David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[Gold Roger]

No, I'll be the judge of how I interpret offensive or aggressive posts. The mods can interceed if they want, but they can't tell me what I percieve as aggressive or offensive.

If I really was offensive somewhere, I appologise, since it wasn't my intention. But please realize that, while I'm sure now that it wasn't your intention either, that some things you've said could and have been taken as a jab at other people.

Then I still stand by my original statement. I still dont see where it's a terrible thing to say "Look, the fun to work ratio is too imbalanced. It's time to try something else that might be less prep and more fun."
If you just want to stand there and complain, you can do that too. Me I prefer to do something and that's put in the time to make the game work for me.

And I'll stand by my statement that the work payof isn't to low, it could simply be better. This was my original point. The game is imho incredibly good, but this is one point where it propably should be improved.

But youre not reading up on EVERYTHING, only what's relevant to the encounters at hand. Notes work, bookmarking with post-its works. Even copying and pasting relevant passages/rules from the various online versions of the SRD works. It's really not that difficult to do. Even relying on your players for rules isnt that bad of an idea. I've played with plenty of players that have pretty much memorized the rules for various games and they usually are a pretty good resource.

I'm actually doing a lot of the stuff you suggest.

I'm bookmarking spells and rules I think I'll need with post its. All my NPC's fit on one side of an index card, two sides if they have spells. With small useful summaries for abilities and spells and buffed stats in paranthesis. I'll ask players for the occasional rule, or to look one up.

But I need to do this even at low level. It detracts a lot from my other gaming preparations. And I still miss some stuff during the game. And my buffed/unbuffed stats don't help when only some buffs are dispelled.

For me it's less distruptive than looking for said book, opening said book, and flipping through said book to find a passage. Even if the book is post-it'd out the wazoo, for me it's still easier to use the cards, but like you said YMMV...

I definitely agree. But it goes to prove that there are some disruptions to the gaming flow inherent in the gaming system. Which isn't terrible, but isn't perfect either.

I'm sorry when did I say that suggesting the game could be more streamlined by nature is a terrible idea?

Well, if you're saying in a thread where people agree with one of the games designers that there are overcomplications in the game, that these people just don't prepare properly/should just play another game, you should be prepared for people disagreeing with you.

Look, I didn't even want to acuse you with anything. My question wasn't rethorical, I seriously wanted to know, because it seemed like you really thought so.

Youre reading into my statements something that's not there. I've said very plainly how I feel about this. If the work is needed to make the game fun, then do the work. If you can streamline the work, then streamline the work. If the work is taking away from your fun then find another game that is less work and just as, if not more fun. I think that I might have re-iterated this maybe twice in my posts already.

Then let me reapeat that even with the problems, D&D is the game that's the most fun for me. But that doesn't mean I think it's perfect or couldn't be improved.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Wow, great couple of articles. Makes me really wish I could have participated in that Delve, 'casue it sounds like tremendous fun for all involved.

I thikn we're missing something with all of this sky-is-falling-its-too-complex hand wringing: Noonan was creating a high level scenario to run multiple intermediate players through in an hour's time. He intentionally restricted himself to getting key things on a single sheet of paper to enable a very compressed timeline for playing characters and creatures at the absolute pinnacle of the D&D game (Epic levels be damned). We're doing the game a disservice if you draw too many conclusions about the game's complexity from his example -- at 20th level, both the players and DM should have been playing long enough to understand well their abilities, and the level of complexity is less intimidating.

I take the following lessons from his articles:

- The flexibility in design is a great feature, because I can adapt the game to varying levels of complexity.
- High levels don't have to be nearly as complex, though you do have to invest some prep time in simplification.
- We make our own jobs too difficult when we try to be anal about every detail -- focus on the big stuff for a single-encounter villain, and let the little things fall by the wayside.
- Sometimes, you need to drop tactics, or eliminate options, to make the game more fun. It's about fun, not necessarily best or optimal.
- Just because there are a lot of options out there, doesn't mean you have to use all of them.
- High levels don't have to be intimidating, but they should be worked into slowly rather than jumped into, unless you want to invest in more prep time.
- Dragons are fun at all levels.

From my own experience, ending my last DMing with a campaign at about 15th level, I knew as a DM I wasn't running every opponent optimally at those levels, but you know what? I think it was OK -- we still had fun, even if the characters took the monster down a round or two earlier than they should have if the critter was being fought at 100%.

Oh, and I disagree with keeping dragons as only the toughest critters on the block. It's great that the current incarnation of the game allows them to be encountered at any level of experience. A dragon fight should always be fun and memorable -- I probably used 5-6 of them in the last campaign, and they were all much appreciated.

 

[Plecak]

Hi guys,

While I agree that 3.5 can be complicated, you can, as a DM, slice out the pieces you like. Personally, I am using the core books at the moment, and it is a great fun.

Now, I really like dragons the way they are. They are iconic monsters, not pushovers. If you remove their spellcasting abilities, you will end up with intelligent tarasques (with not so formidable defenses to boot). Solars have innate spellcasting abilities too and I do not see people complaining about them.

 

[Mark CMG]

And their (designers) job is to find for core rules a point where both complexity and simplycity are in balance.

Maybe. Or it might be finding a way to keep the complexity while removing the complications.

 

[Thomas Percy]

Thomas Percy: You find changing your BAB to equal your character level, bumping your str by 6 and adding some hp overly complicated? Which part? To me, it's a step by step process (with three very specific steps). Taken on its own, it's hardly a huge issue..

I will explain, why I wrote so:

Changing BAB -> It's not so easy as "BAB equal to your CL" because you need to check if Fighter of that level don't has additional attacks, so you need -> take PHB from the shelf -> find the page with Ftr BAB -> check it and add to yours Cleric sheet.

Bumping Str by 6 -> It's not so easy as add +3 to hit and +3 to damage, because you need to check what kind of bonus it is. It's enhancement, so it stack with righteous might but don't stack with bull’s strength. You need to read decriptions of all these spells when you casts any one of them.

Addind hp -> It's not so easy, too, because there is a question "Are these hp stack with these added by Aid spell?"

Sorry, I don't have a patience to explain step by step why grapple rules are too complicated for me. Noonan said they are too complicated for him, too - and I assume he knows D&D rules thousands times better than me.

 

[Particle_Man]

I wonder if it would help to give dragons invocations like warlocks rather than spells?

 

[Mark CMG]

Sorry, I don't have a patience to explain step by step why grapple rules are too complicated for me. Noonan said they are too complicated for him, too - and I assume he knows D&D rules thousands times better than me.

Perhaps but there have been posts in this thread where his knowledge limits have been pointed up. However, I don't believe anyone is disputing your claim that the Grapple rules are too complicated for you. I am saying, though, that I like the complexity, myself, and would like to see the rules less complicated but every bit as complex. I like the permutations, the myriad of potential results and consequences, but feel the rules need to be more wieldy, more user friendly. That, IMO, is the job of the core rules designers and all those who add to those core rules, supplementally, whether they be in-house or third party designers.

 

[Arkhandus]

Each negative level decreases effective caster level (relevant for psionics) and checks off one highest slot or prepared spell (not relevant for psionics). That's it.

Psionics falls in the same category as Spell-like abilities, as in -- no lost slots or uses but a lowered effective level.

It does not require you to recalculate spell slots, or spells known, or spell prepared based on a lowered caster level.

Keep in mind, though, that a psionic manifester cannot spend more power points on any single manifestation than their manifester level; losing 1-2 effective levels due to negative levels means they would nearly always (except at certain class evels, due to the slightly-less-than-linear acquisition of new power levels) lose the capacity to manifest their highest level of powers known. Similarly, limiting how much they can augment their powers (or metapsionic them, in 3.0 rules).

 

[zoroaster100]

I think D&D is not too complex at levels 1st through 8th level or so, but quickly gets too complicated after that. I'd love to see the next edition allow for higher level characters who are more powerful than low level characters but only slightly more complex, not more orders of magnitude more complex.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I will explain, why I wrote so:

Changing BAB -> It's not so easy as "BAB equal to your CL" because you need to check if Fighter of that level don't has additional attacks, so you need -> take PHB from the shelf -> find the page with Ftr BAB -> check it and add to yours Cleric sheet.

Isn't #of attacks just forumla, BAB/-5/-10/-15? So if you are CL7 you would get +7/+2, CL12 +12/+7/+2, CL20 +20/+15/+10/+5, etc? That doesn't seem very complicated at all, and I'm not sure why you would need a book.

I agree that the types of modifiers and if they stack could use some simplification.