David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[Henry]

Sure. But outside of your standard buff packages (which, as I mentioned, should be pre-prepped), how many bonuses and penalties are you really suffering from at any given time? I, personally, don't see a lot of penalties and bonuses stacking up in the middle of combat. As a DM, I'm usually looking at checking one or two bonuses/penalties for any given NPC at most.

In the last high-level fight I DM'ed, one of the Two Akchazar Rakshasas who were the main bad guys was suffering from CON damage, STR damage, and an anti-magic ray. And then a Mord's Disjunction got rid of the Anti-magic ray, and all his buffs. Took me about a minute, real time, to figure out what was what, and whether he was still alive or not.

As a DM, why use them all? Let the players play with them, and limit what you use.

I don't mean to single Glyfair out, but this doesn't work for me, and it's something that I often see suggested. It doesn't work because as Plane Sailing says, at high levels there is a bit of a magical "arms race" going on - limiting your options means that your opposition, no matter how many hit dice or natural AC, is a pushover if the PCs have a large number of options available. In the last battle, EVERY PC went in with both Etherealness and Superior Invisibility on!!! That's not to mention the individual buffs each had (a range from Holy Auras, to heroes feasts, to Temporary Vorpal enhancements on weapons and hands!). Fortunately, over half of the opposition had True seeing, but the point was that had the opposition not been similarly equipped, the fight would have ended about 5 or 6 rounds quicker than it did, and the final Ultimate encounter to decide the fate of Northern Khorvaire would have been reduced to an anticlimactic pushover.

Give the PCs all the buffs they can keep track of -- I'm fine with that. It's when the DM is forced to remember as many statistics as six of his players combined, or face not challenging the party, that annoys me. It's also one where, if it does get more complicated in future editions, I just might have to set aside the newer editions of the game system I've enjoyed for almost thirty years, just as ShinHakkaider says.

Fortunately, I've got people like Dave Noonan thinking about my processor load.

 

[Drkfathr1]

The biggest problem is 20+ optional supplements. Even if they simplify everything in a 4th edition, it's still going to bloat over time because as a business they HAVE to keep selling books every month. We're still going to be inundated with tons of new feats, options, spells, etc. with each new book that comes out. Which is why they should probably focus more on adventure modules and less on rules supplements. Unfortunately, all the market studies seem to point out the fact that adventure modules don't sell. (Even though Dragon Magazine seems to be doing quite well, and the AP series seem to be kicking arse).

Ultimately it may come down to house rules, and what each individual DM and group want to "cut out" or simplify for their own use.

 

[Psion]

Uh, yeah. And it was the same problem afflicting dragons in previous editions... except that in previous eds, dragons weren't the top of the heap the way they are in 3e. If anything, the 3e take on dragons is a direct outgrowth of the constant complaints about the weakness of dragons that were found in 1e and 2e. The increases in natural attacks, spellcasting ability, durability, etc. are reflections of the contant drive to upgrade dragon power.

Yup... and now that we finally have dragons that are fearful and complex and more that throwaway bag-of-hitpoint creatures, everyone grouses that the are too deep.

What's the saying... you can please some people all of the time and all the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.

 

[Psion]

The biggest problem is 20+ optional supplements. Even if they simplify everything in a 4th edition, it's still going to bloat over time because as a business they HAVE to keep selling books every month. We're still going to be inundated with tons of new feats, options, spells, etc. with each new book that comes out.

And this will continue as long as people keep buying them.

But as always, the operative word here remains "optional". I think we have pretty much saturated on how many supplements can be fit into one game. The question now is simply "which ones?"

 

[Gold Roger]

The biggest problem is 20+ optional supplements. Even if they simplify everything in a 4th edition, it's still going to bloat over time because as a business they HAVE to keep selling books every month. We're still going to be inundated with tons of new feats, options, spells, etc. with each new book that comes out. Which is why they should probably focus more on adventure modules and less on rules supplements. Unfortunately, all the market studies seem to point out the fact that adventure modules don't sell. (Even though Dragon Magazine seems to be doing quite well, and the AP series seem to be kicking arse).

Ultimately it may come down to house rules, and what each individual DM and group want to "cut out" or simplify for their own use.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. I've had cases where aditional suplements have actually simplified running my games, because their solutions where far more elegant.

I can understand how people don't like extra suplements and the specific kinds of suplements they bring to the table. But supplements can be easily cut out on the one side and there is no way they'll stop being produced.

But currently D&D has some hefty complications in it's Core material and innermost structures that can be extremely hard to remove in a homegame. And that's a problem that imho can and should be solved on a general level.

 

[Gold Roger]

Yup... and now that we finally have dragons that are fearful and complex and more that throwaway bag-of-hitpoint creatures, everyone grouses that the are too deep.

What's the saying... you can please some people all of the time and all the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.

The problem with dragons isn't that they are deep. They are clunky.

The lead designer of Magic, Mark Rosewater, sometimes talks about design and writing principles in his articles. And some of them are very well aplicable on D&D as much as Magic. One of those is the principle of elegance in design- something that is elegantly designed doesn't have to shallow.

That's the problem. Of all the ways dragons could be made deeper than just meatbags with claws, giving them caster level is one of the clunkiest. As are clumsy flying movements and a bunch of special dragon maneuvers.

Dragons aren't to deep, they are simply badly designed.

 

[Drkfathr1]

But currently D&D has some hefty complications in it's Core material and innermost structures that can be extremely hard to remove in a homegame. And that's a problem that imho can and should be solved on a general level.

Personally, I've never had a problem with the Core mechanics. I don't find it too complex, or too difficult. Besides, part of the job of being a DM is knowing when to adjudicate certain situations, and not have to worry "did I get that rule entirely right?"

 

[Psion]

The lead designer of Magic, Mark Rosewater, sometimes talks about design and writing principles in his articles. And some of them are very well aplicable on D&D as much as Magic. One of those is the principle of elegance in design- something that is elegantly designed doesn't have to shallow.

That's the problem. Of all the ways dragons could be made deeper than just meatbags with claws, giving them caster level is one of the clunkiest. As are clumsy flying movements and a bunch of special dragon maneuvers.

Dragons aren't to deep, they are simply badly designed.

I really do beg to differ.

What makes them interesting foes is that they are customizable. That's also what makes them complex.

You could simplify them by stacking up their spell like abilities and taking away the sorcerer levels. But then they are no longer customizable. You could create a special method for customizing them, but that would be more rules you would have to learn.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Gold Roger]

Personally, I've never had a problem with the Core mechanics. I don't find it too complex, or too difficult. Besides, part of the job of being a DM is knowing when to adjudicate certain situations, and not have to worry "did I get that rule entirely right?"

And I've personaly never had a problem with suplement overload or power creep and I allow pretty much everything. But just a question, and I'm really interested to know, what's the highest level you've played Core only at?

I really do beg to differ.

What makes them interesting foes is that they are customizable. That's also what makes them complex.

You could simplify them by stacking up their spell like abilities and taking away the sorcerer levels. But then they are no longer customizable. You could create a special method for customizing them, but that would be more rules you would have to learn.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't exactly have a problem with their custimisability, or how complex they are to build, though others here propably have. I have a problem with how complicated they are to run.

Here's an example how I think dragons might work better:

I mean, one dragon can have metamagicbreath feats and some invocation like stuff to give himself concealment and another might have invocation likes to teleport and become invisible.

A dragon can be customizable, magical and complex, without being compliacted and mind boggling to run.

Besides, I like to go from a "I want my cake and eat it to" mindset when it comes to issues like this. I find it encourages me to think about solutions and out of the box.

 

[Psion]

I don't exactly have a problem with their custimisability, or how complex they are to build, though others here propably have. I have a problem with how complicated they are to run.

I mean, one dragon can have metamagic feats and some invocation like stuff to give himself concealment and another might have invocation likes to teleport and become invisible.

A dragon can be customizable, magical and complex, without being compliacted and mind boggling to run.

Besides, I like to go from a "I want my cake and eat it to" mindset when it comes to issues like this. I find it encourages me to think about solutions and out of the box.

Perhaps you are making them too complex. For example, as others have noted, spellcasting isn't the dragons prime focus. I would be hard pressed to even consider spending feats on metamagic for a dragon. That strikes me as a bit of over-thinking it for minimal gain unless you had something very specific in mind... in which case, it shouldn't be too hard for you to remember.

When I run dragons, I see little purpose in maximized fireballs or whatnot. What I do see is spells that give the dragon options and good defenses. Levitate. Dispel magic. etc.


If you have some way to retain the customizability and make it simpler, I'd be happy to hear it. I just find the notion that it's "clunky" based on the supposition that there are easy and obvious methods of maintaining this depth dubious when I see variant systems that a typical DM would be less familiar with being more complicated, if anything.