Raven Crowking
First Post
[MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION]: You may be interested in this thread, as relates to your own design work.
Some people just prefer simpler systems.
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.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.
4th Edition simply asks for far more player investment up-front than did any previous version of the game.
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").
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.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".Herremann the Wise said: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.
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.
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.jdrakeh said:Speak for yourself.
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.