Legends & Lore 3/12

[Ryujin]

To be fair, very often video gaming isn't either.

[ ... ]

Seems that most of your comment supports my "button mashing" statement. While video gaming involves certain dexterity skills, in order to be able to use the presented options, where is the element of imagination, that a role playing game incorporates. THAT is why I find the comparison insulting.

 

[renau1g]

There's a reason why Basic D&D had so much traction despite so little rules for "things you can do" - because you could do anything and you didn't need to codify it to some sort of power format.

There's also the fact it had little competition from the various other time-sucking endeavors available these days (most importantly video games and movies/tv).

It's very difficult to get new gamers (from what I've seen) by trying to convince them to spend 6 hours on a game that they won't advance a level (likely) as they're so hammered with instant gratification. Heck, I played Dragon Age II for about 4-5 hours and am level 5 already.

 

[Keldryn]

I think the poll is the most telling thing in the entire article. Check out that ~70% of players combining the first and second group who responded weren't interested in the "stripped down" fighter.

There's a very significant selection bias that we need to take into account here. The D&D fans who enjoy a greater degree of complexity are more likely to be reading designer posts on the official site and responding to polls such as this. Many of gamers who prefer the more streamlined characters probably don't even know that Mearls' post existed, and even if they did, couldn't be bothered to take the poll.

This does get into the whole "casual" player issue, which I think is more complex than a lot of us give it credit for. On one hand, it's been said that these "casual" players aren't the ones buying books and thus don't really count as customers. That is true.

However, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that my situation isn't unique: My current semi-regular game has four players (plus me). One player (my sister) has been gaming for 20+ years through all editions and another player started with 3e and is a walking encyclopedia of 3e and 4e rules. The other two players are my wife and my sister's boyfriend, neither of whom would be playing if their significant others weren't playing, and neither of whom would ever buy a D&D product of any kind. Nor are they interested in reading borrowed D&D books to better learn the rules. I would hold them up as being very representative of the "casual" D&D player.

These "casual" players don't directly contribute to the sales of D&D books, but if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have enough players to run a game and thus I wouldn't be be continuing to buy D&D products.

I personally find 4E has the perfect mix of complexity compared to simplicity. It's on a knife edge a bit in places - like how the rules for interrupts/opportunity actions and such function at times - but in general it's probably just about right. I wouldn't mind some things being streamlined a bit more, for example most out of turn attacks being either an immediate interrupt or reaction (to stop out of turn attack spam).

I'm in the situation where two of my four players find 4e to be too complicated and don't enjoy it very much. The big offenders are the plethora of +1/-1/+2/-2 to attacks/damage until the end/beginning of your/ally's/opponent's next turn effects, too many triggered actions to remember, and powers which are essentially "roll to hit, roll damage, and apply a minor effect" but that read as completely unique entities.

These two players really enjoyed our diversion into Basic D&D for a couple of weeks, but the two more experienced players were already finding it limiting and were irritated with the sometimes-illogical rules. So a more streamlined 4e would be pretty great in my eyes. Essentials isn't quite enough.

 

[the Jester]

These two players really enjoyed our diversion into Basic D&D for a couple of weeks, but the two more experienced players were already finding it limiting and were irritated with the sometimes-illogical rules. So a more streamlined 4e would be pretty great in my eyes. Essentials isn't quite enough.

Yeah, there's something to be said for trying to recapture that simplicity without losing the "cool stuff to do" factor. It's a tall order to fill.

That said, I'm working on my own mixed-up system that tries to take the best of each edition and mash them together in a sort of jazz composition that I hope will lead me to my own personal D&Dgasm.

 

[P1NBACK]

There's also the fact it had little competition from the various other time-sucking endeavors available these days (most importantly video games and movies/tv).

It's very difficult to get new gamers (from what I've seen) by trying to convince them to spend 6 hours on a game that they won't advance a level (likely) as they're so hammered with instant gratification. Heck, I played Dragon Age II for about 4-5 hours and am level 5 already.

I believe that if you're trying to get video gamers to play RPGs by competing with video games on their terms, you'll fail every time.

If you're trying to recreate the WoW experience on a tabletop, you've already lost the battle because WoW can do it more casually, at any time, with (as you said) far more instant gratification.

So, what should D&D be trying to do, if not compete with WoW? I'd say, lure those WoW gamers in with awesome marketing and artwork, and keep them there by giving them something WoW can't give them: a robust engine for roleplaying (and not tactical video-game style combat).

---

As far as complexity, I think there is a divide between complexity and depth that needs to be distinguished. Complexity doesn't necessarily create a deeper game experience. And, you can certainly find a very deep, very intricate game experience from very simple mechanics. See: Apocalypse World.

As an aside: WotC may surely be concerned with maintaining the population of CharOp fanatics - yeah, they probably buy all the new power books and latest sweet DDI "build" or whatever. But, those people by and large I've found don't play the game as much as play building characters. Is this really the population WotC should be designing for? I don't know. But, my guess is, probably not if they want to build a game that's not just going to make money, but also be an amazing roleplaying game.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I don't think it actually a good example, though. It's a simplistic, throwaway example that probably doesn't deserve this much analysis, but it's so simplistic that it doesn't really make his point; or, really any point. 4e options aren't just "not buttons", they aren't even really like buttons, except maybe in that you can count the number of buttons on a controller and you can almost kind of count the number of options in 4e if you ignore the fact that because of the way they interact you really can't.

I don't think you should get hung up on the video game thing--I really believe it was used as an example of a trend from complexity to simplicity because of its familiarity to gamers, not to make any comparisons between RPGs and computer games whatsoever.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I don't find 4e more or less complex than 3e; I find it less "fiddly." Between the constant changes to ability scores through buffs, debuffs, damage, negative levels, etc. and the sheer number of minions, auras, xd6 duration effects and so forth, a round of 3e can quickly turn into a nightmarish slog as players and DM alike struggle to keep track of all the adjustments and temporary modifiers. With some exceptions (I am looking at you Runepriest), 4e has avoided that pitfall

Fascinating. I play in a weekly Pathfinder game, and a weekly 4e game--both with terrific DMs, and great players--and I find the conditional bonuses and debuffs in 4e just as fiddly.

Some things that popped up in a combat from our last 4e session:
Song of Courage--+1 to attacks.
Divine Favor--+2 to attacks and damage, but it doesn't stack with Song.
A +3 to hit bonus, but only against one creature, and only if I attack it before the granter's next turn.
Second Wind--+2 to all defenses.
Should I use the Immediate Interrupt from by armor to gain concealment (essentially -2 to the enemies attack) for that attack that just hit?
Etc.

This is not a slam--I love both systems. But IMO, fiddlyness is a common trait.

 

[renau1g]

..by giving them something WoW can't give them: a robust engine for roleplaying (and not tactical video-game style combat).

I believe it already does that. To each his own I guess.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the problem is it is way to simplistic to say there is 'complexity'. There are really various different dimensions to an RPG and it could be more or less complex in different ways, and the complexity could be experienced at different levels depending on choices the player makes.

On top of that I am not at all convinced that RPGs inevitably evolve to be more complex either. There are plenty of examples of newer and more simple RPGs replacing more complex ones. There are examples of games which started out monstrously complex (Rollmaster anyone).

I think the better way to look at it is diffusion. The game started in 1974 at a specific point (which was admittedly simpler on most levels than modern D&D). From there it moved off in different directions catering to different tastes. Basic D&D retained the original level of complexity and even cut it back in some ways. AD&D added complexity. 2e simplified some things and made many of the more complex things options. 3e streamlined a lot of the rules, but added new complicated things, etc.

Notice that while the official D&D products generally drifted in the direction of greater complexity there were also movements in the other direction as well. Many OSR type systems are as simple as Basic, sometimes even more so. There are d20 variations which are extremely stripped down as well. On top of that I don't think you can take D&D entirely in isolation here. Lots of gamers simply moved off to other simpler systems, at least for part of their RPGing needs.

In other words 1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 3.5e -> 4e is the main direction taken by TSR/WotC in which the game has generally grown more complex with a pruning back and reformulation now and then to make greater options etc more manageable but generally at least reaching a plateau of complexity with late 2e and arguably somewhat increasing after that. The audience for this game is obviously the people whom that was satisfactory to. That doesn't mean complexity always grows or that it is somehow a desirable end in and of itself.

Personally I like the FLEXIBILITY of 4e and the generality and modularity of its rules. That doesn't mean I endorse all of the other baggage that has been lumped onto that train. Mearls' article lacks sufficient depth of analysis to capture those distinctions and his poll is pretty much useless as the options need to be more diverse and specific. For instance I don't mind a lot of choices existing in character building, as long as building an individual character doesn't require mastering a lot of different factors and the options can be reasonable sorted and accessed. OTOH large amounts of complexity in choosing options in play at the table and in tracking effects and such is undesirable.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think it's better to have lots of options, and then provide "packages" of pre-determined options for those who want easier character management.

Absolutely. I get the impression that pre-Essentials books may have not been explicit or tightly-designed enough to get across the notion that, at default, you can take all the powers that are associated with your build and BAM, perfectly viable, self-contained concept. Essentials, I feel, went too far in the other direction by just saying HERE TAKE YOUR BUILD-FAVORED POWER AND LIKE IT.

Well-guided complexity would be the happiest medium. If every new release came with build suggestion lists, perhaps including feats, paragon paths, and so forth, it would go a long way toward helping super casual players to not feel overwhelmed, much like the build lists on MMOs and video games do. CharOp is not the best place to go for this, because it focuses on uber builds rather than natural builds.