How Complex Should D&D Be?
- Thread starter Oni
- Start date
jaerdaph
#UkraineStrong
I think 3e at its core tried (successfully, IMO) to eliminate some of the complexity of prior editions by taking the multiple rules systems (often cryptically explained) for doing things (combat, saves, turning etc.) and replacing them with a single, unifying mechanic (roll d20, add modifiers, compare to target number), but then adds on a level of its own complexity with such things as AoO, slow NPC creation, bloated monster stat blocks, a fully developed skill system, feats, etc. I enjoyed it (for the most part), but in the end I felt it was more complex than 1e or 2e.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Trouble is, none of the current editions is perfect.
Therefore, I propose we keep coming up with new stuff until we get everything perfectly right.
"Did I mention that I like coming up with new stuff?", -- N
jaerdaph
#UkraineStrong
I agree. Now only if we could only come up with a unanimous consensus of what is perfect...
Nifft
Penguin Herder
If such a thing is possible, I suspect it's only possible in retrospect: if we could write out the factors that constitute perfection, we could just use them to build it.
Cheers, -- N
Well, I say the problem is this whole notion that just because this or that set of variants happens to be perfect for Joe Blow the rest of us need a whole new, utterly incompatible set of Official Rules to follow. Then, 5e can impose on Joe to start his campaign from scratch with Ray's favored fumble factors, hit locations, ablative armor and second-by-second action economy; or Steve's skill training system; or Ken's book-keeping for experience points; or Greg's personality traits and passions; or Dave's magical "mana" point system; or Ed's thesis on magical medieval economics; or ...
Really, would it be so bad to leave that stuff in modular form so folks can take it or leave it? Would it pain anyone to have a basic core that really is basic, designed not for hour-long wargames but for fast combat action as just a part of the adventure that -- who knows? -- just might still have some appeal?
What I see is that the prevailing "prepare to be assimilated" paradigm just turns away people. It seems to be about all that "D&D" really means anymore, as everything else changes by top-down decree every few years.
Once upon a time, D&D was by default a game that required no more work in character generation than rolling scores and picking a type and alignment; that had a simple, fast combat mechanism; and that encouraged expansion and elaboration to the degree desired.
Why do we need this "my way or the highway" deal? Is there ultimately to be no D&D but RPGA D&D? Is there to be no D&D but computerized-by-subscription-fee D&D?
(Actually, the latter makes more commercial sense than trying to compete with computers by imitating them in books.)
Really, would it be so bad to leave that stuff in modular form so folks can take it or leave it? Would it pain anyone to have a basic core that really is basic, designed not for hour-long wargames but for fast combat action as just a part of the adventure that -- who knows? -- just might still have some appeal?
What I see is that the prevailing "prepare to be assimilated" paradigm just turns away people. It seems to be about all that "D&D" really means anymore, as everything else changes by top-down decree every few years.
Once upon a time, D&D was by default a game that required no more work in character generation than rolling scores and picking a type and alignment; that had a simple, fast combat mechanism; and that encouraged expansion and elaboration to the degree desired.
Why do we need this "my way or the highway" deal? Is there ultimately to be no D&D but RPGA D&D? Is there to be no D&D but computerized-by-subscription-fee D&D?
(Actually, the latter makes more commercial sense than trying to compete with computers by imitating them in books.)
M.L. Martin
Hero
Some of Gygax's quotes suggest that something along these lines may have been his goal for AD&D 1E, and I definitely got that vibe from several statements by Ryan Dancey back in the day.
During the 2E era, though, the modularity and customizability was a marketing point.
I'd like to see a modular game with expansion options (I tend to prefer options for crunchy bits in character generation and flavor elements in magic, but find grid-based combat offputting, for example), but you can't have that along with a D&D that's uniform across the world.
Nice rant, but unfortunately not true at all.
Many people point to 4e with its cards as being too complex as an example of D&D becoming too complex, but people seem to forget that there were 4 main classes and 2 of them had SPELLS.
Hell, the original game had only 3 classes and 2 of them were spellcasters.
Why do people when they talk about "1e/2e isn't complex" seem to forget the fact tha thalf of the basic classes used spells and thus were actually quite complex?
