Is D&D too complicated?

[barsoomcore]

I let the rules run the game and focus my attention on those aspects of gameplay that requires a human intelligence.

Word. You know, if you get the basics, you can practically derive all the more complex situations on the fly anyway.

Player: "I charge straight at the guy, trying to force him off the cliff!"
DM: "Um, okay. Lessee, he gets an attack of opportunity as you move into him, okay?"
Player: "Yeah, that makes sense."
DM: "And then, what? Opposed Strength checks? Let's do that."
Player: "Can I get a bonus for charging?"
DM: "Sure, take the standard +2 charge bonus."

I've just invented Bull Rush. If I don't refer to the books and make it up on the spot, I find that most of the time I end up doing pretty much exactly what the book says. This is the joy of a consistent rule set.

But for me, "winging it" is rarely about making up rules, anyway, so much as it's about making up stat blocks. And that's no harder now than it ever was.

I think you could argue that a simplified character generation system and combat system could ease new player entry. A product that provided those might prove a good seller -- Ryan's statistics on D&D box set sales seems to indicate that's likely.

What I would HATE to see is a separate "Basic D&D" product line emerge again. When TSR released Basic D&D I think they really splintered their market. Those of us who'd been playing Advanced ignored all the Basic stuff, and as the Basic line kept expanding it reduced the impetus of Basic players to "migrate" to Advanced. At least that's my impression of what happened. It got very complicated to explain to people that Basic D&D was actually a completely different game that didn't necessarily lead to Advanced D&D...

 

[francisca]

Right. I know that, and you know that. DMs are blessed with plenty of common sense. Unfortunately, players seem to have an appalling lack of it, and they're willing to argue their cases.

Mr. Mearls, had you read any of my other posts, you would *never* had associated common sense with me.

I guess I can see you point, I too have seen alot of Brian Van Hooses* in my life, and it was pretty cheap of me to pick on one example.

However, you can't possibly provide rules for everything. Where do you draw the line? Also, at some point, a DM is going to have to set a DC for some check which isn't provided in the DMG. Isn't that arbitrary and ad-hoc? The point I'm driving toward is that somewhere, the DM has to make a call. And the first time won't be the last. You can try to codify and assign values to every aspect of the game, but at some point, the downside of having so much information will get in the way of playability. To me, 3E passed that point, but it isn't so far past that I don't play it. Hell, I like it, despite all my graoning.

However, if Mr. Dancey has research which points to 3E being what most gamers wanted, I'm satisfied that the 3E designers at least made an effort to meet those desires. Of course, it begs the question: does this preference for more rules , especially in light of Mage Knight and D&D minatures game, change over time?


*For those of you who don't read Knights of the Dinner Table (ok, that one guy), Brian is the consumate rules lawyer, knowing the rules down to the page, column, paragraph, and sentence.

 

[Belen]

However, you can't possibly provide rules for everything. Where do you draw the line? Also, at some point, a DM is going to have to set a DC for some check which isn't provided in the DMG. Isn't that arbitrary and ad-hoc? The point I'm driving toward is that somewhere, the DM has to make a call. And the first time won't be the last. You can try to codify and assign values to every aspect of the game, but at some point, the downside of having so much information will get in the way of playability. To me, 3E passed that point, but it isn't so far past that I don't play it. Hell, I like it, despite all my groaning.

Very good point, and this is where the trouble has occured IME. Players tend to believe that the rules cover everything. And while these rules cover a great deal of the situations that happen in game, some things will slip through the cracks. A simple skill DC should not cause a rules discussion lasting an hour or more. And the rules undergo constant changes. The splat books employ far too many add-ons that change the basic intent of a core rule. A GM may labor under one assumption, then find out that this feat or class completely breaks what was a firm rule in the core books. And even if a GM looks over and approves a PrC or feat, there is still a good chance that it can be used to break a core dynamic of the game.

There is just too much!

And I know that many people restrict the game to core only, but a lot of players feel that restriction alone is arbitrary. It is a lose-lose situation.

I also have to wonder at Ryan's comment regarding DnD. I never believed DnD to be a combat tactics game alone and if that is the assumption that was used when writing the game, then they intentionally designed the game to delete RP aspects in favor or a board/ computer game approach, which seems to be a major problem for a lot of gamers on these boards.....

 

[mmadsen]

You know, if you get the basics, you can practically derive all the more complex situations on the fly anyway. [...] If I don't refer to the books and make it up on the spot, I find that most of the time I end up doing pretty much exactly what the book says. This is the joy of a consistent rule set.

Absolutely. Of course, I'd love to see the system become even more consistent (e.g., BAB and Saves as Skills).

But for me, "winging it" is rarely about making up rules, anyway, so much as it's about making up stat blocks. And that's no harder now than it ever was.

I think you could argue that a simplified character generation system and combat system could ease new player entry.

Simplified character generation -- or more consistent character generation -- could make it easier to "wing" stat blocks. Ideally, you could make up stat blocks and they'd be correct by the rules too.

Most point-based character-generation systems go into far too much detail -- and they have other flaws -- but they have the advantage of making an on-the-fly character typically correct, by the rules. They generally have fewer interdependencies (or those interdependencies only affect point-costs).

 

[Desdichado]

Absolutely. Of course, I'd love to see the system become even more consistent (e.g., BAB and Saves as Skills).

In other words, d20 would become GURPS? Although that's something I'd like to see as well, in some ways. Mutants & Masterminds does that (essentially) already.

Simplified character generation -- or more consistent character generation -- could make it easier to "wing" stat blocks. Ideally, you could make up stat blocks and they'd be correct by the rules too.

Yeah, but it my case, that theoretical ideal really doesn't matter. My players don't know the BAB, AC, HP, or even the die rolls that pertain to my NPCs anyway because a) half the time it's made up on the fly and b) it's all behind the screen anyway. So to me, worrying about whether or not my ad hoc stat blocks are "right" or not seems like a bizarre form of fetishism, at least to a certain extent. No offense to those who have such a fetish.

And I'm not particularly impressed by RyanD's response, to be perfectly honest with you. It seems to me the strength of D&D (and d20 in general) whether this was intentional or not, is the flexibility in playstyles that it accomodates fairly easily. Since the DMG itself describes many valid playstyles, to come here and say that D&D is really only suited to a combat intensive tractical miniatures dungeoncrawl (paraphrasing a bit) and if you want something else you really should be playing a different game, seems to be counter-intuitive at best, and flat out wrong-headed at worst. Not only would that alienate a big group of players and drive them to other games, but it's extremely unnecessary. Rules like the new skill system (new to 3e anyway) and multiclassing, for example, allow the rules to be used to craft interesting characters that have uses outside of combat and the dungeon. Setting false limitations on what the game engine is capable to doing only serves to set false limitations on who will play it.

 

[barsoomcore]

A simple skill DC should not cause a rules discussion lasting an hour or more.

It doesn't. Or if it does, you have bigger problems than the RULES....

 

[RyanD]

I also have to wonder at Ryan's comment regarding DnD. I never believed DnD to be a combat tactics game alone and if that is the assumption that was used when writing the game, then they intentionally designed the game to delete RP aspects in favor or a board/ computer game approach, which seems to be a major problem for a lot of gamers on these boards.....

I didn't say that. I said D&D was a "heroic adventure game". No "RP aspects" were deleted from 3E. Can you name any? If anything, "RP aspects" were added to 3E in the form of unlimited multiclassing and prestige classes. The point you're missing that the 3E was designed with a game approach. Not a "board" or "computer" game approach. 3E was designed to be a game that is played by its rules, not a framework for freeform storytelling.

 

[Staffan]

Me too. I would roll my d20, add my bonus, and look at the DM. "Did I hit?" This for like 10 years. I'm surprised they kept me in the party.

I never understood the difficulty some people seem to have with THAC0.

1. Keep adjusted THAC0 noted on your character sheet where you have the rest of the weapon stats noted (damage, speed, range, etc.). Remember that bonuses to hit should *subtract* from THAC0. So if you're a 7th level fighter with weapon specialization, Str 18/14 and a +2 sword, you have an adjusted THAC0 of 10.

2. The AC you hit is equal to THAC0-1d20, with the exception of rolling natural 1s or 20s.

Never was a problem for me.

 

[kamosa]

3E also has a strong emphasis on the idea that there should be a rule for each situation, not a judgement call. We found that by and large most DMs preferred to have a rule rather than be asked to make an arbitrary decision. We found that players overwhelmingly preferred to have a rule. In my personal opinion, these two factors are related. I think that most DMs just don't do a good job making arbitrary decisions, and they know it. And most players react badly when an arbitrary decision goes against them, and they dislike the experience intensely. In my opinion, the uber-DM who flawlessly runs a game by "winging it" is, was, and will be a myth. Observation (of hundreds of DMs) leads me to conclude that often when a DM is "winging it" the satisfaction of the players goes down.

But in the quest for this goal, the game tries to codify situations that are by their very nature always going to be GM wing it decisions. The arbitrarty nature of GM decisions is alive and kicking in 3E.

From setting the DC's for a bluff check to deciding what is really a challenging combat for the party the GM is making arbitrary decisions right and left, even if they aren't "winging it" as say. However flawed and frustrating GM arbitrary decisions are, they are the heart and soul of the game. Trying to take them out with over codified rules only packs extra baggage into a bloated rule set.

So, now time is spent looking up the codified way to justify the GM's decision. I always knew it was almost impossible for a paladin to swim against the current of a raging river while wearing heavy armor and a full back pack. Now I have a 10 minute system for determining exactly how hard this is, Thanks! This bogs down the game and doesn't remove the arbitrary nature of GM rulings from the game. In the end we just have a slow, arbitrary and harder to grasp system that feels cluncky even to long time players and GM's.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

I never understood the difficulty some people seem to have with THAC0.

1. Keep adjusted THAC0 noted on your character sheet where you have the rest of the weapon stats noted (damage, speed, range, etc.). Remember that bonuses to hit should *subtract* from THAC0. So if you're a 7th level fighter with weapon specialization, Str 18/14 and a +2 sword, you have an adjusted THAC0 of 10.

2. The AC you hit is equal to THAC0-1d20, with the exception of rolling natural 1s or 20s.

Never was a problem for me.

I know. I always used to tell my DM, "I hit AC 'X'," and then sit around and watch other people (experienced players) just call out their straight die rolls. It was fairly simple, although having the numbers run conversely like that was kind of counterintuitive. IMO, the simplicity of the attack roll/AC system is the absolute number one BEST change made by the new rules. However, I still constantly watch people roll the die, and if it lands on a 17, they call out, "17!" and sit there waiting for the DM to declare it a hit. I find it very frustrating that many players don't get involved enough to really develop a working grasp on the rules, simple though they may be. It took me about 5 minutes to gain a complete understanding of the basics of combat, skill checks, ability score modifiers, and other such painfully simple and straightforward aspects of the game, and I am considered by many to be exceptionally scatterbrained. All I did was open the books and start flipping...