But complexity is not the only difference -- or even the primary difference -- between D&D and, say, GURPS.
How Complex Should D&D Be?
- Thread starter Oni
- Start date
TheNovaLord
First Post
Static defence is something i need in any 'crucnchy/high combat' rpg i play
so keep the AC
Savage worlds has static defences and i like to play that 2
Dragonquest has it too and i play that
nothing more uneccesary than i roll to hit / u roll to not be hit.
so keep the AC
Savage worlds has static defences and i like to play that 2
Dragonquest has it too and i play that
nothing more uneccesary than i roll to hit / u roll to not be hit.
jaerdaph
#UkraineStrong
It depends. I really liked what Green Ronin's True20 did to simplify D&D/d20 Modern a bit ("take it down a notch" in complexity and prep time) - it's still my preferred system all things considered. I also like what Paizo did to improve on 3.5e D&D. Then again I really like Microlite20 for quick, spur of the moment pick up games and when playing with the little ones because it helps teach roleplaying fundamentals.
Sadrik
First Post
Just like in video games every player wants their character to be "unique" both mechanically and how they play. However it is not quite the same because where as you are a player with countless on a video game you are a player with a few in a table top rpg. My point here is that it is not that hard to make your character "unique" and the game rules can really help or hinder you in that goal.
Mechanically to achieve uniqueness, you have to have a system where limitations are very much toned down, so that players can express themselves mechanically. You don't need much minutia to make things quite diverse. It is more about how a player defines his abilities rather than how the book defines them. If that is the case you will have an unlimited types of characters. If the book wants to define everything and limit everything for story/mechanic/just because then you wind up with a very limited group of character possibilities.
Designers should ask questions like, "Why do we need this requirement to be met?" and, "Will this feat actually be used by more than a single character type?" Example: you need a 13 CHA, you add your charisma bonus to... Requirements on feats, paragon/prestige or whatever classes should have requirements that only need to be there for mechanical reasons with an eye of getting that feat into as many hands as possible not as closet case only one race or only guys with 25 wisdom or strength etc. They may be great feats but will they ever see play? Probably not.
1e and 2e were pretty restrictive mechanically in character design. 3e blew the doors off and allowed for a huge amount of character customization, I think that 4e took a step backwards and in any future editions, I would hope that they allow for more of that uniqueness.
To top it all off, I would rather have a D&D system that came out with a new revision of itself every two or three years. Revisions would be more in line with 3.5 than 4e. This would do several things, it would promote core books and reduce the amount of extraneous complexity that comes out of the splats.
So yeah, I vote for simpler and more elegant and robust design.
Mechanically to achieve uniqueness, you have to have a system where limitations are very much toned down, so that players can express themselves mechanically. You don't need much minutia to make things quite diverse. It is more about how a player defines his abilities rather than how the book defines them. If that is the case you will have an unlimited types of characters. If the book wants to define everything and limit everything for story/mechanic/just because then you wind up with a very limited group of character possibilities.
Designers should ask questions like, "Why do we need this requirement to be met?" and, "Will this feat actually be used by more than a single character type?" Example: you need a 13 CHA, you add your charisma bonus to... Requirements on feats, paragon/prestige or whatever classes should have requirements that only need to be there for mechanical reasons with an eye of getting that feat into as many hands as possible not as closet case only one race or only guys with 25 wisdom or strength etc. They may be great feats but will they ever see play? Probably not.
1e and 2e were pretty restrictive mechanically in character design. 3e blew the doors off and allowed for a huge amount of character customization, I think that 4e took a step backwards and in any future editions, I would hope that they allow for more of that uniqueness.
To top it all off, I would rather have a D&D system that came out with a new revision of itself every two or three years. Revisions would be more in line with 3.5 than 4e. This would do several things, it would promote core books and reduce the amount of extraneous complexity that comes out of the splats.
So yeah, I vote for simpler and more elegant and robust design.
Thunderfoot
Hero
I voted slightly less - based on my vision of what I want and the fact I've been playing since 1978, 3.X was way to complex for it's own good, even before all the extra rules were added, not unmanageable, but needlesly over-done.
However, even with it's over the top view of "fantasy-reality" it was still possible to develop a meaningful story arc, like-able characters that didn't have to be rules perfect to play.
4e went the other direction and completely suspended reality and made anime/wire-fu the norm, a bloated economic system and strove to make pre-defined roles a class feature. No thanks. I like more wiggle room, both for me and my players. 1e/2e sucked with its algorithms and charts, but at least they allowed things to be altered without re-writing the whole firk-dang rules. I have yet to find the perfect system for me.
I like D&D, but so far, I'm scratching my head about which system I would use if I started another campaign.
However, even with it's over the top view of "fantasy-reality" it was still possible to develop a meaningful story arc, like-able characters that didn't have to be rules perfect to play.
4e went the other direction and completely suspended reality and made anime/wire-fu the norm, a bloated economic system and strove to make pre-defined roles a class feature. No thanks. I like more wiggle room, both for me and my players. 1e/2e sucked with its algorithms and charts, but at least they allowed things to be altered without re-writing the whole firk-dang rules. I have yet to find the perfect system for me.
I like D&D, but so far, I'm scratching my head about which system I would use if I started another campaign.
I agree with this:
That makes me wonder about this:
That looks like a contradiction, and in fact what I find in old D&D is the free potential for unlimited types of characters that Sadrik's earlier statements seem to predict one ought to find. It is really quite beyond me where he finds any "restrictions" laid down. All I can figure is that he chose to impose them on himself, arbitrarily waiting for the explicit, minute point-by-point permissions of 3e.
Well, what follows? Just what he seemed -- again -- to predict above: the flip side of "needing" and getting permission for A is not being permitted B or C. Thus, one chooses to get stuck with "a very limited group of character possibilities" (expanding bit by bit with the purchase of expansion sets at $35, or whatever, each).
Adequate examples suffice for the old-style gamer, who does not expect everything to be as limited as in a computer program. Got a rule for bows? Cool -- that's the essence needed for anything further along that line, from an arquebus to a laser gun. The original Marvel Super Heroes set does not need to give specifics for a long list of super powers, only to demonstrate how to use the game-mechanical tools to represent whatever one wants.
Nor does it need a rigorous system of points values or anything like that, because it is not a set of rules for wargame tournaments. Artificial "army lists" are of limited interest for historical campaigns, which are naturally more concerned with actual orders of battle. The RPG started out more like that, and some D&Ders still lean more toward playing characters on adventures in worlds than toward mustering forces for tournament-style play.
That rules-bound, "by the books" style can only ever encompass a subset of the possibilities. For that reason, I favor making its apparatus a supplement to the fundamental necessities -- not making it the ubiquitous foundation that is constantly demanding attention, as WotC has done.
I expect this may be not just unpalatable but simply hard to grasp for the hardcore "gamers" steeped in the abstract-reductionist mode of thinking about the game. It would hardly be worth the trouble of addressing if a very simplistic approach were likely to satisfy enough of us. The problem is that D&D has an inherent non-quantified, situational complexity that appeals to many people -- and from which mechanical complexity can be a bothersome distraction; to which it can, indeed (as in the combat sub-game's bloating in 3e and 4e, and skill-denying "skill challenges"), be a tiresome, time-consuming barrier hard to hurdle.
That makes me wonder about this:
That looks like a contradiction, and in fact what I find in old D&D is the free potential for unlimited types of characters that Sadrik's earlier statements seem to predict one ought to find. It is really quite beyond me where he finds any "restrictions" laid down. All I can figure is that he chose to impose them on himself, arbitrarily waiting for the explicit, minute point-by-point permissions of 3e.
Well, what follows? Just what he seemed -- again -- to predict above: the flip side of "needing" and getting permission for A is not being permitted B or C. Thus, one chooses to get stuck with "a very limited group of character possibilities" (expanding bit by bit with the purchase of expansion sets at $35, or whatever, each).
Adequate examples suffice for the old-style gamer, who does not expect everything to be as limited as in a computer program. Got a rule for bows? Cool -- that's the essence needed for anything further along that line, from an arquebus to a laser gun. The original Marvel Super Heroes set does not need to give specifics for a long list of super powers, only to demonstrate how to use the game-mechanical tools to represent whatever one wants.
Nor does it need a rigorous system of points values or anything like that, because it is not a set of rules for wargame tournaments. Artificial "army lists" are of limited interest for historical campaigns, which are naturally more concerned with actual orders of battle. The RPG started out more like that, and some D&Ders still lean more toward playing characters on adventures in worlds than toward mustering forces for tournament-style play.
That rules-bound, "by the books" style can only ever encompass a subset of the possibilities. For that reason, I favor making its apparatus a supplement to the fundamental necessities -- not making it the ubiquitous foundation that is constantly demanding attention, as WotC has done.
I expect this may be not just unpalatable but simply hard to grasp for the hardcore "gamers" steeped in the abstract-reductionist mode of thinking about the game. It would hardly be worth the trouble of addressing if a very simplistic approach were likely to satisfy enough of us. The problem is that D&D has an inherent non-quantified, situational complexity that appeals to many people -- and from which mechanical complexity can be a bothersome distraction; to which it can, indeed (as in the combat sub-game's bloating in 3e and 4e, and skill-denying "skill challenges"), be a tiresome, time-consuming barrier hard to hurdle.
ExploderWizard
Hero
1E certainly. The statblocks are simple enough to jot down by hand without needing software or developing writers cramp.
M.L. Martin
Hero
Ariosto, I think in your eagerness to trumpet old-school gaming, you missed the 'mechanically' qualifier in Sadrik's second quote. 
On the broader issue . . . you know, at this point, I'm wondering if the optimal solution isn't to just kill D&D.
On the broader issue . . . you know, at this point, I'm wondering if the optimal solution isn't to just kill D&D.
Last edited:
Sadrik
First Post
I bolded the important word there. 1e and 2e did have a lot of mechanical restrictions in the area of character creation. Think about pretty much the only choices you had- race and character class. Your class was limited by your race, how many levels you can have in your class was limited by your race, you were limited in multi-classing to non-human and the dual classing rules were very ill-thought out. You really could not create every character type that you thought of but many for sure. You could make a Class X, Race X.
So when I said that 3e blew the doors off on character customization, I meant you now had feat options, skill options, multi-classing options, prestige classing options, etc. All mechanical reasons to individualize your character mechanically.
1e in particular, you had an open slate for character personality for sure. But mechanically, an 11th level fighter only looked different if it was an elf or a dwarf, how lucky you were on your stat rolls, and any key equipment you might have.
The bottom line is that D&D the largest rpg in the world does not have to be in a single form. This talk on ted pretty much sums up how I feel D&D should be developed.
Malcolm Gladwell on spaghetti sauce | Video on TED.com
With "a lot" on hand, I presume that you can give at least one as an example.
Says you, and you can dictate to yourself -- but not to anyone else. What you are looking for are artificial limits, and so you see them even though you are imposing them on yourself.
The rest of us did not need a sub-game of "skill points" to have our characters be tyro tailors, sailors or retailers. We did not need a complex of "feats" and arcane combat systems when the basic mechanisms permitted countless permutations.
What you call "mechanical restrictions" are more literally absences of restriction. Without the chessboard, how can we play chess, eh? Gygax made chess-like noises about AD&D, but in the end it was still D&D -- still more like poker!
WotC went whole hog into the business of defining what you can and cannot do, and how many hoops you have to jump through just to figure out which is which. Not as a collection of handy optional tools for the DM, but explicitly as THE RULES -- the very means by which character-players are supposed to "play the game" -- as if it were Sorry! or Monopoly. The "freedom" of players, having been so constrained, was made dependent on the DM being bound by dictates. The noisiest part of the player culture made even more ado about that than did the designers.
Yes, I understand that. Do you understand that in fact these are not adding a jot or tittle except as interesting examples? That when taken as prescriptive they are restrictive?
What you celebrate is simply the accumulation of rules -- and that is okay. You can have a whole pile of delightful restrictions without needing to impose them on everyone! It is necessary only that they should be available to anyone who wants to play that way.
