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

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I don't think you're wrong. Not with that statement above. It sure seems to me that you've nailed it. People want choices, they don't want more rules to learn. RPG designers often incorporate "more choice" into "more rules". It's hard not to in a lot of cases, I'll give them that, but IMO I think we're better off by giving choice but not complexity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd personally like mechanics more than 'Advantage' and 'ask the DM'.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

As others have said, the game need fun and variation, not necessarily more complexity. Imho 5e has a lot of problems in the fun department, and One doesn't seem to change that.

And I agree to the comment that D&D need to make it easier for the DM, at least with such a heavy focus on new players from WotC. I find it almost hilarious that Pathfinder 2e, with its uber-fat books and mega-amount of mechanics and options for the players, at least in my opinion is very much easier to GM than 5e if I try to step in the shoes of a new gamer. I mean, I love GM fiat and playing a loose game in most systems, but GMing Pf2e by the book sometimes feels like a vacation

 

[Clint_L]

As others have said, the game need fun and variation, not necessarily more complexity. Imho 5e has a lot of problems in the fun department, and One doesn't seem to change that.

Your opinion of what is fun and what isn't is valid, though given the success of 5e I think it makes sense for WotC to conclude that, in general, it has been very successful in delivering the fun.

 

[Osgood]

If all the edition wars have taught me anything, its that you will never have a version of D&D that pleases everyone! One player's simple and streamlined is another's boring and banal, another player's complex and custom is another overblown and onerous!

I like most of the changes in One D&D, but there are a few I'm not crazy about. To me, nothing in the play test seems like it dramatically simplifies D&D, particularly from the baseline of current 5E. I would actually like if it did--with the proviso that we'd get the rule modules that were alluded to during the D&D Next play test!

Frankly the notion that a simple version of D&D would only appeal to new players, and then only for a short time, is wrong. That's one person's opinion and experience. I've been playing D&D since the mid-80's and with each passing year I appreciate a simple system more and more! Everyone's experience is different, and I think blanket statements about who gravitates toward what play-styles are unhelpful and likely inaccurate!

An anecdote: My second gaming group meets once a month and is full of veteran players--most of whom can barely keep up with the 5E rules (because they have jobs and families that take up the rest of their time!). The guy who is running the next campaign, gets antsy and bored with any system easily, so he insists on running the next campaign in PF2... I've looked over the rules and I absolutely dread playing what looks like an overly-complex and unfun system (to me, no offense if it's your jam), and I'm pretty good with adapting to new rules... I predict a couple of guys will love it, but for my guys who keep asking if high AC is good or bad, if they're supposed to roll percentile for attacks, or what Feats are... I predict problems!

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your opinion of what is fun and what isn't is valid, though given the success of 5e I think it makes sense for WotC to conclude that, in general, it has been very successful in delivering the fun.

That's it, really. We can talk all day about what we like, but WoTC is looking at sales #, and sales #s of 5e justify the design of it as a good design. Our own personal opinions non-withstanding.

Frankly the notion that a simple version of D&D would only appeal to new players, and then only for a short time, is wrong.

There's a current KS that is doing exceptionally well (will probably hit a million dollars) that is a basic version of an OSR/5e hybrid, so yeah. I agree.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Ive always seen people say 5E is more simple than older editions (especially AD&D) and man do I disagree. It's just as complicated but in different ways.

As for what One D&D may do? I'd expect it to be even simplier in some areas while over complicating others (400 classes and subclasses and races and feats etc).

Honestly you want REAL simple official D&D product: Rules Cyclopedia. Not official: A Retro Clone that updates the rules to ascending AC etc

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ive always seen people say 5E is more simple than older editions (especially AD&D) and man do I disagree. It's just as complicated but in different ways.

I love AD&D (played it from 1981 to 2012 as my primary edition), but I can't see how anyone can say 5e is just as complicated. I don't think it's even close.

5e has unified ability bonuses, AD&D has different bonuses and traits unique to each ability
5e has unified xp tables. AD&D did not
5e has ability checks unified with saving throws and skills. AD&D was all over the place, with not only different rules for ability checks, skills, and saving throws, but different rules for saving throws for each class.
5e uses basic ascending math. AD&D had descending AC and attack tables that didn't use linear math
5e did not have weapon vs armor tables, or heck, dozens of complicated tables that AD&D did that we all ignored anyway.
Take a peek at psionics in AD&D.
and glance at level and class limits for demihumans
While you're at it, look at the bard class.
I could really go on, but I'll spare you.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I love AD&D (played it from 1981 to 2012 as my primary edition), but I can't see how anyone can say 5e is just as complicated. I don't think it's even close.

5e has unified ability bonuses, AD&D has different bonuses and traits unique to each ability
5e has unified xp tables. AD&D did not
5e has ability checks unified with saving throws and skills. AD&D was all over the place, with not only different rules for ability checks, skills, and saving throws, but different rules for saving throws for each class.
5e uses basic ascending math. AD&D had descending AC and attack tables that didn't use linear math
5e did not have weapon vs armor tables, or heck, dozens of complicated tables that AD&D did that we all ignored anyway.
Take a peek at psionics in AD&D.
and glance at level and class limits for demihumans
While you're at it, look at the bard class.
I could really go on, but I'll spare you.

I’m talking basic core 3. Every Ed gets crazier the longer it’s gets new stuff.

5E (and 3 up) all have subclasses built in. And feats. And 5E has backgrounds and every race and class have a number of special abilities.

AD&D had like 5 basic races and no subclasses. No fears. Few special abilities. Etc.

Like I said, it’s just difficult in a different way.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Your opinion of what is fun and what isn't is valid, though given the success of 5e I think it makes sense for WotC to conclude that, in general, it has been very successful in delivering the fun.

There are many lists of (un)fun factors in 5e and I won’t repeat them, and you are of course right about WotC.

In this context though the problem is longevity and evolvement. 5e has been skillful in changing the direction of the game to get hordes of new players. Now the company want at least most of them to buy One. And I have a hard time seeing that getting the game even more shallow and simple will be successful. Even the most enthusiastic newish players will eventually tire of samey characters and hitting bags’o’hitpoints in different skins. Some will move to more tactical gaming, others want more of story and roleplaying.

But what I don’t see is players that have been rolling dice a few years wanting LESS of the same. It’s weird.