Is there a need for a simplified D&D?
- Thread starter Grayhawk
- Start date
buzz
Adventurer
rogueattorney and I actually agree on something.rogueattorney said:
The easiest way to simplify magic would likely be to just cut down the detail given for each spell and leave things up to the DMs ability adjudicate. To use the ever-complex polymorph as an example, you could just change the description so it said soemthing like "you can transform into any creature with a CR equal to or less than your character level that is not undead" or something. You'd lose some exactitude and maybe some balance, and *really* be relying on the judgement of the DM, but you'd save time and brainpower.
But this is another reason why I think this is better left for experienced gamers...
I don't know if there is a need, but I lament the fact that both the Dungeon! board game & classic D&D are no longer in print. These are classic & seminole games that, IMHO, deserve to be in print as much as Monopoly & Scrabble.
I don't think any version of D&D can really appeal to the board game crowd. That's the role for Dungeon!, & it probably only appeals to part of that market. I have to believe their is room for a game between Dungeon! & 3.5e.
The Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic & Expert sets are a complete game in 128 pages. It is heavily based on the original D&D--and who can argue the importance of that game--while being more approachable.
C&C may be able to fill roughly the same niche, but it's pedigree isn't as strong. It's a bit like playing Pictionary when you wanted to play Charades.
I was one of the many people who moved quickly from classic D&D to AD&D. But, looking back, I see that classic D&D had a huge influence on our AD&D games. We weren't really playing AD&D. We were playing classic D&D with AD&D window dressing.
I think part of the reason I never noticed this in the past is that how we played the game was based more on momentum from our Basic Set introduction &/or the practices of the people who taught us the game than on the rules printed in the books.
I've found most gamers to have had a similar experience. Their AD&D games were really somewhere between D&D & AD&D.
I found my way back to classic D&D & found it to be my prefered game. Those 128 pages weren't only good for their time; they're good today as well.
Likewise, I've played a couple of games of Dungeon! this year & both were a blast.
But as I said in my previous post, between C&C & second-hand materials, any need can be met--at least after a fashion.
Now TLG needs to produce a Dungeon! clone.
I don't think any version of D&D can really appeal to the board game crowd. That's the role for Dungeon!, & it probably only appeals to part of that market. I have to believe their is room for a game between Dungeon! & 3.5e.
The Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic & Expert sets are a complete game in 128 pages. It is heavily based on the original D&D--and who can argue the importance of that game--while being more approachable.
C&C may be able to fill roughly the same niche, but it's pedigree isn't as strong. It's a bit like playing Pictionary when you wanted to play Charades.
I was one of the many people who moved quickly from classic D&D to AD&D. But, looking back, I see that classic D&D had a huge influence on our AD&D games. We weren't really playing AD&D. We were playing classic D&D with AD&D window dressing.
I think part of the reason I never noticed this in the past is that how we played the game was based more on momentum from our Basic Set introduction &/or the practices of the people who taught us the game than on the rules printed in the books.
I've found most gamers to have had a similar experience. Their AD&D games were really somewhere between D&D & AD&D.
I found my way back to classic D&D & found it to be my prefered game. Those 128 pages weren't only good for their time; they're good today as well.
Likewise, I've played a couple of games of Dungeon! this year & both were a blast.
But as I said in my previous post, between C&C & second-hand materials, any need can be met--at least after a fashion.
Now TLG needs to produce a Dungeon! clone.
braints0rm
First Post
Simplified
The biggest problem with D&D is with the modifiers. Throughout the game, you will have modifiers that impact all aspects of the game and keeping track is daunting, particularly at high levels. To me, the answer isn't in simplifying the game, but in developing a better way to track all of the modifiers in real time. I've always envisioned an electronic DM/Player interface that would make adjustments to player and/or monster stats based on DM &/or Player input. So if an NPC cast a spell that affects certain PCs or all of them, the DM could input it and the modifiers would automatically make the adjustments to all of the player's electronic character sheets as appropriate.
Another area of the game that is hard to keep track of at higher levels is the increase in abilities. Once you have a character reach 10th level and higher, they have access to numerous abilities and sometimes you forget that you had something that could've come in handy in that last encounter because you may rarely use that particular ability. I usually chalk that up to temporary memory loss due to the heat of the moment, but it does help players & DMs to be organized. I usually whittle down NPC abilities to a handful that I think will come into play during any given encounter so that I don't have to wade through pages of spells/feats/magic items/etc during the game.
The biggest problem with D&D is with the modifiers. Throughout the game, you will have modifiers that impact all aspects of the game and keeping track is daunting, particularly at high levels. To me, the answer isn't in simplifying the game, but in developing a better way to track all of the modifiers in real time. I've always envisioned an electronic DM/Player interface that would make adjustments to player and/or monster stats based on DM &/or Player input. So if an NPC cast a spell that affects certain PCs or all of them, the DM could input it and the modifiers would automatically make the adjustments to all of the player's electronic character sheets as appropriate.
Another area of the game that is hard to keep track of at higher levels is the increase in abilities. Once you have a character reach 10th level and higher, they have access to numerous abilities and sometimes you forget that you had something that could've come in handy in that last encounter because you may rarely use that particular ability. I usually chalk that up to temporary memory loss due to the heat of the moment, but it does help players & DMs to be organized. I usually whittle down NPC abilities to a handful that I think will come into play during any given encounter so that I don't have to wade through pages of spells/feats/magic items/etc during the game.
Remathilis
Legend
The general problem is making complexity nonproportional to choice.
For example: the 3 alignment system is simpler and easier to understand than the 9 alignment system, but the 9 alignment system covers more potential options (like LE or CG).
The simplifed skills option is great, until Bob the fighter doesn't want to make longswords anymore, he wants to plant crops. In the RAW, he can just start adding skill points to Profession and not craft, but in simple skills, you have to invent a work around mechanic to switching skills.
Elves as a race adds complexity and allows for min-maxing. Elf as a class is more balanced, but flavorly bland.
Everyone's complexity:Choice ratio will be different, which is why 3e went with the Kitchen sink mentality. It resulted in a game with limitless options and mind-boggling complexity.
That is why TLG has its hands full; everyone has an idea of "what" that want simplified and what they want options in. For example, the 3 save system seems simpler than TLG's 6 save system, but others like the idea of "no ability score is dump".
Catch 22 if you ask me, but my ideas are the most valid attempt I can think of making my Cyclopedia 3.5 compatible.
For example: the 3 alignment system is simpler and easier to understand than the 9 alignment system, but the 9 alignment system covers more potential options (like LE or CG).
The simplifed skills option is great, until Bob the fighter doesn't want to make longswords anymore, he wants to plant crops. In the RAW, he can just start adding skill points to Profession and not craft, but in simple skills, you have to invent a work around mechanic to switching skills.
Elves as a race adds complexity and allows for min-maxing. Elf as a class is more balanced, but flavorly bland.
Everyone's complexity:Choice ratio will be different, which is why 3e went with the Kitchen sink mentality. It resulted in a game with limitless options and mind-boggling complexity.
That is why TLG has its hands full; everyone has an idea of "what" that want simplified and what they want options in. For example, the 3 save system seems simpler than TLG's 6 save system, but others like the idea of "no ability score is dump".
Catch 22 if you ask me, but my ideas are the most valid attempt I can think of making my Cyclopedia 3.5 compatible.
Remathilis
Legend
Another thought
The current system has a 3 book setup: one for players, one for GMs, one of monsters (for gms). Thus, the typical player needs to expend 30 dollars, the GM nearly 100.
What if we broke it down by level, not topic?
Book 1: Basic covers levels 1-6. It has character generation, class info up to level 6, 0-3rd level spells, 1/4 - 8 CR monsters (common/archtypical), and minor magical items. It also covers basic combat (initative, hit/dmg, dying)
Book 2: Expert covers levels 7-14, as well as advanced classes (monk), 4-6th level spells, more monsters, complex combat manuvers (sunder, disarm), more complex feats, and medium magical items.
Book 3: Champion has levels 15-20. It has major magical items, Lots of complex/difficult monsters, 7-9th levels spells, Nearly-epic feats, and lots of other high-level goodies.
Book 4: Campaign Options combines some elements of Unearthed Arcana, Prestige Classes, and other complex elements of the game that are optional.
With the content slimmed down (remove lots of deadwood) you could reasonably price those books cheap and have a tiered style game not only useful for novices, but also for GMS who hate high-level gaming.
The current system has a 3 book setup: one for players, one for GMs, one of monsters (for gms). Thus, the typical player needs to expend 30 dollars, the GM nearly 100.
What if we broke it down by level, not topic?
Book 1: Basic covers levels 1-6. It has character generation, class info up to level 6, 0-3rd level spells, 1/4 - 8 CR monsters (common/archtypical), and minor magical items. It also covers basic combat (initative, hit/dmg, dying)
Book 2: Expert covers levels 7-14, as well as advanced classes (monk), 4-6th level spells, more monsters, complex combat manuvers (sunder, disarm), more complex feats, and medium magical items.
Book 3: Champion has levels 15-20. It has major magical items, Lots of complex/difficult monsters, 7-9th levels spells, Nearly-epic feats, and lots of other high-level goodies.
Book 4: Campaign Options combines some elements of Unearthed Arcana, Prestige Classes, and other complex elements of the game that are optional.
With the content slimmed down (remove lots of deadwood) you could reasonably price those books cheap and have a tiered style game not only useful for novices, but also for GMS who hate high-level gaming.
buzz said:
There's a large difference between a rules-lite system and a rules-empty system. Most of the games touted as "rules-lite" in the modern RPG market seem to me to be more like storytelling guidelines than actual rules. I want crunch in my rules-lite game, I just want a heck of a lot less of it.
If you really don't think BD&D is rules-lite, I'll happily weigh my Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert books and post the total weight. You weigh the 3.5 PHB, DMG and MM, plus any other books you consider "essential" for a 3.5 game and post the total weight. I'm betting B/X is "lighter" by about a 1:10 margin.
Krieg
First Post
A lot of us have mentioned C&C as a potential holy grail for the rules light(er) D20 players, but from what (admittedly little) I have seen of it so far I'm not sure this is going to be the case.rogueattorney said:
From all appearances C&C wasn't designed to be "rules light". Instead it appears to have been designed to "feel" more like 1E AD&D. Now while I think that is a laudable goal & I am certainly planning on picking up a copy...I don't necesarily feel that the end product is going to be the "lighter" version that some folks are looking for.
Hopefully when C&C comes out people won't blast it for not being what they were expecting it to be...especially if they were expecting it to be something it never claimed to be.
Just something to think about.
Last edited:
rogueattorney
Adventurer
Ourph said:
I wouldn't quite go as far as Ourph on this subject, but I do agree regarding the relative merits of the touted modern rules lite games as B/X D&D replacements. Fudge, as an example that's been named earlier, is a generic system. It isn't appreciably shorter than the old B/X version of D&D (my copy's ~95 pages), and doesn't come with an assumed genre. Creating the milieau is quite a bit of work for the GM (very fun work IMHO, but still work). So Fudge doesn't have the "out of the box" availability of old B/X D&D. Savage Worlds, another highly touted rules-lite generic system, has that same issue.
And please don't think I'm slagging these products - they're quite good for what they are. I'm just giving my reasons for why I don't think they fill the same role as B/X D&D.
R.A.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (250) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027 -
January 1 2027
