to anything.

it is not supposed to change your mind, it is supposed to show you why 1DD leans towards simpler than more complex rules

 

[mamba]

That philosophy leads straight to banality.

only if you have no brakes. If I reverse it then your philosophy leads straight to unplayable and incomprehensible complexity. Neither is true

Also, no it doesn’t. It leads to a middle ground. If you are oversimplifying then next time more games are more complex, so you go back to that side…

 

[Vaalingrade]

it is not supposed to change your mind, it is supposed to show you why 1DD leans towards simpler than more complex rules

Because it is building on the same bad design philosophy as 5e.

Your post did not show me that. My eyes did.

 

[Micah Sweet]

only if you have no breaks. If I reverse it then your philosophy leads straight to unplayable and incomprehensible complexity. Neither is true

Also, no it doesn’t. It leads to a middle ground. If you are oversimplifying then next time more games are more complex, so you go back to that side…

Do we have to keep shifting back and forth with the cultural winds?

 

[mellored]

That philosophy leads straight to banality.

Not really.

You can always add complexity. But you can't add simplicity.

So I guess it would be more accurate to say "a simple base game is a better game"

 

[mamba]

Do we have to keep shifting back and forth with the cultural winds?

if we want to reach a large audience, then I believe we do

You as a player can do whatever you want, but as a company looking for the largest audience…

 

[Clint_L]

I think the game should be kept simple in the sense of being parsimonious: the underlying rules should follow consistent patterns, which will make the game easy to learn and allow complex effects to be built out of those simple building blocks, as desired, which is basically what OP describes. What I mean is that there should be as few "special" rule mechanics as possible.

This has been the 50 year long journey of D&D, from a game that used a variety of kludges to adapt wargaming ideas to the nascent idea of an RPG, through the Roll20 system, and now into OneD&D.

An example would be having all sub-classes happen at level 3. That means there is now one standard rather than a sort of standard with a bunch of exceptions. I like that.

 

[Alby87]

I think it's better to understand the difference between choices and rules: 5e has fairly easy rules: if you take the starter set box rules, the player facing rules are almost the same of the PHB, and are easy. DMG rules on DMG book are not so many either.

I don't think people want more complex rules. People, IMHO, want to create characters based on many choices. And those can be added in non core books.

Am I wrong? Probably yes. To me, the perfect way to sell 1D&D would be a starter box like the red box, then books for expanding it to higher tiers. As I said in the D&D movie thread, WotC needs to create a complete not expensive game that is a just a box for the dungeon delving. Wilderness, Dominion and multiverse? Those are books that expand the basic game. It would cost "more" for groups to get the complete game, but if you want just a part of it, it wouldn't be the 150$ of the complete core set or the 20$ of the demo (because starter and essentials are demos, without tools to make more dungeon or adding dm tools for beginners)