Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5495648" data-attributes="member: 22424">I usually enjoy (and mostly agree with) these columns, but not this one.In our last D&D (4e) campaign, I somehow fell into the role of rules expert, by virtue of being the one person in the group to have actually read the rules. I found myself constantly having to explain things to others, over and over again. And not just difficult things: the difference between At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers; the different action types (and why those two things weren't the same); the order of the steps in a character's turn (ongoing damage, then actions, then saves); the fact that the power cards already had the totals calculated, so you don't add you ability bonus on top since it's already included...For some reason, I had to explain that last one every single session, and sometimes multiple times per session.By the time I'd explained the same thing for the dozenth time, I concluded that yes, 4e is too complex.I think Mearls is right when he suggests that the trend towards complexity is due to people looking for a deeper game experience. Where I think he's off-base is the assumption that people are right in thinking more complexity will give them that. Layering more and more complexity on the game doesn't necessarily make for a better game, just a more complex one.This can also be seen in his end poll about the different editions of D&D. The thing is, while 3e probably is more complex than 2nd Edition, the much better presentation and organisation of the rules meant that that complexity was both much more intuitive and easier to handle. Without so many exceptions, micro-rules and special cases to deal with, players are able to just memorise a few key rules, and play (mostly).Mearls also doesn't address is the different types of complexity in 3e and 4e. On balance, these are probably equivalently complex games, but whereas much of 3e's complexity is contained in character management (and the hunt for the 'perfect' build), 4e's complexity seems mostly to come from a lot of short-term conditions that keep appearing and disappearing during the combat.I don't really have a position on the 'ideal' level and type of complexity for the game. All I can state is my preference: everything beyond core rules 3.0e has been too complex for my taste (with the exception of SWSE, which I thought was ideal). And even core rules 3.0e had significant problems in some areas.If these columns are indeed a precursor to 5e, then I'm suddenly a lot more apprehensive than I was previously. I am simply not interested in any 5e that is as complex as 4e (or 3e plus supplements, or Pathfinder). That's one of my deal-breakers.</blockquote>

Verification