Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[WayneLigon]

I think that there is certainly a market for a 'simpler' D&D, but what I'd really like to see is a 'shorter' version. I think there is room in the book for a Basic/Advanced division in the combat section so you can 'come back to that later' and start playing sooner. I think there are ways character creation could be explained a bit better.

There are maybe only a few things I'd actually change but I think there are many ways things could be simplified into more coherant systems, much the way the 'to hit/AC system' was simplified.

If there is a place to change things, it's in the magic system. Many spells can be folded into others, with you getting different aspects based perhaps on level, or something like the 'weaving/unweaving/ladening/heightening' aspect of Arcana Unearthed. Most of the illusions, the curative spells, many of the evocations, etc can all be merged.

 

[jmucchiello]

I think that there is certainly a market for a 'simpler' D&D, but what I'd really like to see is a 'shorter' version.

That's just packaging but I don't think the hardcore simplifiers would settle for a shorter version

If there is a place to change things, it's in the magic system. Many spells can be folded into others, with you getting different aspects based perhaps on level, or something like the 'weaving/unweaving/ladening/heightening' aspect of Arcana Unearthed. Most of the illusions, the curative spells, many of the evocations, etc can all be merged.

[Sarcasm]Oh, yeah, everyone is always talking about how MCAU is simple. (You left out spell templates.)[/Sarcasm]

 

[rogueattorney]

The people who think D&D is D&D because of the complexity have obviously never played the previous version of D&D, but only played AD&D1/2 and 3e. "Only" 20-30 pages of combat rules is a joke. Gimme 20-30 pages of rules total and fill the rest out with monsters, spells, magic items, and setting info.

Not going for the "Monopoly and Clue" crowd is what marginalizes this hobby. This attitude is what keeps people away in droves. Why shouldn't people just be able to sit down and enjoy a RPG every other month? Why do all RPG's have to be these complex behemoths? In what way is going for a broader market bad? TSR's Basic sets were its top sellers for years. You can pretty much mark TSR's decline starting in '94 when they stopped producing introductory style games, like D&D, Star Frontiers, and MSH. It's pretty simple - boxed sets marketed to a mass audience do well, and boxed sets marketed to a select audience (think of all the 2e campaign specific boxes) do poorly.

The "nostalgia" argument against OOP games is bunk. I haven't been living in a hole for 10 years. I still buy and play RPG's new and old. I know what kind of game I like, and 3e aint it. I don't look at old editions with rose colored glasses; I look at them and see a game more suited to my needs. It would be nice if more RPG companies produced games that suited my needs - they'd definitely get more of my money that way.

R.A.

 

[RFisher]

What makes D&D D&D is the complexity.

Being a player of the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic/Expert D&D both in the past & today, & having read the original 3 D&D booklets; I wholeheartedly disagree.

But, to the topic at hand: C&C will be out soon & will offer an alternative. See this thread for more info about C&C.

Another option: The pre-2000 editions of D&D are available second-hand at reasonable prices. I prefer the Moldvay Basic & Cook/Marsh Expert, but the RC or the Mentzer box sets aren't too much worse. You can by a PDF of the RC for $5. (Although, I've seen some people complain about the quality of that PDF, it is only $5 + no shipping.)

I can imagine a stripped down version of the d20 SRD with some salient options from the 3e UA being a very servicable & less complex game. I happen to prefer B/X or C&C.

 

[Akrasia]

... 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.
...
D&D, conversely, is based on a certain level of complexity, a wargaming spirit, and options (choice, the all-important buzzword of American culture). ...

Where on earth do people get ideas like this? :\

I did not realize that there was some "Platonic Form" of DnD that dictated that it must be a complicated game involving 900+ core rules.

And claims like this show a simple ignorance of the history of the game. The (Moldvay) Basic and (Cook) Expert rules added up to 128 pages, and covered everything you needed to run a campaign up to level 14. Many people played very enjoyable games using those rules -- and in fact felt empowered to let their imaginations determine the direction of the campaign without worrying about endless rules, modifiers, etc.

Even 1st edition ADnD, while full of rules (with different resolution mechanisms), differed from the 3.x in that you could IGNORE huge chunks of those rules in order to make the game run more quickly and smoothly without breaking the game.

Your response to those people who would like a "rules lite" (or simply "lighter" or more "modular") version of DnD is simply that those people don't understand what "DnD is" (apparently lacking your ability to grasp the Platonic Form in question). But this response fails to recognize the actual history of the game.

 

[Akrasia]

... I find it kind of funny that people here are using "rules lite" and "AD&D1e" in the same breath in this thread. ... Ditto Basic/RC to a certian extent. RC isn't lite by a long shot.

Basic/RC DnD IS 'rules lite' -- by many long shots -- compared to 3.x! The Basic rules are 64 pages long. You could learn the rules and start playing in no time. And even the RC is very rules lite compared to 3.x -- much of the RC consists of monsters (no new rules) and optional material (stuff on Mystara, etc.). A number of the other rules concerns dominions and mass combat -- matters that do not affect the campaign until the PCs become high level. The RC has the PH, DMG, MM, and campaign setting all in one 300 pp. book.

As for 1st edition AD&D, yes it was not a rules lite system. However, unlike 3.x, you could easily ignore many of the rules (e.g. weapon speeds and proficiencies, armour modifiers, intiative, etc) without in any way 'breaking' the system. In contrast, 3.x is not modular in this way. Ignore one aspect of the system (e.g. feats), and the game falls apart.

Nostalgia is a powerful thing, I guess.

So is an irrational desire to defend one's favoured version of the game at all costs, and to denigrate critics of the game as victims of "rose-coloured-glasses-syndrome", etc.

As for the original question: No, there is no need for a simplified D&D. D&D works fine. ...

For you, not everyone.

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

Ugh...

 

[mmadsen]

I see two reasonable strategies.

One, produce a stripped down D&D set that is completely compatible with the three core books but limited in scope: just four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard), just four races (Dwarf, Elf, Human, Halfling), etc. This would have all the benefits of the old Basic Set without the drawbacks of introducing a new product line with different rules.

Two, streamline the current rules so that the next edition has as much interesting tactical detail with less rules overhead -- as much "color" with less "dirt" (to use Chris Crawford's language). That might involve moving all class special abilities into feats and talents, moving BAB and Saves into skills, replacing hit dice with a damage save, etc.

 

[Ourph]

Everyone wants to simplify combat or character creation. Combat is only like 20-30 pages out of 300+ PHB pages. That's pretty simple already IMO.

The '81 Moldvay Basic book explains everything you need to know about encounters with monsters and NPCs in 6 pages (B23-B28), and that includes a full 1 page devoted to an example of combat, not to mention the actual rules themselves are interspersed with helpful advice and examples. So the actual "rules" take somewhat less than 5 pages to get the job done. THAT is simple.

 

[Ourph]

I don't see how it makes sense for WotC to make two separate D&D lines that compete with each other. That was one of TSR's mistakes.

Mistake how? Seems to me they made a ton of money off of both lines. I know I basically bought everything AD&D and D&D until 2e came out, then I stopped buying AD&D. If they'd had only one line at that point, they'd have lost ALL of my $, instead of just most of it.

And it's what attracts the kind of people who tend to become long-term gamers. You target the "Monopoly and Clue" crowd, and you're targeting people who'll never buy more than one product, assuming they buy any. Then D&D go *poof*.

So WotC should just ignore the fact that they're losing money by failing to market a D&D to the "Monopoly and Clue" crowd. How does bringing in new customers with a different version of the game equate to D&D going *poof*? Who cares if you're targeting people who will never buy more than one product? By that way of thinking, Monopoly and Clue are also a bad idea, because the people who buy them don't expect to go out and buy the Complete Book of Hotel Building or the Player's Guide to Candlesticks. If that money is waiting out there to be spent by people who aren't interested in the $60-$90 dollar advanced game, why not try to grab some of it with an appealing product?

What I'm really seeing here is older editions being viewed through rose-colored glasses, and people who really ought to consider simply trying some other systems. There are a lot of great ones out there that are way simpler than D&D.

Do they carry those systems at Toys R' Us or Wal-mart? If they don't, then it's really no wonder they're not doing well. When I got into gaming, it wasn't because I went down to the local game shop and purchased my first game book. My mom bought me an '81 Basic set for Christmas at Sears. SEARS for crying out loud!!! If you're going to market to the Monopoly and Clue crowd, you have to put your game where the Monopoly and Clue people shop for games (preferably right next to Monopoly and Clue, duh!).

I'd love a complete rules-lite game that does what D&D does (heroic S&S fantasy) in 120 pages or less, but I'm not going to find one unless I'm willing to search gaming message boards and internet websites looking for one that fits my needs. At this point, it's easier just to fall back on my old standby Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D than it is to do all that research. But if I saw a WotC box set next to the RC cars and PS2 games at the toy store that told me essentially "It's D&D for people who don't like full D&D" I'd probably pick it up (especially if it came with cool miniatures and dice).

Why won't I pick up the current D&D Basic Game? Because it's not "D&D for people who don't like full D&D". It's "A small part of full D&D and we hope it convinces you to go out and buy full D&D". Been there, done that, have the T-Shirt to prove it. Not interested!

 

[Dark Jezter]

So is an irrational desire to defend one's favoured version of the game at all costs,

Pot, meet kettle.