How Complex Should D&D Be?

[Mercule]

Way less complex than 3e. 3e ended up being more complex than Hero, but without the flexibility for the price.

D&D stayed on top not because it was first, but because it was the most accessible system. That's its niche and it should stay there. That doesn't mean it needs to be the simplest, just that it should be easy to grok and play.

Personally, I think one of the other positive things about 1e was the subsystem "problem". I'm not suggesting that we go back to percentile dice for grappling, but I do think some variation would be grand. For me, I'd use subsystems to differentiate the power sources. That would keep the complexity down for an individual player, especially those (like half my group) who just want to show up and kill orcs. But, it would offer the "system mastery" carrot for those (like the other half of my group) who grove on finding hidden gems in the game and occasionally impress others at the table with their arcane rules knowledge. The whole "everyone rolls d20; adds stat, level, and item bonus; then compares against a defense" adds a sense of sameness.

If there's anything I miss from 1e, it's being able to get the newbie up and running with 10 minutes explanation, 10 minutes of character generation, and a fighter PC; while the grognard played the wizard with lots of resource management. I appreciate that it isn't "fun" for the wizard to be reserved for advanced players, but there has to be a way to recapture that tiered complexity.

I think I started by saying one thing and finished by saying another, but I happy with my rambling.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I want less eye-crossing than 3e. Of course, it's hard to define what that means because every edition I've played (2e-4e) has had bits with too much detail and complexity and also bits with too little.

For example sometimes I think 4e would be better off without feats, just because they add a bunch of minor fiddly bonuses that I don't really care about. On the coin's other side though, I'd like the rules to show slightly more realism -- not in the 3e patchy-half-@ssed-realism way though, so it's pretty hard to convey what I want.

 

[Nifft]

I voted "about the same", but what I really want is a system that is differently complex.

Basically, in my ideal system, you'd have a scale of consistent "views" of any antagonist: one trivially simple but basically correct, then one or more refinements that translate into more completeness -- and more complexity -- with each iteration.

I'm in the process of making this kind of system for Exalted.

4e does a great job on the "simple" view for antagonists, while 3.x did a great job on the "super-detailed" view. What I'd like are tools to start simple, then refine into complexity on demand.

Cheers, -- N

 

[delericho]

Much less complex than 3e. Less complex than 4e.

Perhaps equivalent in complexity to 2nd Edition (but without the quirkiness of the system and with a core mechanic in its place), or as complex as SWSE.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I think 3e is about right.

I'd rather have too many rules (even iffy ones!) and ditch ones I don't like, than have too few rules and have to gin one up on the fly. Also, imho, lots of rules and a more or less unified system makes it fairly easy to extrapolate or alter the system to suit the campaign.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[FireLance]

I want scalable complexity: a very simple base system, but with the option to add on more complex and detailed sub-systems if I want.

 

[Wik]

My big theory is that wotc made a bad design decision in 4e, overall. The problem comes from the fact that it's been recognized MMORPGS are cutting into the D&D fan market. Wotc decided to draw in that crowd by trying to tie in some of D&D's features to be similar to those games (I'm not trying to say "4e is a video game!" so don't yell at me, here). Really, though, I believe wotc should have instead tried to market a game with the "can your online PC do THIS!?"

i.e. simplified rules, with a game that didn't involve that much number-crunching and instead was imagination heavy.

But then, my ideal version of D&D would be something like a cross between BECMI and 4e. So feel free to ignore me.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I want 4E's electronic tools for 3.5E.

Complexity is about managing that complexity and WotC never delivered the promised electronic tools to manage the complexity of 3.5E, something that they have subsequently demonstrated that they can do with 4E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1st level char done in 15 mins sounds good.

But I want it viable and not having too much roads closed by a bad choice at first level...

And then i want complexity afterwards when you increase in level.

And after this I want a possibility to multiclass. But in a way that doesn´t make certain choices underpowered compared to similar buids.
(like a fighter/rogue much less powerful than a rogue/fighter (getting all armors at once but not the skills which make a rogue a rogue?)

4e makes many things right, but 3e also did. I still believe a good mix of both systems would be the perfect one for me. I voted slightly less complex than 3e.