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: 5509401" data-attributes="member: 43283"><p>And I'm not implying that there's a greater number of folks in either group. I'd disagree with your assessement that there's a _greater_ number of players that want a simpler rule system. The main reason being that D&D has previously been estimated/stated by WotC to have a player base of 6 million people. It's not specified what the edition breakdown of that is.</p><p></p><p>However, the fact that millions of people haven't left D&D and taken up something else would suggest to me that while there are _some_ that would like a simpler rule system, the vast majority appear to be content to simply carry on.</p><p></p><p>As for the number of potential new players? Sure. As has been said numerous times already in this thread, complexity is a barrier.</p><p></p><p>The problem is that by simply making a single edition, you leave one group or another in the cold. When you don't _need_ to. This shouldn't be another sort of edition war, where instead of 3.x or 4e, it's "simple" vs "complicated". Every time the discussion starts to get framed that way, I'm going to resist it. I think it's _valid_ for people to like all the fiddly complexity that they do. I think they _should_ have a game that caters to them; fortunately they already have it and have had it for a decade now.</p><p></p><p>I just happen to _also_ think that a simpler solution should be available. It would be possible for folks to have their cake and eat it too.</p><p></p><p>In theory at least.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I'll provisionally disagree with you. You appear to be arguing in terms of "what's good for the hobby." Put plainly and simply, WotC doesn't care. Period. Repeat after me, "The business does not care about the hobby, except as it exists to sustain the business".</p><p></p><p>Yes, you could argue that it'd be in WotC's "best interests" to care about the hobby and try and grow it. But the evidence seems to be that there's no concern about the "hobby" of rpgs. They hobby of D&D now... that's a slightly different story. They're all kinds of concerned about that, at least in the short term. And yes, one can argue that D&D is "the hobby" in a number of respects. It's a provisional arguement and one that I'd make in a different thread.</p><p></p><p>But at the end of the day, the question is "Who's going to keep the business in business?" And I'm pretty sure the answer is going to be, "Not the casual gamer". Or the "non nerd crowd" to use your apparent classification.</p><p></p><p>Anecdotally, the material that sells the most? Crunch. Rules. The complexity that is acting as a barrier to folks playing D&D in the first place. WotC is in business to make money, and the people that only want to buy a rulebook (and a simpler set of rules at that) are not going to be the ones sustaining WotC.</p><p></p><p>Is there a possibility that trying to appeal to the folks that are currently turned away from D&D would result in _more_ money? Sure. And it's just as possible that they _still_ wouldn't buy product too.</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, it's highly probable that the people who _were_ buying material will _stop_ buying material, because it's no longer relevant to them.</p><p></p><p>So what you're looking at is this:</p><p></p><p>On the one hand: You lose some people that are turned off by the hardcore approach D&D and its fans take.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand: You might make more money, you might make less or the same amount of money, you almost certainly will lose current customers.</p><p></p><p>From my experience... that's just not something you even have to hesitate in considering, for most businesses. Keep what you've definitely got and try and figure out later how to increase it. I'm not saying it's "right", I'm not saying other businesses haven't taken the risk and profited, I'm saying it's the conservative and "safer" way to go.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok. I read it. I'm not quite sure what your argument is. I'm not saying "Complexity isn't a barrier to D&D". I say it's a _big_ barrier. What I'm saying is that only having 1 version of D&D and then arguing about how complicated or simple it should be is a ... poor... approach to take. It shouldn't have to be all or nothing like you're arguing; however, from a business sustainability perspective it most likely _is_ all or nothing and WotC has clearly already picked one side.</p><p></p><p>I personally don't think 4E was supposed to be "simpler". Sure, certain things were streamlined but "simplicity" as an overall design goal? Heck no. The design goal was "Consistency" and "streamline". 3.x design was awfully loose in some respects (like monsters for example). 3.x design also (especially with 3.5) strongly pushed you in the direction of miniatures, but still left lip-service to "you can play any kind of game you want."</p><p></p><p>4e said, "Screw it. You're going to play the game this way and if you don't like it... sorry." It focused the goals of the system and then tried to streamline some of the elements they felt were interfering with that.</p><p></p><p>What I quoted above from you reads to me like you're saying "4E sucks because it's too complicated and WotC have lost themselves customers because of it." To which I'd say, no 4E doesn't suck it just happens to have a different goal than what you'd like it to have. And yes, WotC lost themselves some customers. Anyone that says you can keep everyone in business happy, is a dirty liar. It's not possible. The act of making some people happy is automatically going to upset others. The question is whether you can balance that happiness/unhappiness ratio.</p><p></p><p>The easiest solution would be to go back to 2 game lines; the basic and advanced like we used to have in D&D. But to me, I don't really know if it'd be the _best_ solution or not. It would _possibly_ benefit the hobby. It may or may not benefit WotC. The question then becomes, if WotC goes under (regardless of whether they're supporting the current complex ruleset or a mythical simpler one) what does that do to D&D in specific and the rpg hobby in general.</p><p></p><p>But that sort of leads further astray from the original question and my earlier points in this thread. So in summary:</p><p></p><p>Yes, Complexity is a barrier.</p><p>Yes, there should be a simpler game.</p><p>No, it shouldn't be done at the expense of the current game; it should be a second game on its own.</p><p>Given that D&D is unlikely to have 2 gamelines again, the current approach is most likely to continue, regardless of how "harmful" or "beneficial" it is; it's a known quantity which almost always is better than an unknown quantity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scurvy_Platypus, post: 5509401, member: 43283"] And I'm not implying that there's a greater number of folks in either group. I'd disagree with your assessement that there's a _greater_ number of players that want a simpler rule system. The main reason being that D&D has previously been estimated/stated by WotC to have a player base of 6 million people. It's not specified what the edition breakdown of that is. However, the fact that millions of people haven't left D&D and taken up something else would suggest to me that while there are _some_ that would like a simpler rule system, the vast majority appear to be content to simply carry on. As for the number of potential new players? Sure. As has been said numerous times already in this thread, complexity is a barrier. The problem is that by simply making a single edition, you leave one group or another in the cold. When you don't _need_ to. This shouldn't be another sort of edition war, where instead of 3.x or 4e, it's "simple" vs "complicated". Every time the discussion starts to get framed that way, I'm going to resist it. I think it's _valid_ for people to like all the fiddly complexity that they do. I think they _should_ have a game that caters to them; fortunately they already have it and have had it for a decade now. I just happen to _also_ think that a simpler solution should be available. It would be possible for folks to have their cake and eat it too. In theory at least. And I'll provisionally disagree with you. You appear to be arguing in terms of "what's good for the hobby." Put plainly and simply, WotC doesn't care. Period. Repeat after me, "The business does not care about the hobby, except as it exists to sustain the business". Yes, you could argue that it'd be in WotC's "best interests" to care about the hobby and try and grow it. But the evidence seems to be that there's no concern about the "hobby" of rpgs. They hobby of D&D now... that's a slightly different story. They're all kinds of concerned about that, at least in the short term. And yes, one can argue that D&D is "the hobby" in a number of respects. It's a provisional arguement and one that I'd make in a different thread. But at the end of the day, the question is "Who's going to keep the business in business?" And I'm pretty sure the answer is going to be, "Not the casual gamer". Or the "non nerd crowd" to use your apparent classification. Anecdotally, the material that sells the most? Crunch. Rules. The complexity that is acting as a barrier to folks playing D&D in the first place. WotC is in business to make money, and the people that only want to buy a rulebook (and a simpler set of rules at that) are not going to be the ones sustaining WotC. Is there a possibility that trying to appeal to the folks that are currently turned away from D&D would result in _more_ money? Sure. And it's just as possible that they _still_ wouldn't buy product too. Meanwhile, it's highly probable that the people who _were_ buying material will _stop_ buying material, because it's no longer relevant to them. So what you're looking at is this: On the one hand: You lose some people that are turned off by the hardcore approach D&D and its fans take. On the other hand: You might make more money, you might make less or the same amount of money, you almost certainly will lose current customers. From my experience... that's just not something you even have to hesitate in considering, for most businesses. Keep what you've definitely got and try and figure out later how to increase it. I'm not saying it's "right", I'm not saying other businesses haven't taken the risk and profited, I'm saying it's the conservative and "safer" way to go. Ok. I read it. I'm not quite sure what your argument is. I'm not saying "Complexity isn't a barrier to D&D". I say it's a _big_ barrier. What I'm saying is that only having 1 version of D&D and then arguing about how complicated or simple it should be is a ... poor... approach to take. It shouldn't have to be all or nothing like you're arguing; however, from a business sustainability perspective it most likely _is_ all or nothing and WotC has clearly already picked one side. I personally don't think 4E was supposed to be "simpler". Sure, certain things were streamlined but "simplicity" as an overall design goal? Heck no. The design goal was "Consistency" and "streamline". 3.x design was awfully loose in some respects (like monsters for example). 3.x design also (especially with 3.5) strongly pushed you in the direction of miniatures, but still left lip-service to "you can play any kind of game you want." 4e said, "Screw it. You're going to play the game this way and if you don't like it... sorry." It focused the goals of the system and then tried to streamline some of the elements they felt were interfering with that. What I quoted above from you reads to me like you're saying "4E sucks because it's too complicated and WotC have lost themselves customers because of it." To which I'd say, no 4E doesn't suck it just happens to have a different goal than what you'd like it to have. And yes, WotC lost themselves some customers. Anyone that says you can keep everyone in business happy, is a dirty liar. It's not possible. The act of making some people happy is automatically going to upset others. The question is whether you can balance that happiness/unhappiness ratio. The easiest solution would be to go back to 2 game lines; the basic and advanced like we used to have in D&D. But to me, I don't really know if it'd be the _best_ solution or not. It would _possibly_ benefit the hobby. It may or may not benefit WotC. The question then becomes, if WotC goes under (regardless of whether they're supporting the current complex ruleset or a mythical simpler one) what does that do to D&D in specific and the rpg hobby in general. But that sort of leads further astray from the original question and my earlier points in this thread. So in summary: Yes, Complexity is a barrier. Yes, there should be a simpler game. No, it shouldn't be done at the expense of the current game; it should be a second game on its own. Given that D&D is unlikely to have 2 gamelines again, the current approach is most likely to continue, regardless of how "harmful" or "beneficial" it is; it's a known quantity which almost always is better than an unknown quantity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Complexity as a Barrier to Playing Dungeons & Dragons
Top