D&D 5E A new Golden Age for D&D

[Mistwell]

Salient points. However, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're (essentially) saying that the most important reductions in complexity to 5e come down to:
- fewer additions/subtractions
- fewer bonus categories to remember

I'm a little...less enthused with the benefits of "bounded" accuracy than most

I know you are. You've said you feel 5e is utterly awful, just a couple days ago (which is fine). Which is why I'm trying to remove the subjective opinions on whether these are things you or I like or dislike, and simply spell out the objective measures of whether or not these things do or do not simplify things. I think you will agree even if these things are not to your personal tastes, objectively they do result in simplification.

I just...guess I feel like treating "game" complexity (what the rules tell you to do and how you monkey through them) and "math" complexity (the amount of calculation/boost-remembering you must do) as exactly the same thing is...eh. I don't want to throw accusations around. I just think that those things are significantly different, and referring to both of them as "complexity" makes them sound interchangeable when they really aren't.

I think we could have a philosophical debate concerning the difference between game complexity and math complexity, but at the end of the day both impact the play of the game at the table concerning complexity. If you reduce the math complexity, the game will in general move faster, combats will take a shorter period of time, turns will take a shorter period of time, time between games crunching numbers will be reduced, time a DM has to juggle between story elements and math elements will be skewed more towards story elements if they don't have to focus on math elements, use or need for electronic tools to do the math portions will be reduced, the barrier to new players entering the game and getting the sense from watching the game that it's math-intensive will be reduced, all sorts of complexity-related things come from reducing the math complexity of the game.

In other words, game complexity might not itself be directly reduced by math complexity, game complexity is indirectly benefited in a variety of ways by math simplification.

It's not infinite - you cannot reduce the math to always a single role and get maximum benefit out of it and there are diminishing returns from reducing math complexity. But I think 5e strikes an interesting and overall pretty good balance in reducing math complexity to the benefit of game complexity.

I do think you're right that in terms of game complexity elements that a player can flip switches on, 5e has a lot. Race, Class, Subclass, Background, Story items that can result in inspiration, skills and tools, Factions, unique class features, feats, etc..

 

[Tony Vargas]

for me is how it plays at the table, and 5E is more simple than 3E or 4E.

I can understand that. 5e is more like classic D&D, both in the style of the rules, and the presentation and general feel, and that familiarity, along with being comfortable with the role of the DM in both classic & 5e D&D, can give that impression.

There's just less book-keeping all around, character creation and advancement is far simpler, less modifiers to deal with, feats as optional, etc.

Actually, character advancement, for instance, is much more complex in 5e than in 4e, which had a simple, uniform advancement scheme (classic D&D was even more complicated when it came to advancement). 4e's system was just new & different. So, understandable, but, yes, I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about your experience of the system, "how it plays at the table" for you, as you put it. I'm talking about the system, itself, separate from what the players bring to it.

You also seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that, as I said (and you didn't respond to) there was far more product for 4E a year in.

I agreed with it. Yes, 5e has far less material out, at this point, than 3e or 4e or 2e did. That doesn't make it a simpler system. If you compare it to prior systems at a comparable point, with the same number of actual rule books out (just the core 3, still), 5e isn't any less complex than any of them.

I think we may actually agree on part of the point, though, which is that the slow pace of release is not all bad, and may even be good. D&D has rarely been able to tolerate a lot of bloat without breaking down, so limiting actually 'crunch' or splatbooks, and releasing fewer books, more focused on adventures and settings, can give the system a longer shelf life, even if it's design is a little retro & baroque.

First of all, "at release" all editions are the same in terms of products: the core three, plus maybe one other product. I think the most we could say is that at release 5E is a more complete game than 4E was, with more classes and races to choose from

You could also say that 5e at release is a more complex or complicated game than 4e at release, it'd be equally true. The major difference among, complex, complicated, and complete in that context is one of connotation.

For instance, 3e & 4e one year in were both much more complete than 5e one year in. But that's no more a meaningful comparison than saying they were more complex a year in.

But what we can compare is how these different editions look a year into their cycles, and 5E is far leaner than 3E or 4E.

Or far less complete, if you want to make that comparison. Also not so balanced as 4e, nor so system-mastery-rewarding as 3e.

Each modern version of D&D has had a very different design philosophy. 5e's is to do very little design after the initial release. IMHO, that's a good call, because it will extend the life of the system by avoiding bloat. It also means there'll just be less to it for a long time than there was to 3e or 4e. And, it also means it's front-loaded and, yep, pretty complicated at release compared to those editions.

Salient points. However, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're (essentially) saying that the most important reductions in complexity to 5e come down to:
- fewer additions/subtractions
- fewer bonus categories to remember

And it's relative to 3e: 5e Adv/Dis paired down the number of modifiers, so did 4e CA.

for me is how it plays at the table, and 5E is more simple than 3E or 4E.

I can understand that. 5e is more like classic D&D, both in the style of the rules, and the presentation and general feel, and that familiarity, along with being comfortable with the role of the DM in both classic & 5e D&D, can give that impression.

There's just less book-keeping all around, character creation and advancement is far simpler, less modifiers to deal with, feats as optional, etc.

Actually, character advancement, for instance, is much more complex in 5e than in 4e, which had a simple, uniform advancement scheme (classic D&D was even more complicated when it came to advancement). 4e's system was just new & different. So, understandable, but, yes, I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about your experience of the system, "how it plays at the table" for you, as you put it. I'm talking about the system, itself, separate from what the players bring to it.

You also seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that, as I said (and you didn't respond to) there was far more product for 4E a year in.

I agreed with it. Yes, 5e has far less material out, at this point, than 3e or 4e or 2e did. That doesn't make it a simpler system. If you compare it to prior systems at a comparable point, with the same number of actual rule books out (just the core 3, still), 5e isn't any less complex than any of them.

I think we may actually agree on part of the point, though, which is that the slow pace of release is not all bad, and may even be good. D&D has rarely been able to tolerate a lot of bloat without breaking down, so limiting actually 'crunch' or splatbooks, and releasing fewer books, more focused on adventures and settings, can give the system a longer shelf life, even if it's design is a little retro & baroque.

First of all, "at release" all editions are the same in terms of products: the core three, plus maybe one other product. I think the most we could say is that at release 5E is a more complete game than 4E was, with more classes and races to choose from

You could also say that 5e at release is a more complex or complicated game than 4e at release, it'd be equally true. The major difference among, complex, complicated, and complete in that context is one of connotation.

For instance, 3e & 4e one year in were both much more complete than 5e one year in. But that's no more a meaningful comparison than saying they were more complex a year in.

But what we can compare is how these different editions look a year into their cycles, and 5E is far leaner than 3E or 4E.

Or far less complete, if you want to make that comparison. Also not so balanced as 4e, nor so system-mastery-rewarding as 3e.

Each modern version of D&D has had a very different design philosophy. 5e's is to do very little design after the initial release. IMHO, that's a good call, because it will extend the life of the system by avoiding bloat. It also means there'll just be less to it for a long time than there was to 3e or 4e. And, it also means it's front-loaded and, yep, pretty complicated at release compared to those editions.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps you can expand on these thoughts. I agree that familiarity with a system can make a difference, and this is a large part of what allows, say, dinosaurs like me to migrate to 5e. That said, I don't agree that character creation and advancement in "classic" D&D (say, Red Box or AD&D 1e) was more complicated than it was in 4e. I think what you are looking for is that it was more idiosyncratic.

Idiosyncratic is fair, too. In 3e, 4e or 5e, characters in the same party are likely to level at about the same time, because everyone's on the same experience chart, while in 1e each class advances at a different rate. You could say that's an idiosyncrasy of older versions of the game, or you could say it's been simplified by newer versions. Similarly, what you get for leveling became more consistent in 3e (there were only three kinds of BAB progression, and two kinds of save progression), then even more so in 4e & 5e (1/2 level & 'bounded' proficiency bonuses instead of different BABs).

If you only ever check out and learn to play one class, especially a traditionally simplistic one like the fighter, classic D&D may seem pretty simple compared to choosing feats in 3e, exploits in 4e, or styles & archetypes in 5e, but if you look at all the classes, it's a very different picture. For us dinosaurs, the complexities of the traditional class designs are familiar and expected, so they don't get in our way, but just because we're accustomed to them doesn't mean they aren't there.

So, yeah, when I say classic D&D was complex or complicated, 'idiosyncratic' works as well. When a fellow grognard says that classic & 5e are simpler than modern eds, 'more familiar' would work as well, too.

4e might have had a more universal system (as you posit), but that is a *different* type of complexity; see also, GURPS.

'Universal System' to me, means a system that can do any character in any genre, from a standing start (like Hero System), even GURPS only claims to be 'multi-genre,' these days. D&D has never remotely tried to be universal. It got less baroque and inconsistent in the first two modern editions, while 5e has stuck with a higher level of consistency in some areas, like Advantage or Proficiency or exp to level, and reflects less consistent, more traditional, designs in others, like class, sub-classs, & progression or expected wealth/level & magic items.

But, yes, there are different kinds of complexity, too. Look at the 3.x fighter, for instance, it has a very simple, positively elegant design, with a bonus feat every other level, but the sheer number of possible builds you can make with those bonus feats is huge, and creating an optimal build, potentially a complex undertaking. Conversely, the traditional Vancian caster has more obvious complexity in both design, and in what you can do with that design. 4e classes had that former sort of complexity, though dialed down a bit, since each decision point didn't give you access to every possibility, just the ones for that level.

Every version of D&D, though, has run up against ballooning complexity as material is added. That 3.x fighter would 'need' a 20 level build to be done optimally, for instance, and might use feats from many different books late in the game's developent. 4e classes were similar, going from a few choices available each level, with re-training and a relative lack of prerequisites meaning you didn't have to plan full builds, to having power choices spread out over multiple books and even Dragon articles, until you were thankful for even the balky on-line CB to pull them all together for you.
5e's design may be at least as vulnerable to that pernicious effect of 'bloat,' as any prior ed, but this time, they're actually exercising some restraint and have thus far avoided it.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, character advancement, for instance, is much more complex in 5e than in 4e, which had a simple, uniform advancement scheme (classic D&D was even more complicated when it came to advancement).

Oh come on mate. Everyone was using DDI character generator software for 4e to level their characters because it was so friggen complicated juggling all the powers. In 5e I've seen people level from level 6 to level 7 (for instance) in 5 minutes by hand - did you EVER see someone do that by hand in 4e? I didn't. Everyone seemed to be using the character generator, and the expression was routinely "we HAVE to have the character generator to play" (which I used to deny, but my denial seemed to be a rather small voice in a sea of people who disagreed). Uniformity in advancement isn't the same in lacking complexity - if it's a uniform "choose 3 powers" and the list of powers is so long it would take you 30 minutes just to read it, it's not lacking in complexity it's just well organized complexity. 4e was well organized - but rather complex. The variety of powers at each level was pretty substantial, and how they interacted with your other powers was pretty complex and varied.

 

[Fishing_Minigame]

I just don't see how 5E is not a simpler game than 4E, or 3E for that matter.

I didn't play 3E, but I've been going through old FR sourcebooks from that era and I've gotten used to seeing giant honking statblocks like this all over the place. 5E sure looks greatly streamlined to me...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I didn't play 3E, but I've been going through old FR sourcebooks from that era and I've gotten used to seeing giant honking statblocks like this all over the place. 5E sure looks greatly streamlined to me...

...really? You're going to use an epic-level character (beyond-epic, I should say, since he appears to have 35 character levels)? A character that's from a series of novels and widely thought to be one of the most overpowered, "Mary Sue"-like characters in all of that campaign setting? That's the standard we're judging 3rd edition by?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In 5e I've seen people level from level 6 to level 7 (for instance) in 5 minutes by hand - did you EVER see someone do that by hand in 4e? I didn't. Everyone seemed to be using the character generator, and the expression was routinely "we HAVE to have the character generator to play" (which I used to deny, but my denial seemed to be a rather small voice in a sea of people who disagreed).

Yep, sure have. I've done it myself a couple of times. The CB is very convenient, but it doesn't solve the biggest "challenge" of levelling up--deciding which power you like best. I'm a 'casual optimizer,' so I refer to charop handbooks for advice, but will break from it when I wish to. (For example, I've played characters that--GASP OF SHOCK AND HORROR--only had a starting 16 in their prime stats, post-racial-boost. It's really not a big deal.) Anyone who says you "need" it is exaggerating; it's perfectly possible to do it by hand. Is it a more involved process than 5e level-up? Probably, because you get actual choices at more levels.

Uniformity in advancement isn't the same in lacking complexity - if it's a uniform "choose 3 powers" and the list of powers is so long it would take you 30 minutes just to read it, it's not lacking in complexity it's just well organized complexity. 4e was well organized - but rather complex. The variety of powers at each level was pretty substantial, and how they interacted with your other powers was pretty complex and varied.

Uh...there...actually are very few powers, AFAIK, which directly interact with other powers. Firstly 'cause most powers are Standard Actions, so you can't use them at the same time (without an Action Point, anyway, but that's a relatively high-level strategic concern, not something a casual player needs to consider). The biggest interactions are whether two powers can be used at the same time, whether one of your actions is already spoken for, and the occasional 'chain' effect (like the synergy of the Oncoming Storm and Echoes of Thunder feats). 5e still has an action economy, and while the Bonus Action isn't quite the same as the Minor Action, it's very similar--so you still have "can I do these two things in a single turn" and "crap, I need my [Bonus/non-Bonus] Action for [important thing]!" interactions. I haven't delved deep enough into 5e's feats, spells, and class features to know if there are "chain" effects, but I'd be seriously surprised if there aren't at least a few (probably more for Rogues, I'd imagine, but surely there are others).

And if we're allowing for indirect affect on other actions, 5e has plenty of that. It might have simpler mathematical expression (which people in general have already admitted is a thing in 5e, myself included), but indirectly improving your future actions is sort of a thing in every edition of D&D, albeit to varying degrees of codification.

 

[Fishing_Minigame]

...really? You're going to use an epic-level character (beyond-epic, I should say, since he appears to have 35 character levels)? A character that's from a series of novels and widely thought to be one of the most overpowered, "Mary Sue"-like characters in all of that campaign setting? That's the standard we're judging 3rd edition by?

You're right, Elminster just happened to be the first one I stumbled across. Here's a random mook from the City of Splendors book. He's doing pretty well for himself -- he's got 8 feats and more magic items than most of my PCs put together

I know, I know, I'm poking fun at an edition I never played. I have to do something with my time while I wait for the Sword Coast book to come out...

 

[Fishing_Minigame]

I will agree that class features in 5e do add up quickly though, even if I love the general consistency of the core mechanics. Every so often I gently remind one of my players about an ability they've used maybe once. The monk in particular -- flurry of blows gets a lot of use, but stunning strike not so much. And I don't think my sorcerer has ever once converted spell slots to sorcery points, or vice versa.