Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[buzz]

The discussion is whether we a Basic D&D should exist also, not instead. I don't understand the hostility toward the idea.

I have no real objection to (to coin a better term for this argument) Simple D&D as a concept. I was initially interested in C&C because of this idea (but lost a lot of interest when I saw what it's become).

However, I don't think it's a product that WotC should or needs to do. Yes, I know a lot of people loved the BD&D line, but it was a bad business move. It needlessly splintered the brand simply to suit the needs of a royalty rights dispute. I have no interest in seeing WotC repeat this mistake.

Thankfully, with the d20/OGL license, some other company can do it without compromising the continued profitability (ergo, existence) of D&D.

Lastly, I just don't agree with the assertion that there's something flawed about 3e that necessitates the existence of such a product. Lite/Crunch is a *preference* axis, not an objective yardstick of quality. For every person that complains that D&D is "too complex", you can find the same number that will complain that D&D, or some aspect of it, is "too simple". D&D, as it is, apparently appeals to a *lot* of people, and 3e heralded a serious boom in the hobby, so I gotta imagine it's doing something right.

But, if someone wants to create Simple D&D, more power to them. I probably wouldn't chomp at the bit for it, though. If I want "lite", there's way simpler systems out there than any incarnation of D&D.

I'll still probably at least take a look at C&C, though...

 

[buzz]

That's fine. IMO, however, the new Basic D&D is what Basic D&D should always have been: an introduction to the standard game.

And that's what it was from '77 - '81. The new Basic Sets are being much more true to the original intent of Basic.

 

[Akrasia]

... I detest the idea of there being two different systems passing themselves off as the same game. AD&D and the Basic D&D lines had some significant differences, and it just got worse as time went by. ...

Well, ADnD and DnD did not pass themselves off as the same game (hence the label "Advanced" for the former).

The fact of the matter is that the DnD system of the 1980s and early 1990s appealed to, and was played by, many people who did not care for the added complexity of the ADnD system.

There were some differences between the systems. But so what? Lots of people who played ADnD bought and used Basic/Expert modules with little difficulty. And people who played DnD largely ignored the ADnD-specific stuff.

 

[Ourph]

That's fine. IMO, however, the new Basic D&D is what Basic D&D should always have been: an introduction to the standard game.

I detest the idea of there being two different systems passing themselves off as the same game. AD&D and the Basic D&D lines had some significant differences, and it just got worse as time went by.

Cheers!

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second.

I think Basic D&D should be an intermediate between board games and full RPGs, broader than a simple boardgame and expandable for people who like to tinker, but much less complex than a full RPG which is trying to provide a full campaign's worth of rules and material. It doesn't HURT to have the intermediate game teach you some concepts that will be useful when playing the fully advanced game, but that shouldn't be the sole focus of the Basic game. The Basic game should attempt to be a fun game in and of itself.

The strength of the Moldvay Basic game is that it simply assumes that all action in the game occurs in the dungeon. It gives you a "virtual board" on which to play your not-quite-boardgame, but allows you to create an infinite number of different "boards" with a few simple charts and dice rolls.

I also detest the idea of D&D being divided into two different RPG systems (personally, I think the Mentzer expansions were a mistake, and would have been happy if the Cook Expert set had simply extended levels to 6 and given us the outdoor adventuring info). However, I don't think it's insignificant that the hey-day of D&D was when these three game systems existed side by side at the toy store.

Dungeon! the boardgame
Basic D&D
AD&D

That combo gives you a game system for every level of game interest. Each one has similar concepts, but they're still different games, not trying to do the same thing. If you play Dungeon! you're learning a few things that will help you understand Basic D&D, but playing Basic isn't going to make you want to give up playing Dungeon! If you play Basic D&D you're learning quite a few things that will help you understand AD&D, but playing AD&D isn't going to make you want to give up playing the occasional quick, fun, impromptu game of Basic (or at least it didn't in my case ).

OTOH, if you're not someone who will eventually go on to play the advanced game, having three options for spending money on D&D allows you to stop progressing at your own individual comfort point.

Personally, I think the D&D Miniatures game is a much better candidate as a "Basic" D&D than the D&D Basic set. If WotC would tweak both systems so that concepts learned in the Miniatures game were more easily relatable to concepts in the RPG, produce a Miniatures game quickstart set with a rulebook around 100-120 pages (which included advice for expanding the game to do pseudo-RPGing) and then marketed the Miniatures game as an intermediate between boardgames and full RPGs to the boardgame/CCG/Electronic games crowd, I think they'd have a major resurgence in interest for D&D.

 

[Akrasia]

...However, I don't think it's a product that WotC should or needs to do...

Was this ever the focus of this thread? We are not members of WotC's marketing board. And I personally don't think whether or not something is a "good idea" is decided by its marketability/profitability.

For the reasons Mouseferatu presented, it seems plausible that a "DnD-lite" product might not be in WotC's business interests. Whatever. (Though a "basic set" that actually went up to, say, level 5 might be a better "introduction" game than the paltry 2-level game.)

Insofar as there is, in my (admittedly very limited) experience at least, a strong demand for a "lighter" version of DnD (especially among people who would like to play only once a month or so, and hence cannot be bothered with plowing through the 3.x volumes), the idea of a "rules-lite" DnD is a good one.

(As an aside, I am not so sure that the situation of DnD is quite as rosy as Buzz assumes. The recent flight of companies out of the d20 industry suggests that that boom is over. Moreover, IME, many people in their late 20s and early 30s who were initially excited by the release of 3rd edition were subsequently turned off by the sheer volume of its rules.)

 

[Dark Jezter]

Rubbish.

At most I have claimed that 3.x is not perfect for every kind of game/campaign (including fantasy "DnD-style" games).

Rubbish yourself. I suppose that describing 3.x has being videogame-like (whatever the hell that means), over-complicated, dungeonpunk, more like a tactical wargame than an RPG, and slow-paced don't count as criticism?

I just think 3.x is not very good at handling the fast-paced and plot-focused kinds of games I like to run as DM. Various aspects of 3.x constrain my style -- unlike other versions of DnD, or other systems.

You know, for years I've seen fans of previous editions claim that 3e "impedes roleplaying" and isn't good for "plot-focused" games (while acting as though earlier editions are), but I've never seen any of them give a good, solid reason why.

But I have never rejected 3.x altogether, or claimed that some other system is superior across the board.

Perhaps not, but you sure do seem eager to promote 1e and OD&D while simultainously jumping at every opportunity to criticise aspects of 3rd Edition, be it the artwork, the combat rules, the iconic characters, the page count of the books, or whatever. So you could probably see how a person might get the impression that you're an anti-3e, old-edition adherent.

3.x doesn't need to be defended here. This is not the point of this thread.

3.x dosen't need to be attacked here. This is not the point of this thread.

 

[The Great Bear King]

I just take my favorite elements from OD&D to 3 edition and add Alternity skills (along with skill points), mutations, cybernetics, and class creation rules.
Thats it.

 

[Ourph]

You know, for years I've seen fans of previous editions claim that 3e "impedes roleplaying" and isn't good for "plot-focused" games (while acting as though earlier editions are), but I've never seen any of them give a good, solid reason why.

Because my hat of d02 distracts me from the plot and roleplaying!

3.x dosen't need to be attacked here. This is not the point of this thread.

Absolutely agree. There are a lot of nice things about 3e that a Basic form of the game would perforce include. Focusing on how to get those things while significantly simplifying and cutting down the rules, and whether or not D&D would benefit from such a thing is the point. So far, it's been an interesting discussion from both sides.

 

[jgbrowning]

You know, for years I've seen fans of previous editions claim that 3e "impedes roleplaying" and isn't good for "plot-focused" games (while acting as though earlier editions are), but I've never seen any of them give a good, solid reason why.

All of this is IMHO,

I think it's mostly because of an increased rules set, the focus of the designers on a set balance which deliberately excludes non-mechanical (ie. roleplaying) balancing factors, and the expectation of pre-determined "power-ups" (PC expected wealth) makes a mental construction that is harder to throw away bits-n-pieces than it was for earlier versions.

It is more like a computer game now that it has ever been. The more variables that have understood and expected outcomes (ie. if this than this happens) the more likely that gaming the system become part-and-parcel of the play.

Plot-focused games run better with fewer rules because the outcome of each individual action is determined by what the plot needs, not by a rules set. When a rules set is implimented, actions that are outside that rules set are now impossible. Any action in a plot-focused game is possible as long as the plot is served.

I can't break the rules in order to serve my plot because players expect certain things to happen. I'm expected to build my plot around the rules-set, not the other way around.

...And to be crystal about this since people often get defensive when D&D is criticized. I love D&D enough to make a living writing for it, but it does make roleplaying more difficult than lighter rules sets because the rule set is a restraining of plot possibilities.

Example: Say I want to make arcane spell users who can wear full plate but never fail a spell. The first thing everyone's going to want to know is, "OK, that's cool. What did you take away from them to make up for it?" This is how it limits roleplaying. The rules system is supreme because the plot must follow the rules, not vice-versa. If I don't take mechanical benefit away, I'll hear cries of "Broken!" This is because role-playing restrictions are not viewed as a valid method of game balance.

joe b.

 

[Akrasia]

Rubbish yourself. I suppose that describing 3.x has being videogame-like (whatever the hell that means), over-complicated, dungeonpunk, more like a tactical wargame than an RPG, and slow-paced don't count as criticism?

They are criticisms (though the "dungeonpunk" one is a purely aesthetic one, and does not concern the 3.x rules).

But being "wargamey" and having very tactical combat can be very good for some kinds of campaigns -- including campaigns that I have enjoyed playing in. Likewise, a high degree of complexity can be good for some kinds of campaigns. Just not the kind I like to DM.

Criticizing certain aspects of a game does not entail wholesale rejection of that game, or even a denial that that game can be very good for certain purposes.

In short, it is irrational to react to every criticism of 3.x as somehow constituting a "full-scale attack" on the game. Relax a bit.

You know, for years I've seen fans of previous editions claim that 3e "impedes roleplaying" and isn't good for "plot-focused" games (while acting as though earlier editions are), but I've never seen any of them give a good, solid reason why.

A bit of tangent, but 3.x's quantification of everything (either in skills like Diplomacy, or various feats) is the main reason for this line of criticism. It is obviously not true of all 3.x games, but in many cases the 3.x focus on "crunch" can distract from other aspects of fantasy role-playing.

Perhaps not, but you sure do seem eager to promote 1e and OD&D while simultainously jumping at every opportunity to criticise aspects of 3rd Edition, be it the artwork, the combat rules, the iconic characters, the page count of the books, or whatever. So you could probably see how a person might get the impression that you're an anti-3e, old-edition adherent.

Sorry, but I think you're being overly sensitive here. Again, relax a bit.

(For what it is worth, my poll on the iconic characters was obviously meant in good humour.)

3.x dosen't need to be attacked here. This is not the point of this thread.

I wasn't "attacking" 3.x in this thread. At most, I was criticizing as inappropriate for certain legitimate styles of play. Simply pointing out that a rules-lite version of 3.x would be a very good idea (e.g. for people like myself who like certain aspects of 3.x, but want a faster-paced game) does not constitute an "attack."