Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Got it. Everything WotC does to maximize profits is fine.
D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See
UngeheuerLich
Legend
No. Got it wrong. But not everything is bad either.
Yes it is "necessary" because you also avoid discussing what exactly is "unnecessarily complex" by going into detail on why it is "unnecessarily complex" or how the reduced complexity improved gameplay.
"Go buy learn and play some totally unrelated game and keep at it till you find the problem from complexity that I don't even bother describing" is very much not making a case for anything let alone a case for simplicity in d&d because it's a hunt looking for "insane complexity"
Yaarel
He Mage
Even Pathfinder no longer uses the 3e game engine. I call that, "3e failed". It is no longer financially viable, at least not at the magnitude that it once had.
From a point of view of an individual esthetic preference, it is a bit trickier to describe. One must be able to actualize ones preferences. One must be able to find a group of players that can accommodate the individuals preference. Also, this can be part of customizing the 5e engine for ones unique taste.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Might look up some posts you made before. I'll explain though. Some games have lasted centuries. Non of them have complex rules. But some have very appealing gameplay. Chess is one example. I'd say chess has more engaging gameplay than most RPGs going by the number of players. And more "optimization" going on than any RPG. You can buy thousands of books and videos and so on. And "optimization" is still going on and all this is based on rules that fit on a single page.
On the other hand some very complex games with very complicated rules are solved within a few days, because there is a clear best way of playing.
mellored
Legend
Just do the bonus directly. Also get rid of negatives.
So point buy would be...
+0: 0 points
+1: 2 points
+2: 4 points
+3: 7 points
Standard array is
+3,+3, +2, +1, +1, 0
Rolling is 3d6 straight, take the middle die and divide by 2 (round up).
Your background gives you +1 to a stat, and your class gives +1. Max +4.
Or something like that.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I want more out of an RPG than I do out of Chess.
Yaarel
He Mage
Interestingly, Albert Einstein is known to have said this (1933):
"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible, without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
The musician, Roger Sessions, a composer, is thought to paraphrase this statement above by saying (1950):
"I also remember a remark of Albert Einstein, which certainly applies to music. He said, in effect, that everything should be as simple as it can be but not simpler!"
Then this in turn later paraphrases variously, including:
Newspaper columnist, Sydney J Harris (1964): "In every field of inquiry, it is true that all things should be made as simple as possible – but no simpler."
Yale Book of Quotations (1972): "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Ultimately, the quotes are attributed to Einstein, albeit apparently via a chain of paraphrases.
"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible, without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
The musician, Roger Sessions, a composer, is thought to paraphrase this statement above by saying (1950):
"I also remember a remark of Albert Einstein, which certainly applies to music. He said, in effect, that everything should be as simple as it can be but not simpler!"
Then this in turn later paraphrases variously, including:
Newspaper columnist, Sydney J Harris (1964): "In every field of inquiry, it is true that all things should be made as simple as possible – but no simpler."
Yale Book of Quotations (1972): "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Ultimately, the quotes are attributed to Einstein, albeit apparently via a chain of paraphrases.
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
Ability scores would no longer work as they have for years. The rules for ability scores would have to be rewritten throughout the books. The entire D&D Community would no longer be able to say "I have an 18 Strength," rather "I have a Strength of +4."
There would be no more incremental odd ability scores, as there would be no way to track odd numbers. ASIs and Feats that grant ability score bumps in increments of 1 would have to be redesigned. A Fighter's stat array might look like this:
Strength +4
Dexterity +1
Constitution +3
Intelligence -1
Wisdom +1
Charisma +1
I don't think this would be a good change. We'd lose 50 years of common language.
Similar Threads
