Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Complexity as a Barrier to Playing Dungeons & Dragons
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5508974" data-attributes="member: 43283"><p>Your question doesn't make sense to me.</p><p></p><p>Do you mean people complain about the game being too simple and that the additional complexity is shunted into splat books?</p><p></p><p>Or do you mean that the game could be simplified and additional splat books could have more complexity?</p><p></p><p>My own observation is that the game is complicated and then there's additional options (not more complicated, just differently complicated) added in splat books usually. Sometimes you might have a whole new system introduced (like mass combat) but mostly it's additional stuff of a "focused" (magic, or undead campaigns, or desert stuff, etc) nature that comes out in splats. Usually the folks that pick up the splats view it as "more options" which can be used or not, while folks that are already twitchy about complexity level see it as one more book that's adding another layer of rule and stuff to worry about.</p><p></p><p>And they're both right. It's just that since they're focused on different things, one sees a problem and the other sees a choice.</p><p></p><p>But also remember that in at least the case of 3.x D&D the nature of the game was changing, roughly every 5 levels according to Ryan Dancey. So you actually have a couple of different levels of complexity going on. I've only run a 4e game for a few months, so I can't speak too much to what's happening there in terms of the evolving complexity, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some of that as well.</p><p></p><p>4e is a bit tricky as well, because they've got the whole Essentials thing. Which my understanding is that even though the line itself is limited, the design philosophy is going to inform 4e from now on. My understanding might be flawed, but if it is I'd say that's more a function of the whole point of 4e and how it relates to the game's evolution being left rather unclear (deliberately?) by WotC.</p><p></p><p>From at least some of what I've gathered, Essentials was supposed to be a "simpler" option for those folks that wanted it, but still fully integrated into the 4e rules.</p><p></p><p>Could you have a "simpler" game and then have splat books that add greater complexity? Sure. After a fashion, that's what the old BECMI series was in some respects. Of course it was also a seperate gameline from AD&D and while you could make the leap from one to another, there was a fair amount of difference between the two. Especially if you did it RAW which most folks didn't; RAW seems to have become a mantra later for most D&Ders.</p><p></p><p>The problem is, D&D is viewed as a single line. Produce a book that caters to one segment (complex or simple) and you leave the other one in the lurch. And gamers are notoriously fickle, requiring a constant stream of books to prove that a game is still "supported". No books and a game is "dead" or dying and gamers are jumping ship because they don't want to be left trying to find players for a "dead" game.</p><p></p><p>And like I've said, I don't see WotC starting up a second line of D&D again. I got the distinct impression there was a feeling that by having 2 lines (Basic and Advanced) they were losing sales from a line (AD&D) and making their lives more difficult by having 2 different games. 1 gameline means less people needed to produce books, less people needed for rules development, and an easier time to try and develop and market new materials. Instead of trying to decide if they're going to design Ebberon for Basic or Advanced or try and do 2 different versions and deal with the inevitable errors that will result, they just do Ebberron and are done with it. Folks that might have been working on a different version of it are instead working on one of the splat books.</p><p></p><p>In short, it's not worth the time and money for them to do so at this point. And if that means they lose some customers? *shrug* That's ok. They already spend enough time trying to appeal as broadly as possible, there's just sometimes you gotta be willing to not have some customers.</p><p></p><p>Heck, MTG springs to mind. A fair chunk of folks would really love an MTG setting book for D&D. They'd probably get a fair degree of cross-over between both D&D and MTG audience. But WotC hasn't done it and they're probably not ever going to do it, even if it's a "license to print money" in some people's opinion. Why? I honestly don't know. But the question surely has to have been raised more than once in the past decade and nothing has changed. So clearly WotC is fine with "losing" a certain segment of game playing population. In this particular context I mean "losing" in the sense that they're only collecting money on one end (D&D or MTG) rather then both; not that people were refusing to buy any WotC product because of the lack of an MTG setting.</p><p></p><p>These days... I dunno. I'd be honestly surprised and impressed if a company ran a Basic and Advanced version of their gameline. I know Paizo is supposed to be coming out with a "Basic" version of their game. I could be wrong, but what I'm expecting to see is basically a "crippleware" version of the Pathfinder rules, with support for a limited number of levels. They may produce some occasional extra bits for it, but I'm thinking that the idea is basically the same as the philosophy I've seen espoused in this thread... that people will play the "simpler" version until their skills have increased and they're "ready" for the full-on game.</p><p></p><p>The reality is, what's "good for the hobby" is not necessasarily best for business. Heck, look at the OGL. That was viewed as good for business and no consideration (that I'm aware of) given to the impact on the hobby. The resulting explosion was great for the hobby and certainly helped start a number of rpg businesses as well; but judging by how WotC has gone, it seems clear they don't consider it to have been good for _their_ businesss.</p><p></p><p>Practically speaking, I don't know that there's really a solution; at least not a professional one involving the owner of D&D. I think any solution is going to please some and upset others; that being the case, the status quo isn't going to be challenged because it's at least a relatively known quantity. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scurvy_Platypus, post: 5508974, member: 43283"] Your question doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean people complain about the game being too simple and that the additional complexity is shunted into splat books? Or do you mean that the game could be simplified and additional splat books could have more complexity? My own observation is that the game is complicated and then there's additional options (not more complicated, just differently complicated) added in splat books usually. Sometimes you might have a whole new system introduced (like mass combat) but mostly it's additional stuff of a "focused" (magic, or undead campaigns, or desert stuff, etc) nature that comes out in splats. Usually the folks that pick up the splats view it as "more options" which can be used or not, while folks that are already twitchy about complexity level see it as one more book that's adding another layer of rule and stuff to worry about. And they're both right. It's just that since they're focused on different things, one sees a problem and the other sees a choice. But also remember that in at least the case of 3.x D&D the nature of the game was changing, roughly every 5 levels according to Ryan Dancey. So you actually have a couple of different levels of complexity going on. I've only run a 4e game for a few months, so I can't speak too much to what's happening there in terms of the evolving complexity, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some of that as well. 4e is a bit tricky as well, because they've got the whole Essentials thing. Which my understanding is that even though the line itself is limited, the design philosophy is going to inform 4e from now on. My understanding might be flawed, but if it is I'd say that's more a function of the whole point of 4e and how it relates to the game's evolution being left rather unclear (deliberately?) by WotC. From at least some of what I've gathered, Essentials was supposed to be a "simpler" option for those folks that wanted it, but still fully integrated into the 4e rules. Could you have a "simpler" game and then have splat books that add greater complexity? Sure. After a fashion, that's what the old BECMI series was in some respects. Of course it was also a seperate gameline from AD&D and while you could make the leap from one to another, there was a fair amount of difference between the two. Especially if you did it RAW which most folks didn't; RAW seems to have become a mantra later for most D&Ders. The problem is, D&D is viewed as a single line. Produce a book that caters to one segment (complex or simple) and you leave the other one in the lurch. And gamers are notoriously fickle, requiring a constant stream of books to prove that a game is still "supported". No books and a game is "dead" or dying and gamers are jumping ship because they don't want to be left trying to find players for a "dead" game. And like I've said, I don't see WotC starting up a second line of D&D again. I got the distinct impression there was a feeling that by having 2 lines (Basic and Advanced) they were losing sales from a line (AD&D) and making their lives more difficult by having 2 different games. 1 gameline means less people needed to produce books, less people needed for rules development, and an easier time to try and develop and market new materials. Instead of trying to decide if they're going to design Ebberon for Basic or Advanced or try and do 2 different versions and deal with the inevitable errors that will result, they just do Ebberron and are done with it. Folks that might have been working on a different version of it are instead working on one of the splat books. In short, it's not worth the time and money for them to do so at this point. And if that means they lose some customers? *shrug* That's ok. They already spend enough time trying to appeal as broadly as possible, there's just sometimes you gotta be willing to not have some customers. Heck, MTG springs to mind. A fair chunk of folks would really love an MTG setting book for D&D. They'd probably get a fair degree of cross-over between both D&D and MTG audience. But WotC hasn't done it and they're probably not ever going to do it, even if it's a "license to print money" in some people's opinion. Why? I honestly don't know. But the question surely has to have been raised more than once in the past decade and nothing has changed. So clearly WotC is fine with "losing" a certain segment of game playing population. In this particular context I mean "losing" in the sense that they're only collecting money on one end (D&D or MTG) rather then both; not that people were refusing to buy any WotC product because of the lack of an MTG setting. These days... I dunno. I'd be honestly surprised and impressed if a company ran a Basic and Advanced version of their gameline. I know Paizo is supposed to be coming out with a "Basic" version of their game. I could be wrong, but what I'm expecting to see is basically a "crippleware" version of the Pathfinder rules, with support for a limited number of levels. They may produce some occasional extra bits for it, but I'm thinking that the idea is basically the same as the philosophy I've seen espoused in this thread... that people will play the "simpler" version until their skills have increased and they're "ready" for the full-on game. The reality is, what's "good for the hobby" is not necessasarily best for business. Heck, look at the OGL. That was viewed as good for business and no consideration (that I'm aware of) given to the impact on the hobby. The resulting explosion was great for the hobby and certainly helped start a number of rpg businesses as well; but judging by how WotC has gone, it seems clear they don't consider it to have been good for _their_ businesss. Practically speaking, I don't know that there's really a solution; at least not a professional one involving the owner of D&D. I think any solution is going to please some and upset others; that being the case, the status quo isn't going to be challenged because it's at least a relatively known quantity. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Complexity as a Barrier to Playing Dungeons & Dragons
Top