D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Sometimes laughably so. Especially the hair—like they're about to see Bon Jovi in concert.

I'm not saying it isn't dated, but I still love Elmore's work.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, so here's the thing. Whether or not THAC0 and descending AC are hard or difficult or even complicated is a matter of personal experience. That's different from an opinion; that these systems may have been simple and easy for Amy but difficult and complex for Beth is, in both cases, completely factual. Does that say more about the players than it does the systems? Maybe, possibly not. I think anyone blaming Beth and telling her to get better, to just figure out, it's not that difficult, would be, very rightfully, accused of gatekeeping at worst, and just kind of being a jerk at best. But it's also true that different people have different natural and practiced skill in quantitative reasoning (and even in very different types of math), and it is certainly true that the more intuitive a mathematical system is, the less the "skill gap", for lack of a better term, gets in the way of actual understanding.

Which raises a tangential yet relevant question: for what level of education-comprehension-ability should the game be designed?

Should the books be written to Grade 6 vocabulary and comprehension levels? Grade 8? Grade 12? To what expected level of arithmetic competence should the game design adhere? And so on.

Put another way, should the game be designed for and marketed to educated adults* in full knowledge that kids are almost certainly going to (try to) play it anyway? To this my own answer is a full-on "yes"; IMO it should target the college crowd, and younger kids who play will benefit from gaining some added vocabulary and arithmetical competence.

* - in terms of presentation, vocabulary, etc.; not talking about "adult content" here.

Here's a thing I would like to think most of us would agree with: BAB and ascending AC is a more intuitive set of systems than THAC0 and descending AC, especially given both systems were roll-over, not roll-under. While it's certainly possible to have had a different experience, I would also like to think that we could at least agree that this would be an unusual or at least fairly rare experience. I mean, I certainly have my own personal processes that I'm so used to and more comfortable with regardless of the existence of simpler, more intuitive processes.

I mean, I grew up with THAC0 and descending AC; I figured it out and used it because that's all there was. When I first read 3.0 and saw how they changed it my initial reaction was "Why get of THAC0?" and my immediate follow-up reaction was "wait, no, this actually just makes way more sense". But that's not going to be a universal experience.

The one thing that really threw me when I started playing 3e was that AC still started at 10, rather than at 0 like I would have expected.

 

[Faolyn]

Which raises a tangential yet relevant question: for what level of education-comprehension-ability should the game be designed?

Should the books be written to Grade 6 vocabulary and comprehension levels? Grade 8? Grade 12? To what expected level of arithmetic competence should the game design adhere? And so on.

Put another way, should the game be designed for and marketed to educated adults* in full knowledge that kids are almost certainly going to (try to) play it anyway? To this my own answer is a full-on "yes"; IMO it should target the college crowd, and younger kids who play will benefit from gaining some added vocabulary and arithmetical competence.

* - in terms of presentation, vocabulary, etc.; not talking about "adult content" here.

The one thing that really threw me when I started playing 3e was that AC still started at 10, rather than at 0 like I would have expected.

This isn't a minimum education thing. It's an accessibility of writing thing. And, good writers can make things understood by anyone, not just the "educated elite."

When it comes to ascending or descending AC, the only thing that matters is what makes that part of combat move the fastest and makes it the most interesting. I'd rather spend my combat-time figuring out my method of attack and what cool abilities I want to use, and then rolling the dice and (hopefully) doing damage. And then letting the next person take their turn in as short a time as possible, so a round of combat doesn't last an hour. Adding or subtracting bonuses or penalties is not the interesting part. So whatever moves the fastest, or is the most interesting, is what's best for the game as a whole.

 

[Hussar]

Which raises a tangential yet relevant question: for what level of education-comprehension-ability should the game be designed?

But that is actually not relevant. If one system for some reason is more complicated and more difficult than another system and achieves the same result then that more complicated system is poorly designed. That's just how design works. A simpler, easier to use system that gets the same results is always a better system.

Remember, the issue here isn't "here is this complicated system or nothing" it's "here are two systems that achieve identical results, one system is demonstrably easier to use".

Why would you deliberately use more difficult systems, more complex language structures, when it is completely unneeded? You are gatekeeping, straight up. "Sorry, you have to be this smart/educated to ride this ride" is probably one of the most toxic forms of gatekeeping in the hobby.

Let's not forget as well that most people have actually zero idea what 9th grade English actually looks like. The New York Times is written at a 7th grade level and is considered one of the highest level newspapers in America. 10th grade English? Most people here couldn't actually read it. We're talking Derida and various other writers that virtually no one outside of English majors ever read because they're virtually impossible to read.

Guess what? The average well educated Canadian, one of the highest educated populations in the world, reads at about a 6th grade level and certainly writes no better than that. If your game requires 9th grade math, you just made your game impossible to play for the majority of the world. Or, put it another way - calculating the volume of an irregularly shaped hemisphere filled with stalactites and stalagmites is FAR beyond what most gamers can do. I know I certainly can't. And even if you can, I double dog dare you to do it in your head without the aid of a calculator.

So, no, the idea that we need to "set the bar" at college level math? Good luck with that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But that is actually not relevant. If one system for some reason is more complicated and more difficult than another system and achieves the same result then that more complicated system is poorly designed. That's just how design works. A simpler, easier to use system that gets the same results is always a better system.

Remember, the issue here isn't "here is this complicated system or nothing" it's "here are two systems that achieve identical results, one system is demonstrably easier to use".

Why would you deliberately use more difficult systems, more complex language structures, when it is completely unneeded? You are gatekeeping, straight up. "Sorry, you have to be this smart/educated to ride this ride" is probably one of the most toxic forms of gatekeeping in the hobby.

Let's not forget as well that most people have actually zero idea what 9th grade English actually looks like. The New York Times is written at a 7th grade level and is considered one of the highest level newspapers in America. 10th grade English? Most people here couldn't actually read it. We're talking Derida and various other writers that virtually no one outside of English majors ever read because they're virtually impossible to read.

Guess what? The average well educated Canadian, one of the highest educated populations in the world, reads at about a 6th grade level and certainly writes no better than that. If your game requires 9th grade math, you just made your game impossible to play for the majority of the world. Or, put it another way - calculating the volume of an irregularly shaped hemisphere filled with stalactites and stalagmites is FAR beyond what most gamers can do. I know I certainly can't. And even if you can, I double dog dare you to do it in your head without the aid of a calculator.

So, no, the idea that we need to "set the bar" at college level math? Good luck with that.

Though it's worth noting that "complex"/"complicated" has two different meanings.

On the one hand, just as you describe: a system that uses more steps to achieve the same result as something that uses less steps. This form of "complex" is of course not productive.

On the other, many people use the word "complex"/"complexity" to refer to something else, achieving different results. Specifically, I find people use that term when they mean "depth", "mechanical engagement", or "more choices/resources/options".

I fully agree that the former should be avoided whenever possible. The latter is something I value quite highly as an option for players to use if they wish, but not as a mandatory thing, since some players prefer lower mechanical engagement and don't get much benefit from game-mechanical depth for any of several reasons.

Which raises a tangential yet relevant question: for what level of education-comprehension-ability should the game be designed?

Given the desire for a mass-market appeal, at least when it comes to pervasive and commonly-used elements like AC and attack rolls, I should think a lower expectation is the superior choice. That is, children in 6th grade are generally around 12 years old, and that's roughly when I would think TTRPGs are a reasonable thing for children to get into without parental supervision. (I say "without parental supervision" because I'm sure even like five or six year olds could do TTRPGs with parental assistance, but at roughly 12, maybe 10, most kids are in the right headspace for TTRPGing, IMO.)

It seems to me D&D is not marketed to children in any meaningful way, despite the frequent accusations of "Disneyfication" etc. that get thrown around. But it is marketed with the expectation that some children are going to play.

Further: at higher grades, students are learning algebra and trigonometry, which really aren't necessary for much if anything in D&D. Since I can't really see much that players would really need/want to do that would require trigonometry, I can't see expecting math beyond 7th or 8th grade.

 

[Yaarel]

Since I can't really see much that players would really need/want to do that would require trigonometry, I can't see expecting math beyond 7th or 8th grade.

Heh, deciding who is within the radius of a Fireball blast is pretty much the same thing as trigonometry. There is a reason people use a string, cutouts, have "cubic explosions", or just guesstimate.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, deciding who is within the radius of a Fireball blast is pretty much the same thing as trigonometry. There is a reason people use a string, cutouts, have "cubic explosions", or just guesstimate.

That was rather the reason I used that example. I mean, I'm going to be perfectly honest here, I can't do it. I have no idea how to calculate the volume of a hemi-sphere with occlusions. I know it can be done. But, me? Nope, not gonna do it.

Fortunately, I don't have to because now area affects don't "fill volumes". Why don't they fill volumes anymore? Because the math required to accurately determine the volume of spaces is FAR too difficult for a game. I've seen systems where they start getting into square roots and whatnot for determining various things like carrying capacity and whatnot. Fortunately, that sort of thing tends to be very, very few and far between.

See, @EzekielRaiden, I didn't mean that complexity is necessarily bad. After all, D&D is a VERY complex game, regardless of edition. The number of steps just to create a character is pretty lengthy. Not Palladium lengthy or GURPS lengthy, or HERO lengthy, but, not exactly short. Character creation is a complex system. And, over the years, we've seen a lot of that complexity ironed out. WotC style stats where each 2 is worth +1 or -1 starting from 10 as opposed to six completely different tables to determine the impact of a given stat on your character.

But, overall, character generation is still pretty darn complex. And, there are systems out there that are FAR simpler for character generation. Savage Worlds is a great example where character generation is far, far simpler than D&D. But, that doesn't necessarily make it better because what you achieve in a SW character and what you achieve in a D&D character during creation gives you different results. D&D gives much higher resolution on what that character is. At the far other side, you have something like FATE where your character is barely sketched in at character generation - most of what that character is will be determined in play. Again, we're achieving different results, so, there can't be any real claim that one method is better than another. There's no doubt that a FATE character is FAR easier to create than a D&D character. But, again, that's not a question of which system is better. Each one is making a character for that game. Within the context of the game, the level of complexity is determined largely by the game itself.

 

[Lanefan]

But that is actually not relevant. If one system for some reason is more complicated and more difficult than another system and achieves the same result then that more complicated system is poorly designed. That's just how design works. A simpler, easier to use system that gets the same results is always a better system.

Remember, the issue here isn't "here is this complicated system or nothing" it's "here are two systems that achieve identical results, one system is demonstrably easier to use".

Why would you deliberately use more difficult systems, more complex language structures, when it is completely unneeded? You are gatekeeping, straight up. "Sorry, you have to be this smart/educated to ride this ride" is probably one of the most toxic forms of gatekeeping in the hobby.

Man oh man, is it now to be the case that every time someone wants to put some standards to something "gatekeeper!" is the first response?

Let's not forget as well that most people have actually zero idea what 9th grade English actually looks like. The New York Times is written at a 7th grade level and is considered one of the highest level newspapers in America. 10th grade English? Most people here couldn't actually read it. We're talking Derida and various other writers that virtually no one outside of English majors ever read because they're virtually impossible to read.

Fair enough, I probably mis-guessed the grade levels.

Consider, though, the difference in writing and vocabulary etc. between even 1e D&D and 2e D&D. Sure Gygax's prose was convoluted, but it read at a much higher level than did 2e; and I posit the game should shoot for that higher level rather than dumb itself down.

Guess what? The average well educated Canadian, one of the highest educated populations in the world, reads at about a 6th grade level and certainly writes no better than that. If your game requires 9th grade math, you just made your game impossible to play for the majority of the world. Or, put it another way - calculating the volume of an irregularly shaped hemisphere filled with stalactites and stalagmites is FAR beyond what most gamers can do. I know I certainly can't. And even if you can, I double dog dare you to do it in your head without the aid of a calculator.

So, no, the idea that we need to "set the bar" at college level math? Good luck with that.

I wasn't referring to math - or writing - when I said "college level"; if it seemed that way, I said it wrong.

I was suggesting that's what the primary target market should be - college-age people who are in the phase of life where they're making loads of new friends be it through college or work or wherever, and with those new friends often trying new activities and hobbies.

 

[Lanefan]

Further: at higher grades, students are learning algebra and trigonometry, which really aren't necessary for much if anything in D&D. Since I can't really see much that players would really need/want to do that would require trigonometry, I can't see expecting math beyond 7th or 8th grade.

Clearly you've never played in a game that had reflecting lightning bolts. Come on over sometime, I'll introduce you...and believe me, some basic trig might become your friend.

 

[Zardnaar]

Clearly you've never played in a game that had reflecting lightning bolts. Come on over sometime, I'll introduce you...and believe me, some basic trig might become your friend.

I've seen it used in a 10' corridor. Think they had some absorb lightning spell running or immunity.