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.
Sounds good to me! Actually, I have a theory that this sounds good to most D&D players, that the vast majority actually want a simplified core system with tons of
optional customizations ("modularity"). For some reason WotC is hesitant to go this route (actually, the reason is clear but I'll leave it unspoken for now).
It is interesting that 75% of the poll voters want LESS complexity than 3E, when this forum is populated by DMs and serious-to-hardcore types; so if
we want something less complex than 3E, what must the casual gamers think?
That said, I would differentiate between "complications" and "complexity." The latter is not the problem and what people don't want, the former is. Complications come from rules, mechanics, crunch; complexity arises within game play, it is situational and what we all love. Complexity is not antithetical to simplicity, whereas complications are. This was the great step forward that 3E made: the realization and enactment of the new paradigm: core simplicity can "hold" greater complexity. Of course then they started complicating things.
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.
Yes, very well put, although I don't think OD&D or BECMI (or AD&D) is the answer. I think a simplified post-3E D&D is. In other words, I don't want to lose the core d20 mechanic; the early editions allowed greater flexibility of imagination by not railroading folks into choosing options ala a video game, yet they had proverbial feet of clay because they didn't have the strong spinal cord that the core mechanic provides.
In other words, modular 5ed D&D: D&D with a very simple "Core" game (akin to True 20 or even simpler) but with endless "Advanced" options.
So everyone would play "Core" 5ed D&D, but each playing group or even campaign would include different "Advanced" options. (This is touched upon by different folks in
this thread).
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.
Yes, truly. This is what I was trying to get at in the thread about what 2E had but 3E and 4E have lost, or more specifically what I feel like the D&D Insider is in danger of snuffing out. It is almost because 3E and 4E offer so many options that they fill up the "imaginative space" and limit fluidity and flexibility and ad hoc play. Rather than giving us a good cookbook with recipes to make our own meals, 4E has been pre-packaging TV dinners. You can't really cook your own meals from scratch with Character Builder; what you can do is choose which meat to combine with which vegetable to combine with which grain. So if you have meal lists of:
Meat - chicken, beef, lamb, pork, turkey, tofu, seitan
Grain - rice, barley, millet, cous cous, quinoa
Veggies - corn, broccoli, peas, beans, kale, spinach
It is easy to think, "Wow! that's 7 x 5 x 6 = 210 possible combinations!" And yes, 210 is a lot, but it is a lot
less than infinite. This paradigm is, as Ariosto points out, taken directly from video games, which give you the 210 options and more. But if it is 210 thousand options, or 210 million...it is still limited, still finite. The imagination is not.
So the big question, in my mind, and the one we should all be asking whether or not you agree with anything I have just said, is:
WHAT SORT OF D&D GAME PROVIDES THE BEST FRAMEWORK FOR THE FREE PLAY OF IMAGINATION?
A trend within some indy games is that you define your character by various descriptors that you, the player, come up, rather than choose from lists. So you make up your own feats, so to speak, you color your powers....all you "need" Is a basic system, a skeletal structure, to hang that on. This is why I wanted guidelines, a rubric if you will, on how to design the game rather than more and more pre-designed and pre-formulated rules options. More TV dinners ("Now with wild rice!"). Again, sure, let's see them in supplements, but one of the early statements of 4E is that "Everything is core", which encourages people to buy everything. So we're back to economics dictating creativity when it should be the other way around.
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
Yes, this is the great joy of no only being a gamer but being a human. Coming up with new stuff. Let's keep on doing it.
