Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[buzz]

Most of the games touted as "rules-lite" in the modern RPG market seem to me to be more like storytelling guidelines than actual rules.

This is often true, so let me use a different example of rules-lite: Buffy. BECMI/RC D&D is *way* heavier than Buffy.

But we're just arguing semantics now, I guess. BECMI/RC just ain't "lite" in my book, skinny in comparison to 3e though it may be.

 

[jgbrowning]

Note to self, Joe is a Narrativist. I am a gamist. Do not play any pick up games at conventions with Joe DMing.

You are reading this backwards. Have you ever look across a gap and said to yourself. I can jump that or I can't jump that? In general, looking out your eyes of your body, you know what you can and cannot do within a certain level of certainty.

Heh. I'm more of a simulationist/gamist than a narrativist. It's actually farthest from what I like to play. I just think that rules are limitations. Limitations aren't bad. Just limitations. Certain things won't be able to happen because of rules. I'm not saying that I wan't those things to happen, I'm just aknowledging the fact that they can't.

I can judge reasonably well. However, I cannot judge to the exact % as I can with a jump check in D&D.

Indeed. However, D&D is a game, while David and Goliath is a story. It seems to me that you don't really want to play a game, and that you'd rather be a novelist. There's nothing wrong with that, but clearly, D&D is not for you. It seems to me that any game with rules at all can be exploited, but games without rules aren't really games. They can be improv theatre, novels, or other type of collaborative work, but ultimately, they're not games. What I like about 3.5E (as opposed to "rules-lite" games) is that they wholeheartedly embrace the idea that they are games, and aren't about "storytelling."

I actually dislike "storytelling" games. My personal preference in gaming isn't what I was talking about. Just that rules limit play by their very nature. The more rules you have, the more limited the play. This doesn't mean the play is less fun with more rules or any somesuch, just that as you add more rules, you are also excluding more and more possible gaming styles.

Which I why a lot of people like more rules light systems. They don't want to fiddle with the fiddly bits to play. A lot of people like fiddling with the fiddly bits. The only thing that's certain is that the more fiddly bits you add, the more you actually have to fiddle with those bits.

joe b.

 

[JeffB]

A lot of people like fiddling with the fiddly bits. The only thing that's certain is that the more fiddly bits you add, the more you actually have to fiddle with those bits.

FINALLY!!!

An alternative term for "crunch"..have any ideas for an alternate to "fluff", JB?

 

[jgbrowning]

FINALLY!!!

An alternative term for "crunch"..have any ideas for an alternate to "fluff", JB?

um... "supercallifragilisticexpialidious non-fiddly bits that are just as important as your fiddly bits to having fun"

I..... guess that's a bit unwieldy... I'll shorten it to "scfleadnfbtajaiayfbthf."

Brevity is the soul of clairity, you know....


joe b.

 

[Amal Shukup]

Chiming in on a couple of points.

Re: 3.x complexity, 'kitchen sink' approach.
Yes, I think WoTC did put a LOT of rules into the new game. HOWEVER, as someone who spent many, many years 'fiddling' with 1st and 2nd Ed trying to get it to support the things our group(s) wanted and work the way we expected it to, I'm pleased to have a (mostly) consistent, (quite) expandable system to play in. I don't even wanna talk about how many times I 'lifted the hood' of previous editions trying to 'fix' weapon speeds, and initiative, and non-traditional combat manoevers. (Do you guys remember the 1st ed Bard? the Monk?? Thief abilities/skills? Egads!) Books upon books of house rules, addendums, caveats, exceptions...

The thing about NOT having consistent rules for event resolution:
I played a character from the mid 80's to the mid 90's. Both 1st and 2nd Ed. From 1st level all the way up to non-trivial badA$$. 18 CHA (6 Wis though...). Equipped with much sharpness and iron mongery. But somehow, I never once succesfully intimidated an NPC guard, shop keeper, peasant... Why? Because it typically didn't suit my DM's 'plot' that I do so (in many other ways, a great DM. sigh). See, the Player's idea for a plot occurence (NPC backs away in abject terror and lets the party pass) is JUST as valid as the ideas of the smarmy guy behind the screen (usually me, these days). Yay 3.x!

THAT said. Certain aspects of the game DO slow down play - interrupting momentum and derailing roleplaying and immersion. Switching to 3.5 exacerbated that because we had to relearn a lot, and our 'confidence' that we know a rule was diminished - which prompts a fair amount of 'book cracking'. I don't think this is so much a problem with complexity per se as it is with a lack of tools to manage it. Computer support helps. Building tables of DC's helps immensely. Cobbling together reference sheets with ALL the rules associated with a common occurrence into one place is good too.


______________________________________________________
New Boxed Set as 'Gateway' tool rather than fully separate game.

Absolutely. 100% the case. Guilty as charged. And I agree with WoTC's approach 100%.

The goal isn't, and should NOT be, to appeal to 'Joe Public' with a fully formed 'D&D' game. D&D (fantasy roleplaying) as a concept and experience is only going to appeal to certain segments of the population. The assumption underlying many of the comments here is that these segments are already playing the game and require no further effort; and that to 'expand the market', WoTC needs to develop D&D branded product that appeals to the OTHER segment(s) ('Joe Public' and his ilk) that would likely not enjoy playing the 'current' version of D&D).

This is SO not true. HUGE swaths of the target (potentially RPG-positive) segments remain untapped - not because they haven't heard of D&D, but because they haven't tried it, are unlikely to, and have no idea that they might like it.

WHY? Because there are SUBSTANTIAL 'barriers to purchase' that prevent people from trying the game:
- PERCEIVED complexity (intimidating)
- Can LOOK boring. Paper? Dice? Pencils?? Mountain Dew??? No joystick????
- Expense: $100 to DM (and you gotta have one) $30 to play
- 'Geek Factor'

So, in order to more readily transition folk from the general population you need your 'gateway game' to:
- Look less complex/intimidating. BEING so is good too
- Look 'fun' (not boring. <ikea>unboring?</ikea>)
- Cost LESS
- Enable players to start EARLIER (when less subject to social pressures, and not yet committed to alternate entertainment)

Tah Dah! New Boxed set from WoTC. I can't WAIT to give this thing to my Niece (10) whom I recently found DROOLING over my monster manual and my boxes of figures...

I think it will work well for 'introductory' games with teens/adults as well - even if they don't have an experienced DM to initiate them into the mysteries... The point is, lots of people are now more likely to try the thing.

If they hate it? Fine - they're not a customer. And that's okay. If they enjoy it? Lots of play opportunity in the box (or there should be - skirmishes, trying different classes, builds...), and THEN?? Well, a whole industry awaits to profit on the back of this 'incomplete' little game...

A'Mal

 

[RFisher]

From all appearances C&C wasn't designed to be "rules light". Instead it appears to have been designed to "feel" more like 1E AD&D. Now while I think that is a laudable goal & I am certainly planning on picking up a copy...I don't necesarily feel that the end product is going to be the "lighter" version that some folks are looking for.

On rules volume, C&C falls between B/X & the RC.

Unless they add a bunch of stuff that wasn't in the playtest drafts.

 

[nicodaudel]

First, I don't see why it would matter whether there are two "separate" systems. The separation worked fine from 1977 (Holmes Basic) until Mystara was folded into 2e. If you prefer 3.x as is, great; if you prefer (the currently hypothetical) Basic 3e, great.

Second, the question isn't whether 3.x is more complex than 2e, 1e, or the various versions of BD&D. Each edition has its own problems as well as its own advantages. If done right, a "new" Basic can fill an apparent need--regardless of whether that need is driven by complexity or any of a hundred other things.

Third, Akrasia's (and others') preference for RC D&D, BECM, B/X, whatever may indeed be driven by a personal perception of 3.x's (or another edition's) complexity. What one person defines as useful and/or fun, another person will certainly take in a different light. Big whoop! Like that's a shocker to anyone on these boards.

Games are supposed to be enjoyable, so anything that makes them so for a paricular person should trump arguments about complexity (real or imagined) or about the horror of having two systems that "masquerade" as the "same" game. If someone isn't having fun, he doesn't give a whit about (pseudo-)rational arguments to the contrary, nor should he.

-Dion

 

[jmucchiello]

Heh. I'm more of a simulationist/gamist than a narrativist. It's actually farthest from what I like to play. I just think that rules are limitations. Limitations aren't bad. Just limitations. Certain things won't be able to happen because of rules. I'm not saying that I wan't those things to happen, I'm just aknowledging the fact that they can't.

I'm sorry but a simulationist would rather cut his tongue out than even consider the sentence you stated, "Before jumping rules, I could assign the success of the action based upon the probablity of what I wanted to happen." The simulationist says, "There's a chasm 12 feet across because that's how big the chasm IS."

My problem with "before jumping rules" is I could take the same character from one campaign to another and have no idea whether something the character has already done is possible with the new DM. With uniform rules, I can be confident in my choices of actions.

 

[jmucchiello]

The biggest problem with D&D is with the modifiers. Throughout the game, you will have modifiers that impact all aspects of the game and keeping track is daunting, particularly at high levels. To me, the answer isn't in simplifying the game, but in developing a better way to track all of the modifiers in real time. I've always envisioned an electronic DM/Player interface that would make adjustments to player and/or monster stats based on DM &/or Player input. So if an NPC cast a spell that affects certain PCs or all of them, the DM could input it and the modifiers would automatically make the adjustments to all of the player's electronic character sheets as appropriate.

The last time the simplify D&D topic came up. A few people pointed this out and I'm depressed over not being the first bring this up. This is admitted one of the HARD parts of the game.

I've been thinking one of the problems is the character sheet. It's no longer good enough to handle everything going on in the game. What if it was (and I know this will cause howls) more card based. Index cards for the main character. More cards for each significant piece of equipment. Use color coded stickers to link bonuses from one source to effects on another card.

For example: The main card would have name/race/abilities/hd/hp/xp/levels/etc.

Each weapon would be its own card. The character's strength modifier would be a bonus on the card in a red sticker. When the character quaffed a bull's strength potion, red reminder post-its would get attached to his weapons to remind him to increase the value in the red circle.

Each type of bonus gets it own color (I know there are too many types for this to be done cheaply, that's why I haven't impemented the idea).

Temporary bonus may also work as separate cards. Maybe shapes could be used instead of colors. A strength bonus would be a little red sword token. Melee weapons would have little red sword tokens on them. Insight bonuses would just be red light bulbs (red = attack bonus, light bulb = insight) If you had two light bulb bonuses on the same item, you use the better of the two.

Someone will figure out how to put this together with initiative cards and spell cards someday I'm sure.

 

[buzz]

What if it was (and I know this will cause howls) more card based. Index cards for the main character. More cards for each significant piece of equipment. Use color coded stickers to link bonuses from one source to effects on another card.

I'll be the first: Arooo!!!



This might work well for some people, but I honestly want to have to deal with as little paper as possible. If anything, I've been trying to make my recent character sheets as simple as possible. I'm familiar enough with the game that I can get by with a sheet that's more like a stat block. E.g., I don't need all of the available skills listed, I only need the ones my PC has ranks in; I have the ability scores associated with skills all memorized, so I can whip up a modifier on the fly for an untrained skill.

The main stumbling point I see with most sheets (besides that they all tend to look like tax forms...) is that there's usually not enough space to list the *types* of bonuses used to compute a given number. IMO, a skill listing, for example, ought to look like:

Move Silently +10 (+6 ranks, +3 Dex, +2 enhancement [Boots of Booyah], -1 armor)

Having the bonuses right in front of me makes it easier to figure out which may or may not apply in a given situation. What screws people up (and one thing I generally don't like about standard stat blocks) is seeing a modifier or score that just says "+X", with all of the bonuses figured in. You then have to puzzle out the math backwards to modify that number, unless you have an incredible memory.

I guess this is all making a good argument for a simpler D&D.

I dunno. Compared to some other games I play (e.g., HERO), I think that D&D isn't all that complex. Writeups for PCs don't need to be as complex some people make them.