Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[MerricB]

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.

http://www.3rdedition.org/merricb/basicset.htm

Let's see what Wizards are saying about the new Basic Game:

Charles Ryan: The Basic Game is a really cool product because it hides all of those concepts in a box that looks like a board game. Here again, you're a twelve year-old kid and you're interested in fantasy and you play games and you've heard of D&D, you go out and buy this box and open up this game and inside you see a game that has miniatures - you're used to figures, and these are like figures that you get in other games, but these are much cooler. It has maps that are board-like with tiles that you can use to put together dungeons in different ways. That's a lot like a board for a board game, so that's something that you are used to. It starts off with simple scenarios that introduce ideas. In the first scenario, you get to move in and fight some things and it is very much like a board game, you move to a certain space and you do a certain thing. The next stuff that you do introduces the idea that you can do stuff on a freeform basis. The next thing that you do introduces the idea that you get something, a piece of treasure or something, that you are going to be able to use whenever you want and you keep track of it. From there, we go to the idea that your character is going to grow and develop and become better. Basic Game is going to prove to be an excellent acquisition tool.

Dragon Magazine: The Dungeons & Dragons Basic Game walks first-time gamers into the realms of fantasy adventure by introducing game concepts and rules over the course of several adventures. Beginning with pre-generated characters, plastic miniatures, and a single map tile, the first adventure is relatively simple - almost board-gamelike - in order to give new players a chance to grow comfortable with rolling dice, making decisions, and taking actions with their characters.

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.

I don't know. I don't underestimate the fad factor of D&D.

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.

Are they not?

Cheers!

 

[buzz]

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.

Isn't this an issue with the player? Couldn't the same argument be made about any system remotely concerned with balance?

I mean, magic-users couldn't wear armor at all in 1e. If a DM decided they could in their campaign, would the rules lawyers of the day complained just as much?

And if WotC can release obviously unbalaced rules (e.g., gestalt characters) with some included caveats, why can't you?

 

[buzz]

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.

This is indeed not what the original thread was about. However, many people have chimed in saying that WotC ought to do this, or how everything was better when TSR was making boxed sets.

I also don't thnk the issue at hand is whether Simple D&D is a good or bad idea. It's necessity and viability.

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.

FWIW, WotC's market research didn't show that this was a product worth their time. There may very well be a niche market that a small company, say TLG, could profit from, though.

(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.)

I wasn't really addressing the rosiness of now, but it's pretty obvious that, despite the boom subsiding, 3e created a whole new market that has given us companies like Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavoc, and, yes, Troll Lord.

As for people getting turned off, all you have is anecdotal evidence. My anecdotal evidence contradicts yours. Who's is more credible? I don't know.

FWIW, this very community is a product of 3e. At some 17,000 strong, I imagine that 3e has had at least some positive effect...

 

[jgbrowning]

Isn't this an issue with the player? Couldn't the same argument be made about any system remotely concerned with balance?

The individual issue is with a player, but when publishing for the market, the issue is one with the game. At an individual table, anything goes. In a supplement, that's not the case.

And you're absolutely correct about any system concerned with balance. The fewer rules, the easier to role-play. The more rules, the more limited the role-playing options.

To be utterly silly, if there were rules about how far you could spit, and I wanted my toothless old geezer to spit a bit farther than what the rules alow people without teeth to spit (for some obscure role-playing reason) i'd be confronted with the rules regulating the role-play. The more extensive and expansive the rules set the more rule-regulated the role-play becomes. And as you point out, this is regardless of system.

For a more realistice example, think about jumping across a pit. Before jumping rules, I could assign the success of the action based upon the probablity of what I wanted to happen. Now with the rules, I have to determine the size of the pit based upon a mechanic. If I want the PC to succeed 60% of the time, there is a certain size I have to make the pit. And the player can meta-know their exact probablity of success. This player knowledge of probability of success with a "rules-heavy" system vrs. my saying, "You think you have a slightly better chance of succeeding than failing" inevitibly leads to role-playing based upon the rules-created reality. And my plot must be served via the rules, rather than via the plot.

I mean, magic-users couldn't wear armor at all in 1e. If a DM decided they could in their campaign, would the rules lawyers of the day complained just as much?

Yes.

And if WotC can release obviously unbalaced rules (e.g., gestalt characters) with some included caveats, why can't you?

People expect mechanical balance now. Something that has cool factor and balance is better recieved by the market than something that has cool factor without mechanical balance.

I'm not saying role-playing is difficult in 3.X. I'm saying it's less easy than in a system with less rules. The players know less about their chances of success and failure, providing me with more ability to manipulate the plot to serve my (and the groups) fun.

joe b.

ps. and Buzz, if you could would you take me off the Chicago Games day mailing list? We're not going to be able to make the one coming up and we're heading off to India in November so the chances of making another date is pretty slim...

 

[Remathilis]

Ok if we WANT to recreate the aroma of Basic, we need to use the same ingredients.

Hmmm

Abiity Score: Default Array. Optional Book note for rolling stats.
Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling Half-orc. Simple abilities:

Human: +1 Skill, +1 feat
Elf Use Bows/Swords, +2 Detection, +2 Will Saves
Dwarf: Nightvision, +2 Fort Saves, +1 to hit Orcs, +2 Craft
Halfling +2 Acrobatics, +2 Ref Saves, +2 Stealth, +1 Sling. Small (+1 AC, slow)
Half Orc: Night Vision, +1 Detection, +1 to hit/damage

Classes:
Fighter: d10 HD, best attack, good fort, bonus feats at a reduced rate (combat options)
Cleric: d8 Medium attack, good fort/will, Turn Undead (1d20 + level) Divine Spells
Wizard d4, poor atk, good will, spells
Rogue d6, medium atk, good ref, slower SA, some additional rogue skills
No multi-classing

Bout the first 10 levels, I think.

Skills
Craft (appraise + Craft)
Detection (Search, Spot, Listen)
Stealth (Hide, Move Silent)
Larceny (Forgery, Disguise)
Disable (Disable Device + Open Lock)
Acrobatics (Jump, Balance, Tumble)
Survival (Swim, Survival + Track Feat)
Knowledge (All, + Spellcraft and Decipher Script)
Persuade (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimiidate)
Heal
Perform
Sleight of Hand
Climb

SP: Fighter 2, Wizard 2, Rogue 6, Cleric 2. Pick Any. Otherwise as Simple Skills in UA.

Feats:
Most of the Improved Feats are replaced by a general feat that ALLOWS that combat manuver. IE: Disarm: You can make an opposed Str check to remove an oppenents weapon

Power Atk/Combat Exp: This gives a Straight -3/+3 bonus. No Slide Scale.
Dodge: +1 AC.

Gone: Mounted Combat, Mobility, Metamagic, Spring Atk, Great Cleave, Imp Feint, All the +2/+2 Skills, Item Creation, Track, Endurance, Diehard

Spells: 10 per spell level, arcane and divine lists. Considering crossover, thats around 180 spells. Remove 0 level spells. Simplify spell descriptions and dice caps whenever possible (check out Basic for some examples)

Combat: No AoOs per se, except for Running, Casting a Spell in Melee, or doing something distracting or stupid (like trying to pick a lock)

Most Manuevers can only be accessed via feats, fighters get these as they increase in level.

saves are normal, most everything else works.

Simplify list of weapons (remove most exotic) and armors, simplify rules where needed.

Small sample of monsters CR 1/4 to 11

Simplify magical item tables, but could be used as is.

Otherwise,

 

[GSHamster]

I'm kind of disappointed with the way this thread is going. It started out so promising.

It seems to me that we could debate the "why" of a D&D-lite forever. Some people like the extra complexity, the extra tactical options, and feel that it makes the game more fun. Some people feel that the extra options cause us to "lose sight of the forest for the trees" (whatever the forest may be: plot, story, etc.).

Both viewpoints are reasonably valid. However, I feel that debating the "how" of a D&D-lite system would be a lot more useful and produce a more interesting discussion, rather than endlessly wrangling about the "why".

Edit: Had the misfortune of coming in right after Remathilis' excellent post.

 

[aurance]

I'm kind of disappointed with the way this thread is going. It started out so promising.

It seems to me that we could debate the "why" of a D&D-lite forever. Some people like the extra complexity, the extra tactical options, and feel that it makes the game more fun. Some people feel that the extra options cause us to "lose sight of the forest for the trees" (whatever the forest may be: plot, story, etc.).

Both viewpoints are reasonably valid. However, I feel that debating the "how" of a D&D-lite system would be a lot more useful and produce a more interesting discussion, rather than endlessly wrangling about the "why".

Edit: Had the misfortune of coming in right after Remathilis' excellent post.

I completely agree. Around and around.

Anyway - is there any other information about the Castles and Crusades thing besides "coming soon"? Any preview material?

 

[Dark Jezter]

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.

I've never seen mechanically balanced classes or treasure-by-level guidelines interfere with the storylines of any 3e games I've played in. A while ago I participated in roleplaying-heavy Rokugan campaign (Oriental Adventures D&D), and never once did the 3e ruleset interfere with the DM's storyline or in-character roleplaying any more than the 1e or 2e rules would have. A while later we ran a roleplaying-heavy Scarred Lands campaign, and had the same expirience.

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.

Then why even run a game using an RPG system at all? Wouldn't the ultimate in plot-focused games be sitting around a table with a few other guys while taking turns telling a story?

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 previous editions didn't have rules you were expected to adhere to? What if I wanted to have a dwarf mage or a halfling paladin in my 2e game? Such race/class combos were not allowed under previous editions (I guess because they didn't fall into neatly-defined Tolkienesque stereotypes).

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..

That's because role-playing restrictions usually aren't a valid method of game balance. In most cases, a halfway-clever player can find ways to mercilessly exploit such rules. The Book of Exalted Deeds is a good example of this.

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.

See, I don't view this as a bad thing. Things like Bluff and Diplomacy as skills now allow decidedly un-charismatic players to effectively roleplay smooth-tongued charmers in a D&D campaign.

 

[Ourph]

http://www.3rdedition.org/merricb/basicset.htm

Let's see what Wizards are saying about the new Basic Game:

Charles Ryan: The Basic Game is a really cool product because it hides all of those concepts in a box that looks like a board game. Here again, you're a twelve year-old kid and you're interested in fantasy and you play games and you've heard of D&D, you go out and buy this box and open up this game and inside you see a game that has miniatures - you're used to figures, and these are like figures that you get in other games, but these are much cooler. It has maps that are board-like with tiles that you can use to put together dungeons in different ways. That's a lot like a board for a board game, so that's something that you are used to. It starts off with simple scenarios that introduce ideas. In the first scenario, you get to move in and fight some things and it is very much like a board game, you move to a certain space and you do a certain thing. The next stuff that you do introduces the idea that you can do stuff on a freeform basis. The next thing that you do introduces the idea that you get something, a piece of treasure or something, that you are going to be able to use whenever you want and you keep track of it. From there, we go to the idea that your character is going to grow and develop and become better.

Sorry, this sounds more like a homework assignment on how to learn the stuff you need to know to play 3.5 D&D rather than a complete game unto itself, with merits in its own right. It doesn't sound like the Basic game is giving the new player clue one about how to be a good DM, how to design an adventure, how to generate their own dungeon and stock it with appropriate challenges and rewards, how to create an ongoing campaign or how to resolve judgment calls that come up in every RPG, no matter how complete the rules are. The Basic games I grew up with did all that, laid out the rules for play and did it in ~64 pages.

Basic Game is going to prove to be an excellent acquisition tool.

I think Charles makes my point. The Basic Game isn't designed to be a game that someone will buy and continue to play forever. It's a tool to get people to buy the main core books, after which they're expected to put the Basic game on their shelf and forget about it. A game that's both a keeper and a gateway is better than one that's just a gateway.

Dragon Magazine: The Dungeons & Dragons Basic Game walks first-time gamers into the realms of fantasy adventure by introducing game concepts and rules over the course of several adventures. Beginning with pre-generated characters, plastic miniatures, and a single map tile, the first adventure is relatively simple - almost board-gamelike - in order to give new players a chance to grow comfortable with rolling dice, making decisions, and taking actions with their characters.

Again, this sounds more like a workbook or homework assignment than a game that you'd play for enjoyment once you've learned the concepts it teaches.

Are they not?

No, they're producing the D&D 3.5 primer, rather than a game that's both playable on its own and likely to get people who have a penchant for RPGs into D&D.

I know, because if they were producing the type of game I described, I'd be buying it.

 

[jgbrowning]

I've never seen mechanically balanced classes or treasure-by-level guidelines interfere with the storylines of any 3e games I've played in. A while ago I participated in roleplaying-heavy Rokugan campaign (Oriental Adventures D&D), and never once did the 3e ruleset interfere with the DM's storyline or in-character roleplaying any more than the 1e or 2e rules would have. A while later we ran a roleplaying-heavy Scarred Lands campaign, and had the same expirience.

I did not say you cannot roleplay, I said more rules limits roleplay. You cannot, with standard rules, play a game where a young boy kills a giant with a single sling shot. This doesn't prevent or reduce role-play. It merely limits it. Plots and stories for D&D are designed with D&D rules in mind.

Then why even run a game using an RPG system at all? Wouldn't the ultimate in plot-focused games be sitting around a table with a few other guys while taking turns telling a story?

I run rpgs cause I like them. I'm not interested in storytelling.

And previous editions didn't have rules you were expected to adhere to? What if I wanted to have a dwarf mage or a halfling paladin in my 2e game? Such race/class combos were not allowed under previous editions (I guess because they didn't fall into neatly-defined Tolkienesque stereotypes).

Another good example on how rules limit roleplaying. This particular example has been fixed in 3E, but you still can't play a CG Paladin. Every rule is also a limitation. There is no moral or value judgment is that statement.

That's because role-playing restrictions usually aren't a valid method of game balance. In most cases, a halfway-clever player can find ways to mercilessly exploit such rules. The Book of Exalted Deeds is a good example of this.

Role-playing restrictions are equally valid in my book. The spirit of the role-playing restriction is what's important to me. However, 3E has migrated the concept of game balance from the DMs sole perogitive and moved it into the rules set. This was done to make game running easier for the GM, but unfortunately, it has heavily increased prep-time while also diminishing the ease of "winging it" while still following the rules. Complexity provides the benefit of detail at the expense of speed.

To make things clear, I like 3E. But it's rule-heavy and it's hard to use to create certain standard fantasy tropes. It's really become a fantasy genre unto itself.

And I'll think I'll leave it at that, since it seems like people would rather talk about making a light version of D&D rather than discuss the difference between light and heavy system.

joe b.