David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[Mark CMG]

I think a lot of people enjoy the complexity of the game, as evidenced by how many people purchase and play the game. I'm all for simplifying how the game is played if it can be done without removing the complexity of what is presented. A simple coin flip could be used to determine everything that happens in a fantasy world but, of course, if you have a -1 circumstance penalty, you're kinda screwed.

 

[scourger]

Lots of interesting information here. I am intrigued that the author talks about DMs not having enough for the "processor load" of D&D. I have certainly had that experience. It's just too much work for not enough play to run D&D, and I really like 3e. After a few levels, though, all the options are too much to track. It's awesome for players to have buff spells, magic items, etc.; but it's a lot of work for the DM to track all that for all the foes. I also agree that the game becomes a sort of magical arms race. One solution I've pondered is to reduce or remove the amount of magic available in the game. But, I don't think the players would really enjoy it. Even something as simple as tracking hit points becomes significant accounting work. And I ran a core game.

Unfortunately, the best solution I've found is to play another game (as suggested above).

Here's hoping that the game designers will make D&D more manageable.

 

[Glyfair]

After a few levels, though, all the options are too much to track.

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

Sure, somethings need to be used so player's use of a rule doesn't disrupt the feel of the world. For example, if they take an organization oriented prestige class, then you'll need to use that organization in some way.

Still, nothing is written that the DM must use all the options he allows his players.

 

[D'karr]

The game has become more granular. This gives room for almost limitless expansion. New options provide new avenues of growth. This all adds to what some might view as complexity. If you simplify the game you start removing some of those options. By removing the "wrong" options you take away from the game.

What I believe is needed are guidelines for DMs on how to remove some of those complexities without impacting the "fun". From a design standpoint, what things are critical and which are not. Give concrete examples that allow a DM to extrapolate for a wide range of creatures and situations. The "tactics" section for some creatures are a good start.

Noonan makes a good point that for the Delve he took anything extraneous and removed it from the front page. Remember when statblocks looked like this "Black Dragon : AC 2 HD 7 HP 60 Damage 2-5/2-5/2-20 Save F7." It was oversimplified because those were the only things you needed to handle combat.

I'm not proposing that we need to go backwards and get to that level of simplification. But a simpler way of displaying the critical stuff would be nice. And what I mean by critical stuff is the stuff that has a direct impact on combat. The fact that monster A has 15 ranks in Appraise or that it has a backpack is irrelevant to combat. But if it usually uses Tumble in combat and tries to attack from a flanking position with its +2 longsword, then that becomes important.

The more complex the monster the harder it becomes to distill that critical combat information.

The guidelines should show the DM how to "fish" and give him an example of a "fish". That way the DM can use the knowledge of how to convert the complex into the simple and run with it. BTW I would like to see something like this in the DMG.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I don't see how I have in any way responded to you in a way that should have offended anyone, but I'll let the mods be the judge of that.

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.

Well, I have little money to burn on lots of stat cards. I don't have printer to do them on my own. I don't have the time to write them all down.

Sorry, I was just trying to give an example of how I deal with making my game smoother...

There are many DMs that have jobs and families. They to, may simply not have the time to invest as much as you suggest.

As I stated in one of my earlier posts I have a full time job and a family as well and I still find the time to prep. This is on top of other things I do like my exercise regimen, movie watching and spending quality time with the wife. If you want to do something you'll make the time to do it. When I start studying for my GMAT then something will have to give. Maybe it'll be the DVD watching, maybe it will be the game prep, but until that time, I make time...

Further, I agree that extra investment should and will always pay of. But at a certain point the game simply requires a whole lot of extra investment.

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.

Many DMs have almost all their prep work taken up by stat blocks. How could they then have at least once more so much time to read up on everything?

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.

Stat and spell cards are certainly a great help and good suggestion, but it's still a lot of reading up, just without the page flipping.

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...

And simply having the text present doesn't always suffice. I know of the top of my head that bulls strength is 1 minute per level and gives +4 strength. And I know where the plus two strength bonus is added in. But once you add in stacking, the accounting for adding that bonus to the charsheet/remembering it with every strike, the accounting to be done when it's dispelled (the problem with dispelling is not the spell itself, but all the load of removing the effects one by one) and then multiply by ten for all the effects going on, that can still be quite a load.

As a DM I dont ever try to do all of that in my head, I use notes for my NPC and or monsters. Or if I know that there's a chance that a dispel magic is going to be dropped I stat the normal stat bonuses with the buffed stats in parentheses. If the dispel works use one set, if they dont, use the others. Granted I only use that method for big fights though.

You certainly seem to be an expert at streamlining the game and keeping it running smoothly, which is great, but I fail to see how suggesting the game could be more streamlined by nature is such a terrible idea.

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

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.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

A simple coin flip could be used to determine everything that happens in a fantasy world but, of course, if you have a -1 circumstance penalty, you're kinda screwed.

Bloody Brilliant! That's just a sig waiting to happen.

 

[scourger]

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

Sure, somethings need to be used so player's use of a rule doesn't disrupt the feel of the world. For example, if they take an organization oriented prestige class, then you'll need to use that organization in some way.

Still, nothing is written that the DM must use all the options he allows his players.

I used preprinted adventures, mostly from Dungeon. The stock foes got more & more complex as the PC levels got higher & higher. Since I had the game restricted to the core rules, the options were not infinitely expanded by splatbooks. But, it's just a lot of work to keep it going. It probably works great as a computer RPG.

I think this is the reason I've recently seen another thread about the "sweet spot" of D&D being low levels (1-10). We had already identified it in our group. We actually leave off about levels 6-7.

If I go back to D&D, it will be to 3.0, and I will probably just ignore a lot of bad guy options. It's not like there's any lack of them with which I can challenge the PCs. For now, I'm having fun enough with other games to keep me engaged.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Okay people, stay calm. The ship is going down. I repeat, the ship is going down.

"Women, children, Red Indians, spacemen, and a sort of idealized version of complete Renaissance Men first!" - M.P.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Two things about this:

1. I LIKE the grapple rules. They aren't perfect, but they do what they are meant to do pretty well and if you actually have experience with them, they run quickly and efficiently. That's a VAST improvement over any previous edition of the game and over most other games I've had the ability to peruse as well.

Where the grapple rules are weak is in the way they buried some important rules for creatures grappling in the back of the MM under "rake" and did not choose to list iterative grapple checks in the monster entries. Another weakness is the overpowered rules for constrict, but those are relatively minor and specific entries. On the whole, the grapple rules are IMO one of the attractions of the 3.x ruleset not one of its problems.

2. All dragons are not the same. People often say "dragon battles are like this" or "like that" without considering that the different dragons bring very different abilities to the table. White dragons, for instance, never get much in the way of spellcasting or a particularly deadly breath weapon. They do, however, get excellent melee attacks for their CR. A fight with a white dragon at all but the highest levels is more about duking it out with swords against claws and its clever use of its icy environs than about breath weapons and spells. A red dragon, on the other hand, has a positively devastating breath weapon and a horde of spells at its command. A fight with a red dragon is going to feature much less clawing and biting and much more breath weapons and spells than a fight with a white dragon.

So, while dragons are overdesigned, the core rules allow DMs who want to use a dragon to choose how overdesigned they like their dragons by selecting a different kind of dragon.

 

[RFisher]

And without wanting to turn this into a Chicken-Licken style "4E is coming! 4E is coming" post, it does make me wonder if current WotC designers are usually this, well, critical of the rules of the game they are responsible for designing. It doesn't take a too cynical mind to suggest that this whole column is a softening up exercise: by reminding us, over time, of the quirks, faults and drawbacks of the current rules you slowly but surely increase demand for a new, improved, streamlined version.

Of course, then the cycle just starts over again because a few short months after 4e has consolidated & streamlined everything, the first 4e splatbook will be out.

Personally, I found the "innovations" of the 3.0e splatbooks unimpressive. I sold them off (the first RPG products I'd ever allowed to leave my possession!) & decided to jump off the bandwagon. Perhaps the 3.5e supplements have been better (UA tempted me!), but I've decided that with 3 shelves of gaming material, I've got just about all the innovations I'll need for a long time.

(Don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge WotC doing their best to make money they best way they know how. I probably couldn't do any better.)

But back to the original topic, this is directly one of the reasons I choose to only play & not DM 3e anymore. When I first read the dragon entry in the 3.0 MM, I knew I could never do them justice.

P.S. I actually think the 3e grappling rules aren't too bad. If it ever comes up in classic D&D, I plan to use something similar.

P.P.S. It's really a shame that he ended up designing the encounter area so that the PCs would not have advantageous positions to lure the dragon into.

P.P.P.S. The key to running 3e combat (says the guy who has sworn off running 3e) is to have a stack of index cards. (Not those fancy initiative cards; just plain, blank, index cards.) Write each PC's name on one & each monster group on one. At the beginning of combat, put them in initiative order. When someone holds an action or otherwise changes their position in the initiative order, their card moves appropriately. Each spell or other lasting effect gets a card with it's name & duration. The PC/monster on the top card acts & you put their card on the bottom of the deck & repeat. When you get to an effect card, decrement the duration & move it to the back.