Legends and Lore: customized complexity

[Ed_Laprade]

The critical point in the article for me (even thought it wasn't actually in the article) was the poll question regarding simplicity/complexity of character creation. The real answer, for me, is that it entirely depends on when I'm creating my character. In the middle of the game after my character has died? I want it as simple as possible. At home between games? I want it as complex as I feel like using at the time. Failure to consider when makes the question moot IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Croesus]

The critical point in the article for me (even thought it wasn't actually in the article) was the poll question regarding simplicity/complexity of character creation. The real answer, for me, is that it entirely depends on when I'm creating my character. In the middle of the game after my character has died? I want it as simple as possible. At home between games? I want it as complex as I feel like using at the time. Failure to consider when makes the question moot IMO, YMMV, etc.

I see your point, and would suggest another consideration - level of familiarity with RPG's in general. The simpler the system, the easier it is for a novice to create and play a character. Every additional layer of complexity is a barrier to a novice. Too many barriers and you may lose the novice before they have a chance to get hooked.

This reminds me of a related issue. When I played my first session of D&D, I had no idea what I was doing, but I had a blast. I got hooked by the dungeon, the unknown monsters and traps, the atmosphere, all of it. What didn't hook me was a lot of options (which didn't exist with the original white box). If we want to hook new players, we need to allow them to focus on the game, not the rules. Later, if they want, let them add lots of complexity - just not in the first few sessions.

 

[Stalker0]

To me, the major issue of complexity in character creation can be corrected with sample characters.

Have a player new to DND? They want to try out a fighter that does lots of damage with a big sword? Ok....give them the example fighter.

All the numbers are done, the feats are chosen (and the feats are all numerical bonuses, nothing fiddly that the player has to worry about). And...there you go. Character creation in less than 30 seconds.


The articles ideas make a lot of sense, but I would really need to see some tangible examples in practice. I just can't see making feats optional, and still have a game system that properly supports and balances them.

 

[Dire Bare]

Obviously these articles have all been conceptual so it has to come with a big grain of salt, but if we presume perfect execution it sounds like a great idea. Of course, perfect execution is improbable and so problems will creep in.

Well, yes, perfection is impossible. However, this would be true of any RPG system, regardless of complexity, or "dialed complexity".

The first problem I see is that I can't imagine a way for this to be developed where you are producing the best systems possible. You'd have to make sacrifices in the design in order to ensure something could be easily turned on or off. This means that when someone wants to flip the skill-switch 'on,' they aren't getting the best skill system D&D could design, they're getting the best skill system D&D could design that you could also choose not to use. They are pitching a game that appeals to the widest possible audience (which is smart) instead of the best game for the audience they have (which is a bummer).

My other concern is that creating one system of D&D that plays so differently will diminish the ability of the community to get together and dish. Talking about the game is a *huge* part of the experience, and if 5e looks like four or ten or whatever different games based on what you flipped on or off, it might make it harder to talk about. That'd be a real shame and I think I might add "the ability to quickly understand the play experience of other gamers" to my list of D&D sacred cows.

I think this type of "variable" or "dialed" complexity is perfectly possible, and I'm excited to see where this goes. I think the answer to your concerns is that while the complexity options would potentially be on a continuum, there would be a small handful of "sweet spots" in the design. You a fan of the original D&D or the BECMI D&D? That's "sweet spot" #1, with very little in the way of customization for characters and game rules. This could even be marketed as the "Red Box" or Basic D&D.

You a 4th Ed fan? Like plenty of customization options, but like things to still play relatively simple? Sweet Spot #2. Sweet Spot #3 might be akin to 2nd Edition with Player's Option. You can customize your game further inbetween and around those "sweet spots", but the designers would provide solid packages to cater to specific play styles.

And when talking about the game on ENWorld or other forums, we all may be playing at different "sweet spots", but the underlying rules are all the same. And your monster build simply and my monster built with tons o' options could still play nice together and we could share the ideas and statblocks. Not unlike how it's easy peasy to play a 4th Ed "classic" character and a 4th Ed "essentials" character in the same game with NO problems. Heck, back in the day we used to mix BECMI D&D and AD&D all the time . . . it wasn't perfect and we did it because we didn't "know better" . . . but you know what, it worked.

Of course, this type of system could be designed badly and be a huge failure, or it could be designed quite well and be the version of D&D that brings us all together to sing happy songs while we slay orcs . . . but that's true of any design approach.

 

[Dire Bare]

There's no pinch of salt required. this is a) the only way to satisfactorily body-swerve an edition war . . .

Heh, heh, I think you underestimate the power some folks have to find fault with just about anything in life. Regardless of what design approach is used for the next version of D&D, and no matter how well designed it might be, there will be those who given in to their hatred and taste the power of the Dark Side . . . .

But I do think that this approach could unify the player base to a degree as it could incorporate many different play styles, and even genres, with one set of rules.

 

[Dire Bare]

To me, the major issue of complexity in character creation can be corrected with sample characters.

And then, 1,000 XP later, it's time to level up.

Actually, I've always hated pregenerated characters. I mean, I think they are necessary to have around when you need to add a player quickly for whatever reason, but they are always a poor substitute for creating your own character. Even if that character creation is on the simple side of the complexity continuum, it's still something to roll those stats, choose your class and weapon, and then pick a name.

Besides, while it's easiest to see this in regards to character creation, Mearls is talking "complexity dials" for just about every aspect of the game. Combat rules, monster creation, adventure design . . . all of it!

Again, while this idea excites a number of us, it could be designed poorly or designed well . . . and I doubt any of us would be willing to plunk down cash for "5th Edition" D&D without TONS of thorough previews, especially considering how different this approach is.

 

[Jhaelen]

The real answer, for me, is that it entirely depends on when I'm creating my character. In the middle of the game after my character has died? I want it as simple as possible. At home between games? I want it as complex as I feel like using at the time. Failure to consider when makes the question moot IMO, YMMV, etc.

Actually, no. It means the system needs to offer both:
A simple way of creating characters to work as a replacement in a pinch during a session, and a complex way to select every tiny detail about the character.

Many systems work like that and actually 4e also offers quick character creation using a 'build'. What's missing is the extension of the build to cover every level. But all that would be required for that is to define build-specific default powers and feats at every level.

(To a certain degree the 3e PHB2 also supported this, since it featured an appendix for quick character generation at every level. It kinda worked, too!)

Doesn't the DDI Character Builder also offer the option to create a 'quick' character, making all the choices for you?

Since I as a DM allow (almost) limitless retraining, turning a 'quick' character into a full-fledged character by continuing to customize it over time is already a feature in 4e.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

You a 4th Ed fan? Like plenty of customization options, but like things to still play relatively simple? Sweet Spot #2. Sweet Spot #3 might be akin to 2nd Edition with Player's Option. You can customize your game further inbetween and around those "sweet spots", but the designers would provide solid packages to cater to specific play styles.

I think one of the biggest challenges that WotC will face with the Sweet Spots is that each game element is going to require separate rules for each Sweet Spot.

The basic orc that is a challenge to a completely stripped down Sweet Spot #1 character will need some sort of customization when faced against an all options included Sweet Spot #5 character. That could be customization to indicate that it's not as challenging for a SS#5 character or it could be the addition of game elements to make it a challenge for SS#5 characters. And maybe there are simple fixes on how to customize the non-PC elements of the game but WotC's effort is going to be greatly expanded (compared to an edition that does not have multiple Sweet Spots) regardless of how it's accounted for.

 

[rogueattorney]

This point was raised by me and others when Mearls had a similar column awhile back. One of the big issues with complexity dials or layers or whatever you want to call it is presentation.

If you bury your 90 pages of lowest level complexity rules in 450 pages of rule books filled with expansions and options, you're not going to attract the people who want low levels of complexity.

Speaking for someone who is definitely on the Basic D&D-like complexity side of things, I could take a big black magic marker to my 3.5e PHB and DMG easily enough if that's what I really wanted to do. But, whether it's me with my magic marker, or the author labeling "optional" on 80% of the book, I'm still buying way more rules than I ever intend on using and wading through way more rule book than I ever want to read.

I imagine the other side of the spectrum will have the reverse problem if the main rule book is the bare minimum to get the game played. They don't want to buy multiple products to get the minimum amount of game they want to play and they don't want to be required to have the pre-campaign discussion figuring out which half dozen supplements are being used.

I think the ideal spot for what Mearls and now Cook are proposing would probably be some middle ground between the OD&D-B/X D&D 90-ish page minimum and the 600-ish pages of core rules you saw with 3e. Would a single core rule book edition roughly formatted like the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia be enough for those who are looking for more complexity?

Speaking from the other side of the spectrum, when using that rulebook, I ignored roughly half the rules and eventually moved to the more stripped down 1981 B/X rules. As much cache as the RC now has among a lot of D&D'ers, it completely bombed when it first came out 20 year ago. Would a 5e roughly modeled off of it hit the sweet spot, or would it be the compromise that makes nobody happy?