D&D 5E Legends & Lore - A Retrospective

[Iosue]

Legends & Lore #5 - The Incredible, Expanding Gamer Brain
March 15, 2011
Original EN World thread

Building off of the last article on character generation, Mearls continues his look at complexity -- this time looking at the rules as a whole. This article is light on specific thoughts on design, but rather is some of Mearls' thoughts on why the game has become more and more complex.

Unlike most takes on the subject I've seen, Mearls' doesn't rely on ideas of game design improvement (i.e., that newer games have "objectively better" design. Nor does it involve changes in market tastes that occur independent of the larger gamer community (i.e., the "kids today" kind of theory). Instead, he approaches it more as a collective change over time.

Mearls suggests three elements in the movement towards increased complexity: player skill improvement over time; aspects of the game becoming tropes and cliches; and an increase in networks among players. Essentially, an individual player, as they get more experience with play, can better handle an increase in complexity -- but this is something that happens across the community. Same with tropes and cliches -- the first time one falls into a pit, it's new and exciting, but by the fifth or sixth time you encounter a trap, it's something you've expected, and planned for. The same goes for rules tropes as for play tropes. A veteran player can quickly adapt to new complex combat rules, because they've internalized the basic framework. And finally, while early in the game one might find a mentor who measured their experience in months or years, now one can find fellow members of the community with experience measured in decades.

Mearls says:

All of those factors point to why we’ve seen a steady increase in complexity over time. As a group, we’ve mastered the rules and started to seek more options. We’ve assimilated various tropes and mechanics to the point that they’re intuitive, providing a foundation for more mechanics to rest upon. And against the backdrop of this complexity, we’re better overall at teaching the game to new players.

Only at the end does he talk about what this means for the future of D&D, but he defers making any speculations or drawing any conclusions.

But of course, explaining why we see complexity on the rise overlooks the real question. Is complexity a good thing—is the game better served by having lots of rules and options? Should it feature a lot of depth, should it remain relatively simple—or are we best served by a game that offers a broad range of complexity?

I imagine that most people would prefer a game with a complexity level that they can set themselves. Traditionally, D&D has featured that by making fighters relatively simple and wizards more complex. Instead, I’m interested in hearing about your views on the different editions of D&D over time.

I'm typically pretty easy on Mearls, but I have to say, that last line is a doozy. Syntactically, it doesn't seem to follow -- that "instead" floats out there with no real purpose or meaning. I suspect there was an edit. Perhaps the initial line there gave the game away too early.

How did things end up in 5e?
It is interesting to read the first post of the original EN World thread, wherein [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] seems to feel that the article suggests that Mearls has a bias towards complexity. I suspect that few who enjoy complexity would agree after seeing 5e! 5e's record here is, I think, a little mixed. IMO, it's got Rules Cyclopedia-level complexity. Not quite as simple as, say, B/X. Certainly not as simple as many non-D&D systems out there. At the same time, the rules themselves are not as complex as 3e and 4e are (in different ways). It is neither as simulationally complex as 3e, nor as tactically complex as 4e.

On the whole, though, 5e seems to offload complexity onto the DM. The stealth rules seem emblematic of this. Some basic guidelines, but a lot is left to the DM's judgment. Spell descriptions are much shorter than in 3e, not needing to refer to many other rules or mechanics. There's a hint in Mearls article of players choosing their level of complexity, and while there is some flexibility, the game as a whole seems to be tuned to low complexity, with some options to increase it to a mid-level of complexity. Anything more needs to come from houserules or importing of systems from other editions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Totally. IF mearls has a personal bias toward complexity, he certainly didn't let it dominate 5e's development! Though I wonder how much this plays in to the "surprises" in the playtest -- that a lot of their initial feedback on the really simple playtest showed them that the fans were ready for a simpler, more basic game than they initially suspected....

...that's rampant speculation, though. At the very least, 5e designers saw this expanding complexity as something that not every player is interested in. I wonder if (a) we've got a module on the horizon for the people for whom 5e is too simple by default, and if (b) this was the inception of something like the Baisc rules: simple rules that get people up and running right away.

 

[delericho]

Interesting reading back my thoughts on that column from back then. Though it turns out that this isn't the column I thought it was: there was one on complexity that I really didn't like... I think that was by Monte though.

Anyway, I'm inclined to think 5e has hit about the right level of complexity. YMMV, of course.

 

[Iosue]

Interesting reading back my thoughts on that column from back then. Though it turns out that this isn't the column I thought it was: there was one on complexity that I really didn't like... I think that was by Monte though.

Anyway, I'm inclined to think 5e has hit about the right level of complexity. YMMV, of course.

Personally, my mileage is pretty much the same as yours. I suspect that the question of complexity was a tough nut for the design team to crack, leading to what is, in retrospect, a non-committal article by Mearls, and a different take by Monte. (Actually, I don't think his take on complexity was substantially different from Mearls, at least in his L&Ls. There was one on simulation that gave me pause, though.) It may be, though, that wrestling internally with just this question was what led to the decision for a long open playtest. Like, "If we can't decide, let's let the players have a say."

How different the game might have turned if Monte had remained on the team is an interesting question. If Monte was in favor of a more complex core, we might have seen some more mechanical fiddling during the playtest. The amount of personal influence Mearls had on it might have been even less -- his original job was much more of an overall manager than someone involved with design. I don't know how much Monte was really in favor of complexity, though; 3e often gets hung around his neck, but that was as much Tweet and Williams as it was him, if not more. I've never looked at Numenara; what do those think who have seen it? More complex than 5e? Less?

 

[delericho]

I'm going to answer a couple of things in the wrong order, if you don't mind...

I've never looked at Numenara; what do those think who have seen it? More complex than 5e? Less?

I've only played it a few times, but it definitely seems less complex. I think Monte may have been conscious that it would get much less play than D&D (probably even from fans of Numenera) and so couldn't rely on system mastery to anything like the same extent.

I suspect that the question of complexity was a tough nut for the design team to crack, leading to what is, in retrospect, a non-committal article by Mearls, and a different take by Monte. (Actually, I don't think his take on complexity was substantially different from Mearls, at least in his L&Ls. There was one on simulation that gave me pause, though.)

My issue with Monte's article wasn't about the level of complexity, but rather what I saw as a faulty conclusion.

His argument was roughly that a new player would benefit from an easy access point (which I agree with) but that a more advanced player would probably want at least a bit more complexity (which I agree with).

But what I saw as the faulty conclusion was that because that advanced player would have been playing longer, and therefore would have reached a higher level, complexity should rise with level.

My issue with this was two-fold:

Firstly, it only works if you play only one campaign, ever. Otherwise, the advanced player may find himself again playing a 1st level character that is overly simple for his taste.

Secondly, pretty much everyone will have a maximum desired level of complexity (that won't be the same for everyone). If complexity rises with level, then, a person will therefore reach a point where his 'reward' for continuing play is that his character becomes increasingly less fun beyond a certain point. (Indeed, that was very much the case with 3e beyond level 13 or so.)

So my view was that it would be better instead if the game had a simple (some might say Basic) version and then various optional modules and rules that could be added on to increase complexity for those who want it. Another reason to be glad of the way 5e worked out.

But I'm not sure that's necessarily a difference in design philosophy between Monte and Mearls. As indicated, Numenera indicates that Monte can do simple well enough; while I'd say "Iron Heroes" shows Mearls can do complex. I think it was instead just something that came out in the wash.

 

[meomwt]

How did things end up in 5e?
It is interesting to read the first post of the original EN World thread, wherein [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] seems to feel that the article suggests that Mearls has a bias towards complexity. I suspect that few who enjoy complexity would agree after seeing 5e! 5e's record here is, I think, a little mixed. IMO, it's got Rules Cyclopedia-level complexity. Not quite as simple as, say, B/X. Certainly not as simple as many non-D&D systems out there. At the same time, the rules themselves are not as complex as 3e and 4e are (in different ways). It is neither as simulationally complex as 3e, nor as tactically complex as 4e.

On the whole, though, 5e seems to offload complexity onto the DM. The stealth rules seem emblematic of this. Some basic guidelines, but a lot is left to the DM's judgment. Spell descriptions are much shorter than in 3e, not needing to refer to many other rules or mechanics. There's a hint in Mearls article of players choosing their level of complexity, and while there is some flexibility, the game as a whole seems to be tuned to low complexity, with some options to increase it to a mid-level of complexity. Anything more needs to come from houserules or importing of systems from other editions.

One of the attractions which 3.5E held for Mrs meomwt was the sheer number of skill, feat and power choices available to the player, so that the characters could be customised to suit. It certainly feels that in 5E, the player gets to choose less and so two rogues might be quite similar. This might reduce complexity, but it might also reduce player interest.

Personally, I feel that (and this is with just one session behind us) the level of complexity is pitched about right in the fields of combat and skill use - the game moves quickly and the fights don't (yet) get bogged down in a dozen modifiers to AC, hit points, abilities, etc., in the same way that 3.5E did. The PHB has 10 pages in the combat section IIRC, out of 320 - a far smaller percentage when compared to 3.5E. Even stuff shuffled over onto the DM (me!) feels intuitive so far. Even if there is a complex mechanic behind the system, it is presented in an intuitive and sensible manner - making complexity simple?

 

[Uchawi]

I believe where 5E fell short is providing the tools for the table to set the complexity that has equal weight across all the mechanics in the game. That would allow you to find tune the complexity or depth for an individual class, item, etc. Instead with have a mix of sub-systems that do not play well together when attempting to adjust complexity. How does a feat compare to spell, saves versus AC or skills, or how does vancian compare against martial ability; to learn new things.

5E was very gun shy after 4E, which is an expected response, but they definitely had an aversion from treating things like class ability on a level playing field. Each edition had it quirks, but 4E was the closest to addressing it. 4E went to far, and 5E did not even acknowledge the value of going down that path.

With any version of D&D the complexity of the system ultimately rests in the DMs hands. That will never change. But what will help is making the rules more pliable to make the job much easier. Or from a players perspective allow enough complexity for each class (through class meta-mechanics), so one does not fall behind.

 

[Iosue]

One of the attractions which 3.5E held for Mrs meomwt was the sheer number of skill, feat and power choices available to the player, so that the characters could be customised to suit. It certainly feels that in 5E, the player gets to choose less and so two rogues might be quite similar. This might reduce complexity, but it might also reduce player interest.

True. OTOH, one of the surprising moves, to me, was the introduction of the personality traits into the backgrounds, with a slight mechanical oomph thanks to Inspiration. This opens up doors for a lot customization that doesn't increase complexity too much, nor greatly affects balance.

Of course, that only works for people who like character concept customization, in contrast to people who enjoy finding synergies in mechanics and developing a degree of mechanical system mastery. For the former, I think 5e might appeal even to 3.x/PF fans. For the latter, though, it probably is not enough as is. Possibly in the future as more splats come out, even with a slowed schedule, but not with the Core Three.

 

[Iosue]

I believe where 5E fell short is providing the tools for the table to set the complexity that has equal weight across all the mechanics in the game. That would allow you to find tune the complexity or depth for an individual class, item, etc. Instead with have a mix of sub-systems that do not play well together when attempting to adjust complexity. How does a feat compare to spell, saves versus AC or skills, or how does vancian compare against martial ability; to learn new things.

5E was very gun shy after 4E, which is an expected response, but they definitely had an aversion from treating things like class ability on a level playing field. Each edition had it quirks, but 4E was the closest to addressing it. 4E went to far, and 5E did not even acknowledge the value of going down that path.

With any version of D&D the complexity of the system ultimately rests in the DMs hands. That will never change. But what will help is making the rules more pliable to make the job much easier. Or from a players perspective allow enough complexity for each class (through class meta-mechanics), so one does not fall behind.

I really got a sense of embarrassment of riches in the DMG. Like there were a lot of places where they could have gone into depth, but they simply didn't have the room, and ultimately went for breadth.

 

[Sigbjorn_86]

I've never looked at Numenara; what do those think who have seen it? More complex than 5e? Less?

Numenera is extremely simple. It uses the same dice-roll to resolve all challenges. Damage is static. There are are few stats. I don't think this is indicative of Monte's feelings toward complexity, though. Numenera is an example of putting setting before mechanics. The simplicity plays into the narrative-first design. I don't think Monte would have approached 5e in the same manner.