How Complex Should D&D Be?

[Celebrim]

I'm actually a bit shocked at the poll response so far. Much more one sided than I expected.

It's so one sided that it clearly indicates to me that there is quite a bit of self-delusion going on here.

If people really wanted a 'rules light' system, then we'd all be playing True20 or something even more simple. Quite obviously, 80% of us, weren't and aren't. Since True20 was a small niche market, I think its clear that in fact there wasn't overwhelming demand for a simplier product. In fact, I can't really think of a 'Rules Light' system that was ever anything but a niche market. The history of RPGs is dominated by various 'rules heavy' approaches.

The answers the poll is getting are just typical human nature. If you word the poll as:

"Do you want the game more complicated?"

You are going to get overwhelming response of, "No."

But if you word the poll as:

"Do you want the game to have fewer choices?" or "Do you want the game to rely more heavily on DM fiat?"

You are still going to get a majority 'No', even though the two positions are mutually exclusive. You can't have both more versimilitude or more choices, and also have simplier rules and less DM fiat. Modeling the world is messy and complicated. Giving people the ability to do anything they'd want to do is messy and complicated. At some point you can't really do either without complexity.

And if you actually starting taking away subsystems, you'll get strong backlash against it because a plurality will say 'that wasn't the complexity I thought you meant'.

A good example of juggling complexity is M&M. M&M's particular take on this is to make character creation require a PhD or a spreadsheet (or both), but to make the game resolution mechanics themselves simple in the vast majority of situations. This fits what M&M is trying to achieve - 'play any kind of superhero you want' and 'you only need versimilitude with comic book realism'. M&M could be made even simplier, but it would be at the cost of acheiving one of those goals.

 

[Marius Delphus]

It's so one sided that it clearly indicates to me that there is quite a bit of self-delusion going on here.

If people really wanted a 'rules light' system, then we'd all be playing True20 or something even more simple.

Perhaps, instead of insinuating something about most of the poll respondents, it might be helpful to recognize that the complexity of its rules is not the only determiner of whether a person will play a particular game.

 

[Oni]

I did make an effort to define complexity in terms of this poll, and what that means in terms of options.

 

[Celebrim]

...it might be helpful to recognize that the complexity of its rules is not the only determiner of whether a person will play a particular game.

Hmmm... isn't that what I just did?

Perhaps, instead of insinuating something about most of the poll respondents...

I don't have to insinuate anything here; in this case, I know it, or at least know it as well as anything can be known about groups of humans. If you are familiar at all with designing polls you know that this is well understood human aggregate behavior.

I thought about bringing up evidence of that in the post to forestall this sort of reply, but it would involve topics that touch to heavily on politics. However, if you aren't familiar with polling bias and how to manipulate it, then by all means google around on the subject. It's very interesting.

I think it highly unlikely that we here are so smart that we are immune to ordinary human failings.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In trying to understand what people want, if there is a differnce between what people do, and what they say, I go with what they do every time.

Of course, in this case, I suspect that a less complicated game would be appreciated, if that game came with official sanction, support, etc.

 

[keterys]

It's so one sided that it clearly indicates to me that there is quite a bit of self-delusion going on here.

That seems a bit strong. Which systems more complex than 3e are successful? Heck, which systems are actually more complex than 3e? Rolemaster's the only one that leaps out to me from my game library.

Making a short list of games I'd probably cheerfully play from my shelves

Ork!
Earthdawn
OD&D
4E D&D
Unisystem
7th Sea

And a couple not on my shelves that I'd buy if I had a group
Fate
Savage Worlds
Serenity

And one that I'm quite looking forward to for next year
Dragon Age RPG

I believe those are all less complex and some of them are doing well. Not all, of course. Poor Ork, so misunderstood

 

[Celebrim]

I did make an effort to define complexity in terms of this poll, and what that means in terms of options.

Yeah, I know, but what percentage of respondants do you think answered before they even read your 'fine print'? Besides which, I'd argue that you are dealing with something like unconscious bias here. Of course people don't want more complexity, especially when they have past frustration with complexity! They are going to gloss over that trade off you mention.

How do you think the results would have been different had you made it explicit in the poll?

a) "I'd be willing for the game the game to have alot fewer options, if it was also a lot less complex."
b) "I'd like the game to have slightly fewer options, and be slightly less complex."
c) "About the same amount of options and complexity."
d) "I'd like the game to be slightly more complex, if that meant I also had slightly more options."
e) "I'd like the game to be alot more complex, if that meant I also had alot more options."

My guess is that had that been the wording on the first poll (without a prior poll to compare it too) that 'c' would have been alot more popular choice. Even then, I think that you'd have a bias toward 'b' that wouldn't be born out by peoples actual gaming choices, because people would imagine a system that had only the choices they wanted and excluded those that they didn't BUT which would be choices someone else might want.

 

[Celebrim]

That seems a bit strong. Which systems more complex than 3e are successful?

Ok, let's modify that slighty. Which systems which are clearly less complex than 3e are successful (such systems should have a reputation for simplicity)? While you are thinking on that, let's talk the game systems that are comparable to 3e in complexity.

GURPS - Check. Depending on how you play it, quite a bit more complex than 3e. I moved from GURPS to D20 precisely to go with a simplier system.
Rolemaster - Check.
Champions/HERO - Check.
Rifts - Check.
MERPs - Rolemaster lite, but still as heavy as 3e.
Harn - Check.
Shadowrun - Check.

Ork!
Earthdawn
OD&D
4E D&D
Unisystem
7th Sea

I'd quibble with 4e being significantly less complex than 3e, but 4e aside, how do you think my list compares with yours in terms of general familiarity and impact on gaming history?

If you really wanted to take the fight to me, I think you could do so with WEG Star Wars, Chaoism Call of Cthullu (associated BRP systems), and Vampire:TM (Storyteller systems) . The case of being less complex than 3e isn't completely clear, and I'm not sure any had a reputation for being 'simple', but those are about the only candidates I can really think of amongst the RPG 'Hall of Fame' type games.

 

[jaerdaph]

In trying to understand what people want, if there is a differnce between what people do, and what they say, I go with what they do every time.

All things considered, I probably do want a D&D that's less complex than 3e, and that's why I went to True20 (less complex than 3e) and Microlite20 (significantly less complex that 3e).

Then I go get all excited about Pathfinder...

And because I'm a System Slut, Cortex (Supernatural), OpenD6, and Coda (damned Star Trek reruns and reboots!) have been vying for my attention lately too.

Clearly I'm schitzo.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And because I'm a System Slut

I hope you will try RCFG when the complete Player's Guide is available (March 2010).


RC