Complexity as a Barrier to Playing Dungeons & Dragons

[Raven Crowking]

[MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION]: You may be interested in this thread, as relates to your own design work.

 

[The Shaman]

Some people just prefer simpler systems.

As a veteran gamer playing these things for over 30 years I still appreciate the appeal of simplicity. I have played complex games and over time have found that for me, they do not add enough extra fun to the experience to justify the effort.

I want to spend more of my time thinking about what my character is doing or going to do and less on how to do it per the rules of the game.

 

[BobROE]

I think part of the issue may also be the range of complexity between different classes between editions.

In 2E (the earliest edition I've played, but I think this applies to the earlier ones) a fighter was less complex than a mage, cleric, or paladin. So as a player I could choose that class (or as a DM point a player to that class) if I was looking for a less (mechanically) complex experience.

In 3E (and even more so in 4E from the sounds of things, I haven't played it) thier was an effort to "balance" the classes, which meant that the various classes are all of a similiar level of complexity. So for people who don't care about playing a mechanically complex character they really don't have any options (within the ruleset, and within presure from other players to be "useful").

 

[Croesus]

4th Edition simply asks for far more player investment up-front than did any previous version of the game.

You summed up nicely my own 4E experience. I've played RPG's for 35 years, but I wanted something simpler than 3E, so I decided to give it a shot. I downloaded the quick start rules, read them over, underlined a few passages and thought, "Hey, this looks okay." Then I looked at the sample characters...

I stopped half way through. So many fiddly bits. This guy can shift a target if something happens, this guy can mark a target, while this power affects all targets, if the targets can be affected by that type of power, which not all targets can, and so on, and so on. I don't remember many specifics, but I do remember my eyes glazing over.

I've read that 4E plays better than it reads. Perhaps so. But after seeing all the stuff I was expected to know just to start playing the game (this is the Quick Start stuff???), I decided not to bother. Nowadays, I just don't want to have to work so hard to have fun gaming.

 

[Croesus]

I think part of the issue may also be the range of complexity between different classes between editions.

In 2E (the earliest edition I've played, but I think this applies to the earlier ones) a fighter was less complex than a mage, cleric, or paladin. So as a player I could choose that class (or as a DM point a player to that class) if I was looking for a less (mechanically) complex experience.

In 3E (and even more so in 4E from the sounds of things, I haven't played it) thier was an effort to "balance" the classes, which meant that the various classes are all of a similiar level of complexity. So for people who don't care about playing a mechanically complex character they really don't have any options (within the ruleset, and within presure from other players to be "useful").

Good point. Having a simpler class helps a new player ease into the game. However, many RPG's, especially class-based ones, expect that someone will play the more complicated classes/roles, so if the entire group is new to the game, having one or two simple classes doesn't fix the basic problem.

I still remember that most of the problems my group had learning white box D&D was with spellcasting, especially figuring out Vancian magic. Boy, did we get that wrong for a long time...

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Out of interest, I find myself looking more for added "elegant-complexity" and mechanical simulation rather than raw simplification under either basic mechanical or gamist principles. The need for a basic game to break through the complexity barrier is important for novices, but is quickly discarded once one becomes a veteran.

And I most strongly disagree with this. This is part of the problem; there's this entrenched notion in gamers that "simple" = "novice" and "veteran" = "complex".

Not everyone is playing an rpg because they want or enjoy the rules mastery/game mastery aspect. The fact that there's a "game" there is fine and even enjoyable; it doesn't mean they need or want it to be expanded.

That's a very fair point (although I was talking about my own particular preference for a more complex game and how a basic game would service that more complex game). To have that basic game be as complete as possible so as for those that prefer the simpler structure, they can continue with it without needing to upgrade would be equally important.
Just saying

Speak for yourself.

I was as hopefully you can see from the full context. I obviously have nothing against simpler systems or the people who play and enjoy them - even though my natural preference is for a more complex, mechanically-involved system.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[enpeze66]

So now that we know that DnD has become more complex over the years (even 4e despite the marketing claims of the designers) do you think that going back to a simple edition would be good? Maybe a 5th edition where a combat grid is just an option and not a must and one where the dungeon boss does not have 1500 HP to grind down and one where there is much more focus on the adventures quality and the setting than on the "built" of a munchkin character? One where you as newbie and experienced player just can sit down at the table and play after 3min of rule explanation?

 

[ExploderWizard]

So now that we know that DnD has become more complex over the years (even 4e despite the marketing claims of the designers) do you think that going back to a simple edition would be good? Maybe a 5th edition where a combat grid is just an option and not a must and one where the dungeon boss does not have 1500 HP to grind down and one where there is much more focus on the adventures quality and the setting than on the "built" of a munchkin character? One where you as newbie and experienced player just can sit down at the table and play after 3min of rule explanation?

A very simple game as mainstream D&D probably won't happen. The economic reality is that the larger the company producing the game becomes, the less TTRPGs as a whole seem worthwhile to produce.

 

[nedjer]

Mechanical complexity v's complexity is one side of this. However, finding ways to encourage GMs to recognise and adapt to the skills gap between novices and experts seems equally, if not more, relevant when trying to get more players into the hobby.

 

[nedjer]

A very simple game as mainstream D&D probably won't happen. The economic reality is that the larger the company producing the game becomes, the less TTRPGs as a whole seem worthwhile to produce.

Except that you don't need a large company to produce a full RPG any more?