D&D 5E Complexity

[Consonant Dude]

It seems that the attitude in a lot of companies when things need to be changed is to add extra clutter on top. I do personally think this lead to a less interesting and more time-consuming hobby, not to mention it acts as a barrier for more people to join the hobby and makes a lot of people give up.

The Next edition character sheet continues the tradition of "tax form-like sheet" that gives you a headache and screams "WORK, NOT FUN!" But hey, despite the claims they wanted to start by building a "basic game", I should have known better when Mike Mearls is involved.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm in the camp of "complex to create, simple to run" camp.

I don't mind if character creation is complicated, because as a DM I have a number of options when dealing with new players.

1) I can use pregen characters.
2) I can ask the player what they want to play and translate that into mechanics.

But past that, I want gameplay to remain simple because it also benefits the speed of play.

 

[Quickleaf]

The Next edition character sheet continues the tradition of "tax form-like sheet" that gives you a headache and screams "WORK, NOT FUN!" But hey, despite the claims they wanted to start by building a "basic game", I should have known better when Mike Mearls is involved.

While game complexity does impact how "tax form"-like character sheets are, I think the discussion about attractive easy-to-understand character sheets really is more about graphic design and putting some time into designing something attractive. There was a good thread here about one-page simple character sheets a while back that I posted in (can't find it on a quick search).

Personally, I think they should start a team of designer on just the character sheet (with playtester feedback) and then see what kind game emerges from that. But then I'm a design guy

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If they want to keep the amount of maneuvers a character down to maybe 5-7, they could make upgradeable maneuvers. For instance by giving you maneuvers that modifies other manuvers (upgrades them). For instance a manuever that lets you move between cleave attacks.

I agree with this. Basically, have Greater Cleave and Greater Sneak Attack that are accessible starting at 6th level.

I have similar thoughts for fighting styles and schemes. For example, the Duelist fighting style would focus on finesse weapons. At first level, when using a rapier and dagger, you can apply the dagger's damage die to the parry maneuver. At higher levels, you become able to apply it to opportunist, then deadly strike.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think they're currently making the game complex because they want people to playtest that complexity (and then possibly tell them in the surveys that yes, the design is too complex.)

If they already know the simple core game is in good shape... they probably are trying to avoid people doing nothing but continue to playtest that simple core game. It does not serve them at this moment in time.

You can't know how far you've gone until you've actually tried to go there.

 

[Li Shenron]

The "engine" of the game (challenges resolution i.e. ability & skill checks, spells and saving throws, combat actions) is definitely less complex than 3e, which was fine for me ten years ago i.e. when I had time...

The complexity for character creation, advancement, and in-game management is higher than 3e (core), probably not much higher but still higher.

For me, 5e is definitely more feasible than 3e to run as a DM at the moment, and about the same hard to play.

Unfortunately, I have to think about my friends too... they also have similar life stuff than me, so they would only play something that doesn't require much time or effort. I could only get 2 of my previous players or co-players interested enough in playtesting the first packet of 5e (one or two more could not be persuaded exactly because they didn't believe me when I told them that this was going to be "rules-lighter" than 3e). Later those who accepted got the 2nd and 3rd packets with character creation rules, made a quick page count, browsed the character options, and even they told me to forget it.

The conclusion: current complexity level is just what I like. If I want to play alone.

 

[Blackbrrd]

The complexity for character creation, advancement, and in-game management is higher than 3e (core), probably not much higher but still higher.

Yeah, I am of the same opinion, but it's mainly because they did some weird decisions when it comes to feats and skills. Making packages of them makes it harder to choose, gives less flexibility and you get sterotypical characters.

I do like specialities and backgrounds, but as something seperate from feats and skills which gives you subtle benefits. In other words making them optional.

The current set of skills is also something I really dislike. Use rope as a seperate skill? Spot and Listen as different skills? Whyyyy? Perception and Stealth is something that makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The current set of skills is also something I really dislike. Use rope as a seperate skill? Spot and Listen as different skills? Whyyyy? Perception and Stealth is something that makes a lot more sense to me.

As one who is on the side of Spot/Listen/Search over Perception... I'll speak on why I prefer the former over the latter.

Skills like Perception, Diplomacy, and Arcana are too broad for me. They cover every aspect you could possibly ever use them for. If you are trained in Perception, that means you are great at spotting ambushes *and* finding secret doors *and* hearing the approaching wolves stalking you *and* noticing small details and clues on a tapestry hanging in the castle *and* understanding the sounds of orcs talking on the other side of the door *and* finding the hidden panel at the bottom of the desk drawer *and* every other time you might need to see or hear something-- in wide open spaces, in enclosed spaces, animals, humans, indoors, outdoors etc. etc.

Now add in the fact that probably two or three (if not more) PCs will be trained in Perception... there's like not a single perceptive situation that doesn't have a whole heap of people able to accomplish at the drop of a hat.

But to me... all those situations are vastly different. And not ever character should have eagle-eye distance sight *and* hearing so acute you can hear a pin drop *and* being able to pick out imperceptible details in some painting. Being good at ONE of those kinds of things? Great! That says a lot about your character and what you're naturally in tune with. Having almost half the PCs in the party being good at ALL of that? Lame.

 

[the Jester]

I voted "a little more complex than I'm comfortable with", but what I really mean is that the ruleset as we see it now is a bit too complex to make a good basic set.

For the full game with add-ons? Hell yeah, it's great.

 

[the Jester]

I'm in the camp of "complex to create, simple to run" camp.

I don't mind if character creation is complicated, because as a DM I have a number of options when dealing with new players.

1) I can use pregen characters.
2) I can ask the player what they want to play and translate that into mechanics.

I dunno... I really think making your own character is one of the coolest parts of D&D, so it ought to be easily accessible to new players.