D&D 5E 08/05/2013 - Legends & Lore : Scaling Complexity

[I'm A Banana]

In other words, either go generic or go flavorful, but whatever you do, own it.

A fair argument.

Bingo.

My personal sympathies lie with "flavorful," because there's a much meatier RP hook to sink your fangs into if you are a "Knight" as opposed to a "Defender," but that means the complexity dial is at a higher level than subclass: you'd tune your simple Knight to a more complex Knight in a different place than you'd pick between Knight and Gladiator and Myrmidon (or whatever). Which isn't necessarily in line with what WotC's goals are. Just in line with what MY goals are (which is to be able to have a meaty RP effect from my choice of subclass, and worry about mechanical complexity on a character-by-character or table-wide basis, rather than within the class structure).

 

[Ratskinner]

There seems to be the (incorrect) belief that character creation is the area that requires reduction in choice to constrain complexity. I don't just mean creating characters at the initial levels, but also those choice points at leveling.

But, as @Chris_Nightwing and others have pointed out, the real complexity in the game is the multiple sub-systems and number of choices "in the round" that is the real complexity in the game.

I'm concerned that not enough attention is given to in round complexity and balancing that against monsters. Right now its hard to judge as the monster math is in general very poor

hmm...I wonder how well-received it will be when one player at the table chooses a complex character while the rest opt for simplicity and its hoped-for speed?

While I agree that D&D is generally too complicated via all its various subsystems, I'm not sure I see a way out of it without turning it into FATE or something similar. As far as choice-points during character development...I just don't see how to do it otherwise within the overall conceits of D&D's architecture. I'd certainly be interested in hearing folks' suggestions on a simplified archictecture for D&D.

 

[Stalker0]

hmm...I wonder how well-received it will be when one player at the table chooses a complex character while the rest opt for simplicity and its hoped-for speed?

it boils down to how fast the character can execute his complexity. If i'm playing a complex fighter who spends 10 minutes a turn agonizing on decisions....yeah my group might suggest a simplier fighter. But if plan out my actions a bit ahead of time run quick with the dice and make it happen, i doubt anyone would complain.

 

[Hussar]

hmm...I wonder how well-received it will be when one player at the table chooses a complex character while the rest opt for simplicity and its hoped-for speed?

While I agree that D&D is generally too complicated via all its various subsystems, I'm not sure I see a way out of it without turning it into FATE or something similar. As far as choice-points during character development...I just don't see how to do it otherwise within the overall conceits of D&D's architecture. I'd certainly be interested in hearing folks' suggestions on a simplified archictecture for D&D.

I think that's a very valid concern. We saw this to some degree in 3e where you had some classes that could easily take a whole lot more table time than others. Even if everyone at the table was on the ball and the slow down in play wasn't player distraction, a druid with a companion, three summoned animals who casts Animal Growth is going to take longer than the power attacking fighter.

Heck, I see it in my 4e group where you have some characters, like a warlock, who are pretty straight forward and don't eat a lot of table time, and other characters like a Bard with a bajillion out of turn interrupts which can just drag the turn for so long.

I can see this really becoming an issue in mixed groups.