4th edition's relative rules complexity

[Stalker0]

My initial impression in 4e that a player's choices will take longer, but there execution will be shorter.

The question is what takes longer: a 20th level fighter in 3e deciding to attack, then rolling 4 attack rolls with modifiers, then rolling 4 damage rolls with modifiers, adding all the damage and then giving that to the DM vs a 4e fighter taking a bit to decide what power to use, rolling one attack roll and damage roll, adding the damage, and giving that to the DM.

And of course the more important question: which is more fun?

 

[pawsplay]

I think your sequence is a bit simplistic. In 4e, the fighter deciding which maneuver to use is only the beginning. Reactions have shown up a LOT in examples of play.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Also, as others have pointed out, this still happens and for the same reasons. "Oh, wait, I'm a Scout and moved more than 10 feet this round so add 2 to that AC...and that also put me in range of the magical circle against evil so another +1..."

And as I said, I agree that it was a problem with 3E. It would be nice if 4E would fix this problem instead of making it worse. Some aspects of 4E might lead to an improvement here -- removal of iterative attacks is one variable-math thing gone.

MCaE was a neat idea that was unfortunately complicated -- not only in calculating the bonus, but in planning movement. In my campaign I eventually gave every PC an innate +2 deflection bonus and resistance bonus as a quest reward, to no longer have to worry about whether or not they were within the Magic Circle Against Evil.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I haven't seen any evidence that 4E will "make it worse". It's still too early to tell in that regard. I do think, however, that the designers are aware of the issue. They may have reduced the number of bonuses, or redesigned the way they stack, or lessened the double bookkeeping of bonus + duration. We simply don't know.

Also, I think the design goal is not to get rid of *all* complexity, but anything which could be deemed unnecessarily complex. I think most people would agree that too much reduction would result in a boring game.

And I think we really need the whole picture here to make a realistic call on whether or not things have been streamlined enough. Sometimes it's not one glaring thing that slows combat down, it's a dozen little things. If 4E tweaked those little things sufficiently, it may have smoothed the overall experience so that some of the more necessarily complex rules still play faster.

 

[Klaus]

It'll still be easier than 3e grappling rules.

Well, those are simple enough to fit in a Magic-sized card.

 

[DreamChaser]

I think your sequence is a bit simplistic. In 4e, the fighter deciding which maneuver to use is only the beginning. Reactions have shown up a LOT in examples of play.

IMO, this is a good thing. The Bo9S characters I've DMed for haven't slowed things down any, nor have the existence of immediate spells / powers. Why? Because each player is constantly paying attention to the flow of battle to see if there is something his / her character can do to affect the course of things. By the time their actual turn comes up, they have such a clear sense of what is going on that they are able to rapidly decide.

Plus, the existence of at will abilities makes it easy. Currently if not facing and obvious choice based upon strategy or opportunity, a sorcerer has to choose: do I default to my crossbow (thinking LAME and lousy damage even if I do hit) or do I use a spell slot that could be used for something else (read vital) later.

Now, the wizard can default to some at will ability and not have to agonize over casting scorching ray to deal massive damage or save it for the possible invisibility the rogue will need.

DC

 

[Cadfan]

Its not more complicated.

Look, WOTC said they'd make the game less complicated. This means that if your goal is to trash WOTC, one way to do it is to police every release they make for anything new that must be tracked, calculated, or remembered, then accuse WOTC of going back on their word. Its a nice, content free way of complaining. Of course its not a very useful one, because WOTC didn't say "we will make every last aspect of the game, every monster, every rules system, and every character class, less complicated." They said the game, presumably as a whole, would be less complicated. But if you reword their statements into a straw version of themselves, you can pick at them.

Its analogous to what the press does to politicians. Rather than discuss whether the politician's words make any sense, they discuss whether the politician's words are the same as their words 10 years ago. The former requires expertise, while the latter just requires going, "GOTCHA!" Expertise is hard. Gotcha is easy.

 

[Particle_Man]

I heard it will be easier to DM.

 

[TerraDave]

Its hard to say without seeing more of the actual rules books.

But, I think by the book 1st edition AD&D will remain the most complicated version of the game.

But, then again, I also don't think it will be as simple as they say. They have simplified somethings, but the very nature of "exception based design" means adding a lot of new wrinkles back in. We have to see the final product, and probably play it, before comparing to 3rd edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Its not more complicated.

More complicated, less complicated....it's too early to say.

The following, however, is clearly an attempt to shut down conversation on the issue:

Look, WOTC said they'd make the game less complicated. This means that if your goal is to trash WOTC, one way to do it is to police every release they make for anything new that must be tracked, calculated, or remembered, then accuse WOTC of going back on their word. Its a nice, content free way of complaining.

Looking at what has been released about the system to see if it seems more or less complicated isn't going "GOTCHA!" nor is it "analogous to what the press does to politicians".

Despite what some may claim, it is quite possible to believe that "WOTC said they'd make the game less complicated" isn't evidence that the game will be[/i] less complicated[/i] without believing that this is because WotC is intentionally increasing complication, or leaving complication the same.

Every set of rpg game rules ever devised has included unintentional consequences. Certainly that was the case in 3e -- WotC is now quite open about several things in 3e not working the way the designers thought they would. Why would one expect that, with 4e, the same wouldn't apply? Why wouldn't the claims of the 4e designers be open to the same scrutiny?

The only time someone says "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!", IME and IMHO, is when you should be paying attention to exactly that.


RC