How Complex Should D&D Be?

[Celebrim]

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).

I'm not saying you aren't out there, I'm just saying there aren't as many of you as the poll would indicate. Clearly there was a demand for a simpler alternative to 3e, and by the end of the run probably alot more people were frustrated by the complexity than the lack of options for obvious reasons.

'Rules Light' games have two things going against them. The first is that nerds tend to get frustrated with a lack of options, with DM fiat, and with 'realism' quirks in the rules much more quickly than they get frustrated with complexity. And the second is that a true 'Rules Light' system tends to be rather stand alone and have no need of supplements, which means that the publisher very quickly runs out of income stream or else the publisher starts introducing supplements which gradually morph the original pure rules light game into one which is optionally (and gamers being what they are often by default) much more complex.

 

[keterys]

Which systems which are clearly less complex than 3e are successful (such systems should have a reputation for simplicity)?

I don't think that naturally follows - you used True20 as an example of a simpler system and it's still got a fair amount of complexity to it.

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.

Of those, I'm not familiar with Harn. I largely agree with you on those being in a similar ballpark. I actually thought Rolemaster was specifically _more_ complex, which is why I mentioned that, and I'm hard pressed to think of many others that are more complex. I'd say it's actually very easy to play a game of GURPS that is less complex than 3e so I'm surprised you chose that as your example of _more_ complex for instance.

Either way, that's a list of games I'm _not_ excited to play specifically because I've decided their complexity is not worthwhile to me, as a DM or player, anymore. At one time I was more into them - specifically when I was in college and did _lots of math for fun_

I'd quibble with 4e being significantly less complex than 3e

I wouldn't say significantly, but I would say less complex nonetheless. If they'd done a better job with conditions and some of the character building stuff maybe I'd grant them that, but they didn't.

If you really wanted to take the fight to me

I'm not actually trying to. I'm much more academically curious.

I've never played D6 Star Wars, never had a good group for Call of Cthulhu, and have grown tired of Storyteller systems. I could probably be convinced to do the latter, but basically I've played enough bad games in them that I find it hard to really get interested. Some new groups wanting to give Changeling a whirl, maybe I could reawaken some interest, dunno. That said, storyteller was _very_ popular for a long time as the simpler more RP option to 2nd edition, and 2nd edition itself is less complex than 3rd edition.

 

[jaerdaph]

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


RC

I'll even wear something low cut that shows a lot of leg...

Okay, maybe not

 

[jaerdaph]

I'm not saying you aren't out there, I'm just saying there aren't as many of you as the poll would indicate. Clearly there was a demand for a simpler alternative to 3e, and by the end of the run probably alot more people were frustrated by the complexity than the lack of options for obvious reasons.

Oh understood, definitely.

 

[keterys]

I'm not saying you aren't out there, I'm just saying there aren't as many of you as the poll would indicate. Clearly there was a demand for a simpler alternative to 3e, and by the end of the run probably alot more people were frustrated by the complexity than the lack of options for obvious reasons.

'Rules Light' games have two things going against them. The first is that nerds tend to get frustrated with a lack of options, with DM fiat, and with 'realism' quirks in the rules much more quickly than they get frustrated with complexity. And the second is that a true 'Rules Light' system tends to be rather stand alone and have no need of supplements, which means that the publisher very quickly runs out of income stream or else the publisher starts introducing supplements which gradually morph the original pure rules light game into one which is optionally (and gamers being what they are often by default) much more complex.

I'm definitely looking for something crunchier than Ork!, even though I still think that game is great for an occasional evening of fun, but I think there's an _awful_ lot of room between that end of the spectrum and 3e. Optimal for me would probably be about one order of magnitude less than 4e as a DM, two orders less as a player, or one order of magnitude more than Unisystem in general, say.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not actually trying to. I'm much more academically curious.

I just saying that I think you could make a better argument than you made if you'd focused on some systems that were more well known.

That said, storyteller was _very_ popular for a long time as the simpler more RP option to 2nd edition, and 2nd edition itself is less complex than 3rd edition.

I don't have alot of experience with 2nd edition, because I basically kept playing 1st edition and adopted those peices of 2nd edition that I liked. However, I think it's safe to say that 2nd edition was comparable in complexity to 1st edition, and that if not likely it was a good bit less complex than 1e played with the full list of rules that most groups treated as optional.

And since there was a time in my life I was playing both 1e and Storyteller (and indeed judging Storyteller), I have to say that I have a hard time seeing Storyteller as alot simplier than 2nd edition. Nor for that matter do I think that simplicity was the main attraction of Story Teller games. The thing about Storyteller is that its very casual about resolution. It uses an overly complex dice resolution mechanic primarily I think to render the math so complicated and unintuitive that you are forced to accept every resolution as a 'best fudge' (when in doubt, the difficulty is 7 and you need two successes, whatever odds that is...). Add to that that most participants are essentially supers and you also don't have strong pressure toward realistic 'believable' outcomes. Judge fiat is very strong, but for all of that, I think it's about as complex of a system as you could devise considering its level of dependence on judge fiat and general 'don't care' attitude toward exactness with its fortune mechanic. A d2 mechanic could have suited it just fine, except then people might have noticed just how arbitrary it was more often.

 

[keterys]

Storyteller actually had a bit more to it than coin flips, due to the layering of powers, as well as ability to split dice pools between offense and defense, as well as multiple attacks, extra successes or removed successes, and changing difficulty numbers. I'm actually less familiar with the newer versions of Storyteller where they standardized the DC, made botching much less difficult, etc - my understanding is it's slightly more simple than when I played/ran it, though not vastly so.

1E + 2E are pretty similar in complexity, depending on what subsystems you used or didn't use (brawling, psionics, etc). A lot of it is also interplay of spells and items, which is one consideration when comparing to a system like Storyteller. I mean, if you look at 1E and imagine everyone as fighters with no magic weapons, well, that's pretty darn simple. Once you had in golems and dragons, antimagic fields and flight, contingencies and stoneskins... things are a lot more complex.

 

[Ariosto]

It seems to me that WotC has figured out the most lucrative market for D&D books. The folks who bought a Rules Cyclopedia and have been happily having fun without another purchase? Not it.

The folks who for 30 years complained that "D&D sucks", maybe even held that "Game X is what all RPGs should be" -- but nonetheless kept buying book after book (perhaps in hopes of "fixing" the game)? Ooh la LA!

If in addition they use miniatures, well, research suggests that means a lot more per capita spending -- and Hasbro can provide the goods.

So, at a very basic level, selling expansions is commercially a Very Good Thing. The whole "edition" scheme of selling actually different games is a bit whacked, I think. If you put out D&D and Star Frontiers, then you might sell both to the same person. If you offer only the Star Frontiers "game system" with D&D trappings, then the folks not looking for "D&D, but different" -- the perennial offering of "fantasy heart-breakers" -- are as out of luck (or else finding fulfillment elsewhere) as the folks looking for space opera.

A basic core offers plenty of opportunities to add complications in modules, which seems to me should be, if anything, an improvement over front-loading in catching the hardcore. On top of that, it also lowers the bar for entry -- and provides something to buy for the people who are not likely to buy more than one book in any case (and might well buy none at all from WotC if the competition meets their needs).

Moreover, you can provide complications in different ways. I should think that pretty clear from the decade of experience with the OGL, if not from the whole multi-decade history of different games.

You can sell "1e"-style tools, and "2e", and "3e", and "4e".

If there's a demand, and it's profitable to fill, then probably someone is going to fill it. Don't like "Vancian" magic? Want more tactical detail? How about a flatter hit point curve? A different XP scheme? Higher levels? New classes? Exotic races? Guns? More monsters, spells and magic items? Well, The Arduin Grimoire offered all that (plus a lot of other stuff of the sort that later appeared in the AD&D DMG).

It does not follow that every demand is profitable enough for WotC to meet. However, a structure that increases flexibility seems to me probably a pretty good one.

Finally, none of this would prevent the production of a whole new game as a new "edition" every few years. It might not negate the commercial necessity (if indeed there is such), either. However, it might at least reduce the frequency and degree of overhaul -- which of course always requires the sure cost of investment in advance, with no guarantee of any return at all.

 

[Ariosto]

So yeah, the d20 game engine is simpler than previous editions, but the game (3E) is more complicated because of the vast array of modifiers and options that have been attached to it.

That's a curious double standard. Somehow, when the rules call for something other than a simple d20 roll in 3e or 4e, that's excused as not really part of "the d20 game engine" ... which naturally keeps it "simpler than previous editions" which get docked heavily for every one of a smaller set of rules.

Seriously and objectively, old D&D depends on the "d20, roll high" plan at least as preponderantly as do 3e and 4e. Even adding in the frequent use of d6 and occasional d% and others -- yes, and even the multiplicity of dice rolls in 2e AD&D -- there simply are fewer calls for rolls per session, using fewer different rules. And the rules are designed first with the practical aim of working well and quickly, not to match some arbitrary "one size fits all" philosophical abstraction at the cost of using clunky and time-consuming kludges.

I seriously doubt that many people really find the use of different dice so horrible, when they are playing games that call for the whole spectrum as damage dice. Higher is always better? How about on a roll to see whether a monster hits your PC? I have not seen this alleged big problem at all -- and the popularity of (e.g.) Savage Worlds does not suggest that it's a big one either.

Moreover, the answer to the thread's question is very obviously NOT "as simple as possible". People like complexity, both as a game element that makes a quantified difference and for the qualitative difference in a flavor that's not "just plain vanilla".

 

[Mercurius]

That's a curious double standard. Somehow, when the rules call for something other than a simple d20 roll in 3e or 4e, that's excused as not really part of "the d20 game engine" ... which naturally keeps it "simpler than previous editions" which get docked heavily for every one of a smaller set of rules.

Ariosto, I think you are completely missing where I am coming from and polarizing into an old school vs. new school debate, which is not my intention (or interest), mainly because I'm not really invested one way or the other in terms of trying to prove that one is better than the other.

And yeah, I agree that it is a double standard; actually, I was pointing this out by emphasizing the fact that 3E and 4E effectively smother an elegant and simply game engine with tons of stuff (modifiers, conditions, etc).

Seriously and objectively, old D&D depends on the "d20, roll high" plan at least as preponderantly as do 3e and 4e. Even adding in the frequent use of d6 and occasional d% and others -- yes, and even the multiplicity of dice rolls in 2e AD&D -- there simply are fewer calls for rolls per session, using fewer different rules. And the rules are designed first with the practical aim of working well and quickly, not to match some arbitrary "one size fits all" philosophical abstraction at the cost of using clunky and time-consuming kludges.

Yes, I agree that in practice d20 (3E and 4E) are more complicated, but in theory they shouldn't be. And that is what I'm dabbling with: designing a variant of D&D that combines the best elements of each edition (according to me, but based upon the input of others).

I seriously doubt that many people really find the use of different dice so horrible, when they are playing games that call for the whole spectrum as damage dice. Higher is always better? How about on a roll to see whether a monster hits your PC? I have not seen this alleged big problem at all -- and the popularity of (e.g.) Savage Worlds does not suggest that it's a big one either.

I love using the entire array of dice--actually, it is a bit of a turn off when an RPG doesn't use the full spectrum (which is why I like Savage Worlds).

But it seems that you are going a bit far afield in your apologetics of pre-3E D&D. As I said, I am not interested in a "this edition vs. that edition" back and forth by deeply entrenched parties; what I am interested (as evidence by the "Good, Bad, and Ugly" thread I started) is a discussion of what the strengths and weaknesses of the different editions are. A lot of this is subjective (heck, arguably all of it is). And we can go through all of the usual postmodern rigamarole of "IMHO" ad infinitum. Blah blah, moving on...What I am getting at is that, in this context, I see the base d20 mechanic as "superior" to the heapist approach of pre-d20 D&D in terms of mechanics and adaptibility and applicability. I just don't think that it has come to fruition yet and has gotten lost in the video game mentality of choosing between pre-configured packets of information rather than creating your own packets of information (and the game providing the tools to do so, or at least guidelines).

Moreover, the answer to the thread's question is very obviously NOT "as simple as possible". People like complexity, both as a game element that makes a quantified difference and for the qualitative difference in a flavor that's not "just plain vanilla".

Yes, agreed. This is why I differentiated between "complicated" and "complex." The game should be complex but not complicated. Simplicity and complexity are like yin and yang; they are complementary but not antithetical. Complications and simplicity are antithetical because complications arise when complexity goes sour (just as stupidity is the byproduct of simplicity gone bad).