How Complex Should D&D Be?

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

electronic tools are a cheap way to make too much compleity look still good. The 1000 feats we already have in 4e is no good thing. Feats are nice, but too much of them with fiddly bonuses isn´t really needed...

 

[Jack7]

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.

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.

A sliding scale of complexity, moving in either direction as desired, based upon a basic framework design principle is exactly what I meant by, "'In media res' constructive flexibility" , and to some degree, ""modulated-construct design,"

I personally think that type of design ideal should more or less be an naturally and commonly incorporated design principle.

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

And I know that I'm employing basically technical design terminology, but I very much agree with this ideal generally speaking when it comes to fantasy games, fantasy literature, and/or myth. The first duty of a design principle in such circumstances is to as unobtrusively as possible stimulate and delimit the imagination, rather than over-burden and over-limit the technical and functional components of the overall design. In other words technical details and mechanical components should operate in the background as nearly frictionlessly and invisibly as possible given the particular subject-matter content these components are meant to address.

Or put another way, the guts of a ship are not meant to be visible to all, and they shouldn't be so complex and worrisome that everyone sailing her need be mechanical or technical experts, or attending to or constantly maintaining her vitals. The ship should be made to service the crew more-so than the crew to service the ship. If all hands have to be at the engine room at all times, you got a mighty unweatherly and impractical ship. But if a ship can all but run herself then she is a joy to sail and the crew can be about far more important matters.

Designers should design so that whatever they produce is as self-servicing and easy to maintain as possible.

 

[BryonD]

Reading the answers I get the impression that "complexity" is being taken by many people as a purely independent variable. If you can improve simplicity with no reduction whatsoever in any other variables, then by all means, change my votes to "much more simple".

I'd also like a job with a high six figure salary, 100% telecommuting, no measurable standards and direct deposit.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Simple enough to have a shot at (far greater) mass appeal.

So, significantly less complex than either 3e or 4e.

 

[Khairn]

Complex enough to challenge players and DM alike but simple enough to not bog down gameplay and fun.

A lot of what folks say was too complex in 3.5 could have been avoided by simple DM control. If it got too much simply limit books availiable for character creation.

This.

Much of the "3E is too complex" complaining that I hear are a result of players and GM's who want to use ever and all options available. The core 3E books IMO had the right level of complexity for "D&D". The additional and totally optional books that came afterward did add to the level of complexity, but were completely in the hands of the gamers to control.

The same situation is slowly (quickly?) happening now to 4E with additional options and fiddly combat modifiers to keep track of being introduced every month. Without the DDI to do much of the organizing and character creation for them I believe we would be hearing a cacophony of complaints about 4E's complexity.

 

[Ariosto]

The core 3E books IMO had the right level of complexity for "D&D".

One could attain a similar complexity by adding a lot of stuff to the core 1E or 2E books -- which are thus clearly too simple for you. The big question is why it's necessary to have the large-scale integration of 3E, a "monolithic kernel" rather than a modular one. Why must everyone be saddled with at least the complications that happen to suit some?

The problem goes back at least to 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery, which separated rules into broad sections but nonetheless brought a great many interacting factors to bear on any character.

The answer of course has to do with the ends to which the structure and its necessity for "system mastery" is a means. It facilitates the game of "builds". It facilitates the game of manipulating known and quantified factors, rigid rules.

(However little I might like rules-lawyering in actually playing D&D, it is a great asset in play-testers for all sorts of games -- especially historical war-games! People who stick with historical tactics, or even common sense, don't give the rules such a workout. On the other hand, applying knowledge and common sense is one of the reasons for having a Game Master.)

What if there were to be a formally defined set of "tournament rules", perhaps even more than one such competitive game so as to cater to different styles of play?

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Ahnehnois]

If it isn't complex, arcane, and difficult, it wouldn't be D&D. I think 3e got it about right, though that depends on how much of the material and variants you count (I'm counting a lot).

Not that rules-lite systems don't have their place, but D&D isn't one of them.

 

[Garmorn]

Actually this question should be divided into two. How complex should it be for players and how complex should it be for DM's? The players part should be as simple as possible for new players but rich with well balanced options for the more experienced players. Veterans can handle more complexity but should they?

The DM's need a simple clean system that allows them to portary their worlds clearly and cleanly while not requiring a lot of preptime.

3e gave alot of choices but they where not balanced. 1st and 2nd where better for long term balance but not short term and did not have as many choices, but where better for the DM's ability to run their own world.

Where does the complexity really need to be and should not be?

 

[howandwhy99]

My answer doesn't really fit your poll. We play D&D where the DM determines the level of complexity of the ruleset they wish to work with behind the screen. Personally, I LOVE complexity. The more the better. But, really, only a very experienced or talented DM is going to be able to pull that off with panache. For the RAW, the game will always be a study in simplicity. I love how few rules are needed for an old school RPG, but how vast and varied the rules behind the screen can be - all dependent upon the quality of the DM and the skill level of the players one is playing with. Excitement at every turn.