Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[scadgrad]

This has proably already been said but:
Ignore any new supplements and material and just stick to the core rules, all those PRCs and new feats are what make the game so darn confusing sometimes. Just stick to the core rules and you'll be fine.

I think you're missing the point here. Those of us who are interested in a rules-lite version have issues with the complexity of the Core Rules; it's not like we added PrCs left & right and all of the sudden thought, "Wow this 3.5 stuff is just too complicated."

And really guys, not everyone who wants to see C&C succeed is motivated by the desire to make it "easier to teach new players," or nostalgia. Many of us have major beefs with character creation, a HtH system that rivals rolemaster in its complexity, and numerous other elements all found in the Core rules.

But that doesn't mean we want to throw the baby out with the bath water. 3.X does include major innovations for the game, but not all of those are good or even necessary. Honestly, most of us could whip out our old hardbacks & just revert to 1E or Basic D&D if there wasn't enough about 3.X to hold our attention. We just want a slimmed down version that's all. Sometimes there is an elegance in simplicity.

The proof is in the pudding and if C&C is a run-away success (in spite of TLG I might add), then I suppose the market will have decided the question. I'm certainly looking forward to getting my hands on a copy, but I've long since given up on their "For The Golden Haired Children Only" web site/forum.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think that WotC has missed out on a huge seller here. A snazzy hardback of Official WotC "1E Meets 3.5" would have probably sold very well, or at the very least have performed far better than Planar Handbook & the new Psionics book. Additionally, it would have that magical appeal to both GMs & players that make the Bean Counters at WotC beside themselves with excitement.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think that WotC has missed out on a huge seller here. A snazzy hardback of Official WotC "1E Meets 3.5" would have probably sold very well, or at the very least have performed far better than Planar Handbook & the new Psionics book. Additionally, it would have that magical appeal to both GMs & players that make the Bean Counters at WotC beside themselves with excitement.

Okay, I'm just guessing here, but I think I've got a pretty good idea as to why WotC hasn't marketed a complete Basic D&D game.

It goes back to the same logic that says "Don't have too many campaign settings active at any given time." Essentially, if WotC publishes an alternate version of D&D that allows people to play a complete game, they're competing with themselves.

Sure, the sales on the core book/boxed set/whatever might be good. (I have no data to support whether they'd be good or not.) But even if they are, what then? Suddenly you've carved off a segment of your own market that won't be buying the D&D supplements you put out, because they aren't playing D&D; they're playing Basic D&D, which is a different game (regardless of similarities). Even if those products are easily converted, many people won't buy them--and let's be honest, they won't be easily converted. After all, most new products are based on new options, new rules, PrCs, feats, etc. And that's exactly what you have to tone down or get rid of to create a basic rules set in the first place.

Market BD&D supplements? Sure, but odds are, the BD&D market won't be big enough to support them. And even if it is... The laws of economics dictate that selling X number of a single product is more profitable than selling 1/2-X of two seperate products, due to production and distribution costs.

The only way for BD&D to be a success for WotC is for it to bring in enough new players to make up for any schism it causes in the existing market. And the odds of it doing so, I would imagine, are not good.

Hence, WotC doing what it's doing--making Basic D&D a gateway product into "real" D&D, something that beginners can easily get into (or so it's intended), yet guides them into eventually using the core books.

Now, don't get me wrong. As I said, I desperately want to see Basic D&D as a complete game. (I also desperately want to be one of the designers on it, but let's leave that aside as an unrelated issue.) I'd be happy to do it/see it done by a major third-party publisher, but I'd rather see it done by WotC. I simply don't believe they would find it worth their while on an economic level, however. At least not without a major marketing campaign to make Basic D&D the next big thing, with ads and tie-in products and a new Saturday morning cartoon, etc. And I don't see that happening either, because Hasbro knows that the real money simply isn't in RPGs, and it's a more profitable use of their resources to mine the existing cash cows--CCGs and the like--than to risk funds on an attempt to create a new one. (Or recreate an old one, as the case may be.)

I wish it weren't so , and I could be wrong, but that's my take on where things stand.

Of course, third-party publishers don't have to worry about splitting the market base. Frankly, not a one of them is big enough to do it, and even if they do, well, it's not going to harm them directly. So a Basic D&D--under a different name, of course--is entirely feasible coming from one of them. It won't reach nearly as many people, nor will it become exceptionally popular, but it's a viable product. (Hence, Troll Lord's upcoming C&C, which isn't Basic D&D--or at least not Basic D20--at all, but still looks like it'll be a really cool game.)

 

[MerricB]

Two issues here:

* People who want a version of 3.5E that is easier for new players to learn.

* People who want a rules-lite system for D&D-style games.

The second is covered by Castles and Crusades. Go and check it out. If you don't like how it handles things, come back here and tell us.

The first has a starting point of the D&D Basic Game, but there may be another intermediate product that can bridge the game to the full 3.5e rules. It doesn't go about rewriting the existing 3.5e rules: it just leaves out those that are not strictly necessary for the enjoyment of the game.

Do you need rules for monster advancement to play? No, but they're a great option - so they end up in the full rules, and the intermediate product leaves them out.

You could possibly do something similar with monster ability scores - just don't have anything that refers to them. (The actual stats are pre-determined).

Consider the following stat-block for a goblin:

Goblin, NE M humanoid; CR 1/3; HD 1d8+1; hp 5; Spd 6; AC 15; Atk: morningstar +2 melee (1d6) or javelin +3 ranged (1d4); SQ darkvision 60'; SV F+3, R+1, W-1; Hide +5; Listen +2; Move Silently +5; Spot +2.

At this point, you're removing information that isn't actually needed for the regular play of the game. Do you need to know that the goblin is a goblinoid? Only if you're using rangers, so that option is ignored. The ray of enfeeblement and touch of idiocy spells are also left out.

However, Feats, being an important part of the game, are left in for PCs. (In the case of monsters, they are factored into their stats where possible - e.g. Power Attack is given a predetermined value in an Ogre's stats.) Although certain conditional feats may be ignored...

Cheers!

 

[Wombat]

Hmmm, I guess I just assumed that the D&D Basic Game was meant as an introduction to the game, mainy aimed at those intimidated by the full set of rules (truly a daunting experience if you have never played any game in your life!) and/or for the younger set (like my nephews who are trying to figure out what their uncle is doing, but hate the thought of reading that much material at once).

I am surprised that some people assumed it was going to be a "Rules Lite" version of D&D simply because D&D isn't really meant to be a Rules Light game -- it is what it is. Some people like it for that, some don't. Personally, if I'm gonna run a Rules Lite game, I'm gonna reach for Over The Edge, which is about as open, freeform, easy, and workable as any such lite system I have ever found.

D&D, conversely, is based on a certain level of complexity, a wargaming spirit, and options (choice, the all-important buzzword of American culture). It is not an overly complicated game (like Aftermath and other games of hyper-minutiae), but it is still fairly challenging to present to a neophyte. I think sometimes we on this board, as most of us are Veteran Gamers, tend to forget how intimidating those three books seem to non-gamers. Lately this has come home to me pretty directly through interaction with my nephews. Personally, though I know the game is specifically not marketed towards me, I applaud WotC for the D&D Basic Game -- a great way to get new gamers over the Fear Of Gaming!

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

Now, I don't necessarily want a "rules-lite" version of D&D. That isn't the point. What I do want is:

* Combat without battlemaps
* Get the players (and DM) to think "outside the box" by moving towards simpler and less formal (d20) rules.

Those are my main issues with the current state of (A)D&D.

 

[diaglo]

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Host of Angels]

OK - I've come to this thread quite late on, but this is something I have been thinking on for some time. The problem I have is that the folk I game with on a very irregular basis (4 times a year and we are doing well) rely on me almost entirely for the rules. They are interested in role playing and let me worry over the rules. They do not own any books and thus do not know about the range of options open to them.

However, by far and away the biggest problem is the character sheet - it is totally bewildering to the uninitiated.

So, I have created a sheet that kills both birds with the single stone. The sheet only contains:
- roleplaying info like name, race, mannerisms etc
- special abilities written out in full, including racial stuff and feats
- a long list of modifiers to a d20 throw - skills, BAB, saving throws, ability modifiers

Everything else is left out. In choosing what to include I went through the classic sheet item by item and asked "do you need to know this regularly during game play " If the answer was no then I scrapped it from the sheet.

So for example: ability scores - during play how often do you need to know you have a 17 strength? In my games virtually never - so ability scores are off. Similarly all the little sums that give you the final skill bonus or the BAB are gone.

What about when you level up? At that pooint the player sits down with me and my laptop and we go through the process that way. I tell them what new choices they have (a new feat or skill points) and ask how they see their character developing - I then suggest a couple of alternatives and we go with it.

This way I effectively hide all the mechanics and leave the players with just a list of notes on cool stuff they can do, roleplaying guidelines and a list of d20 mods. Anything more complex like battlemaps, combat options I either introduce when needed or wing it.

For combat I am going to try using the Unearthed Arcana "players roll all the dice" option which turns AC into a d20 mod effectively - further simplifying. The key is to encourage descriptive and imaginative combat.

At the core of what I'm doing is the belief that d20 is a really simple and elegant system - but it is hidden under layers of options even in the core game.

 

[Grayhawk]

I don't think it is necessarily a matter of "too complicated" or "bringing in new gamers" so much as it is providing a slimmed down set of rules for those who are so inclined.

A D20 Lite would appeal to a segment of gamers that feel the current variants don't fit their needs.

Exactly! At least that was my reason for starting this thread. While there also might be a need for a simplified version to ease new players into D&D, that's not what I'm looking for - besides, it sounds like that's what the new Basic box will take care of.

3.X does include major innovations for the game, but not all of those are good or even necessary. Honestly, most of us could whip out our old hardbacks & just revert to 1E or Basic D&D if there wasn't enough about 3.X to hold our attention. We just want a slimmed down version that's all. Sometimes there is an elegance in simplicity.

Well put. I want my game to be 'D&D' and I like many of the d20 mechanics, but I feel that a rewrite or removal of some of the more cumbersome rules could make for a more elegant game, which would facilitate roleplaying over number crunching.

... I could be wrong, but that's my take on where things stand.

I agree with your assessment. And I too would prefer for WotC to be the publisher.

Another reason why I don't think we'll see it from WotC, is that a game such as the one I'm looking for (which isn't an introduction to 3.5 and propably isn't even directly compatible), will appeal to that special group of players that rely more on their own imagination over an ever increasing stack of supplements. Hence, they'll buy this game and not much else (if it does it's job of providing an adequate, stand alone, system).

Now, I don't necessarily want a "rules-lite" version of D&D. That isn't the point. What I do want is:

* Combat without battlemaps
* Get the players (and DM) to think "outside the box" by moving towards simpler and less formal (d20) rules.

Same here. While I like my battlemat for mapping and resolving combats using the current system with it's AoO's, etc, I also feel that the focus on the minis and the counting of squares is detriment to the visualization process, lessening the roleplaying experience and making the game feel more like a strategic wargame.

Also, I feel that the almost all encompassing d20 rules can be more stifling than conducive to experimentation and imaginative heroic actions. IME, it often results in players not being allowed to try things that there aren't rules for, and in players not choosing to try the things that there are rules for, as those sometimes are too cumbersome.

 

[buzz]

With the older rules, players would act more reasonably and not treat the rules as tools to kill and become more powerful.

You must have been playing a different version of D&D than I was. It's not like rules-lawyering, monty haul-ism, and munchkinism started with d20. I mean, Arduin, anyone?

I find it kind of funny that people here are using "rules lite" and "AD&D1e" in the same breath in this thread. (Given how miniscule the print was in 1e and how densely-packed the text was, I bet it'd be of a similar length to 3e if lain out the same. And it makes half as much sense...) Ditto Basic/RC to a certian extent. RC isn't lite by a long shot.

Nostalgia is a powerful thing, I guess.

As for the original question: No, there is no need for a simplified D&D. D&D works fine. Do some people *want* a simplified version? Sure. Some people even already play a simplified version; it depends on the DM. But a great *need*? Not IMO.

Now, is there a market for a simplified D&D, i.e., D&D "lite"?

Not IMHO.

Sure, things like C&C might appeal to a certain subset of gamers and make the kind of money that keeps a small company like TLG happy. Time will tell. But I think that the market has shown that, ironically, lite games in general don't appeal to newbies. Newbies need structure. Newbies expect there to be rules, because *games have rules*.

Lite games, if they appeal to anyone, appeal to experienced gamers who are comfortable enough with RPGs that they don't need (or want) rules. The people posting in this very thread seem to be of this mindset. "I've tried it D&D's way, but now I want to streamline things." This goes back to the "want" mentioned earlier. Are there enough of these people to constitute a market attractive enough to a bigger RPG company? I don't think so. For a smaller company? Maybe.

Now, is there a market for an *introductory* D&D product? I think so. And, IMO, that product is the D&D minis game.

 

[diaglo]

Nostalgia is a powerful thing, I guess.

and a mind is a terrible thing to waste on the newer editions.