Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[Ourph]

I don't think d&d should move in the direction of Clue or monopoly mostly becuase I do not paticuarly enjoy these games.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the only D&D game available should be rules-lite; but that it would be nice to have a rules-lite option. It seems like, right now, WotC is just ceding the rules-lite market to other publishers. Maybe that's a choice, but if it is, I think it's a mistake.

 

[Grayhawk]

The threads title ask is there a need for D&D lite. It does not ask for the 'how'.

That's true. This thread was for testing whether someone shared my interest in a less complex D&D.

For the actual ideas, I made this thread in House Rules.

 

[buzz]

It seems like, right now, WotC is just ceding the rules-lite market to other publishers.

I think they're doing this because the "rules-lite market" is statisically insignificant. They have nothing to gain. A smaller company, otoh, could possibly turn a profit from it. We'll have to wait and see how TLG does with C&C.

And I still maintain that BD&D is not "rules lite", FWIW. Risus is rules-lite. Over the Edge is rules-lite. BD&D is simply "lite"-er than D&D.

 

[jmucchiello]

Anyway, I tend to agree with something that was posted earlier: what makes D&D complex is the magic....
If Simple D&D needs to do anything, it's not eliminating feats, skills, classes, and the like. It's simplifying magic.

That was me. And I still haven't seen a good way to make it simpler and still have D&D on the cover.

I called 20-30 pages nothing for combat and someone said Basic/Expert had only 6 pages for combat. Called that simpler. Well 6 is 10% of 64 and 30 is ~10% of 320. So combat has not gotten more complex really. In that same Basic book how many pages explained magic (and only 1st and 2nd level spells)? I'll bet is was a large portion. Like the 50% of the PHB taken up by the current list of spells.

My other problem with making a lite version of d20 is that d20 is very "rules" lite. You roll a d20, add some modifiers and if you roll equal or over a target number you succeed. Period. That's the game. All of the rest of the book is the details of which modifiers and what target numbers. See how far you can distill that.

 

[rogueattorney]

In that same Basic book how many pages explained magic (and only 1st and 2nd level spells)? I'll bet is was a large portion. Like the 50% of the PHB taken up by the current list of spells.

Actually, it was about 3 pages out of 64. The biggest chunk of the '81 Basic rules was taken up by monsters. The Expert book had about 5 or 6 pages of spells and another page on magic research. Clerics had 6-8 spells per level and m-u's 10-12. Players were encouraged to create their own spells with a base 85% chance of success and a generally low cost/risk associated with research.

R.A.

 

[jmucchiello]

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

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.

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.

In your example, if the DM tells me there's a 10 foot gap, I can look at my character's Jump ability and see what his chances are. Based on those chances I can determine the correct ROLE-PLAYING decision based on the character's personality. In prior editions, the DM had to make the decision for me: "Does Thrag think he can jump the pit?" DM: "Since YOU usually play him self-assured, he is sure he can make it."

Me, I'd rather play in the game where I interpret my character's self-assuredness rather than have the DM determine the chance of success based on his opinion.

ASIDE: I once GMed a game using no rules. The players wrote full backgrounds on their characters and I used them to generate percentages in my head and (in full gamist fashion) I then made sure that over the course of the game the percentages lined up. I had scratch note character sheets in a system that I used to keep track of how good the characters were at various tasks.

The players had nothing but my descriptions. After a time, one player had to drop out because, as he said to me, he didn't know what the character could do. Without a number on a sheet (any number), he had no way to make decisions about the character without basically flipping a coin.

That is why I don't like narrativist gaming. Whenever I GM now, I prefer a system where the player does not need to ask the GM "Does my character think he can do this?" GMs will answer based on personality. And thus they are playing the character, not the player. The GM should respond. "There is a 60% chance of success. You tell me if the character thinks he can succeed." But no GM is going to respond like that.

And none of this has anything to do with rules lite or not.

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually, it was about 3 pages out of 64. The biggest chunk of the '81 Basic rules was taken up by monsters. The Expert book had about 5 or 6 pages of spells and another page on magic research. Clerics had 6-8 spells per level and m-u's 10-12. Players were encouraged to create their own spells with a base 85% chance of success and a generally low cost/risk associated with research.

And there weren't 9 levels of spells.

Also, spells were open to wide interpretation since they consisted of like 2 sentences of description.

 

[rogueattorney]

And there weren't 9 levels of spells.

Also, spells were open to wide interpretation since they consisted of like 2 sentences of description.

And your point? We are talking about a rules-liter version of the game are we not? It seems those things would go hand in hand.

My entire focus during for this thread is that there was a different way to play D&D back in the day. That some people liked that style. That the RPG industry really hasn't supported that style in ages, and it would be nice if someone (not necessarily WotC) would.

My hope is that Troll Lord's C&C fits the bill.

R.A.

 

[diaglo]

My hope is that Troll Lord's C&C fits the bill.

that had been my hope too.

but alas poor Yorrick

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

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.

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."