D&D General New Interview with Rob Heinsoo About 4E

[TwoSix]

Why can't you play Terraforming Mars with your daughter? Is there something about the complexity of the rules that prevents her from playing it with you?

Of course it is. As I said in my post, simpler games are generally more accessible.

There's a correlation between accessibility and complexity, of course. But they aren't opposites.

A complex game can be more accessible than a simpler one if it has superior attempts to explain its procedures and a flatter learning curve.

 

[Staffan]

No matter how you try to sugar coat it, the fact remains: the more complex the design, the fewer people who will be able to play the game.

I am reminded of the saying that complexity is the currency with with you buy depth. Now, you can certainly get better or worse deals when doing so, but if you want a mechanically deep game you're going to need some complexity in it.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

It's a game. It doesn't have obligations. The designers make choices when they design their games. They're free to design their game however they want. But, the more complex the game, the fewer people who will be able to play it. That's a choice the designers make, too. And it's still casually accepted gatekeeping.

I think in order for a game to grant a certain experience, a minimal number of mechanics of a minumum amount of complexity is required. Remove too much, and you don't have the game anymore. We can discuss all the day about the amount of mechanics to be removed (and we do, see the thread and also see my productivity cratering) but there is a threshold below which we are just playing a tea party.
There are also people that simply put don't do their homework. This is not only limited to games, but to an overall tendency some have to be proudly misinformed and never sit down and read about something that concerns them, may it be trivial like a tabletop game or something more general and impactful. Should this behaviour be encouraged, and should fighting such behavior be called gatekeeping?

 

[zakael19]

I think in order for a game to grant a certain experience, a minimal number of mechanics of a minumum amount of complexity is required. Remove too much, and you don't have the game anymore. We can discuss all the day about the amount of mechanics to be removed (and we do, see the thread and also see my productivity cratering) but there is a threshold below which we are just playing a tea party.
There are also people that simply put don't do their homework. This is not only limited to games, but to an overall tendency some have to be proudly misinformed and never sit down and read about something that concerns them, may it be trivial like a tabletop game or something more general and impactful. Should this behaviour be encouraged, and should fighting such behavior be called gatekeeping?

I would love to see WOTC design a tutorial the way FU has done, where you match piecemeal mechanics into game action scene by scene. I think you could do that, but I also think you'd start to ask some questions about certain design decisions.

I just took a look at the PF2 Beginner's Box, which is probably the best "tutorial" I've now seen for a trad ruleset. It doesn't do the "bit of sheet -> immediate use" explainer, which I think for most people is the best way to have an abstract rule explainer click.

 

[niklinna]

Oh, you're completely right that a wider spectrum is valuable. I do not question this.

My assertion is twofold.

First, 5e was designed with the theory that most things need to be tailor-made for the math-averse folks TwoSix described. That's a problem, because it can very easily turn off the folks who want more. (I'm sure someone will come along and give 3PP as a solution, and I've already said elsewhere why I find that not actually a solution.)

Second, that 5e has continued past editions' flawed, bad, damaging, rigid link between spells = complexity = flexibility (and thus power), while martial = simplicity = inflexibility (and thus weakness). There is no such thing as a simple spellcaster (I'm sure someone will come along and give Warlock as a counter-example, and no, the Warlock ABSOLUTELY IS NOT simple.)

If we're going to take the "a spectrum is needed" response seriously, there needs to be a spectrum across thematics, not just in the generic. There needs to be at least one spellcaster that is comparably simple to the Fighter, even if it's still a little more complex (e.g. Battle Master level). There needs to be at least one martial that is at least comparable to the Warlock or Sorcerer. And we really, really need to fix the whole "simple things are usually weak unless heavily optimized, complex things are usually very strong unless played incredibly casually" problem. 5e has taken baby steps on that front. There's a lot more that can be done.

I vaguely recall that Warlock and Sorcerer were originally introduced as simpler options to Wizards. :-/ More pew-pew, less "which spells should I prepare and hope are useful today?" But they managed to be complicated in their own ways.

Much as I like the idea of the à la carte design of the 5e Warlock, I find it really hard to pick from the grab bag, especially with the various prereqs and such, and the choices all seem even more arbtirary than the broad spell catalogue. Which you also have to deal with!

5e Sorcerers might be the simplest option for a caster, but it's still much more complicated than most martials, at build time and play time.

 

[TwoSix]

I vaguely recall that Warlock and Sorcerer were originally introduced as simpler options to Wizards. :-/ More pew-pew, less "which spells should I prepare and hope are useful today?" But they managed to be complicated in their own ways.

Much as I like the idea of the à la carte design of the 5e Warlock, I find it really hard to pick from the grab bag, especially with the various prereqs and such, and the choices all seem even more arbtirary than the broad spell catalogue. Which you also have to deal with!

5e Sorcerers might be the simplest option for a caster, but it's still much more complicated than most martials, at build time and play time.

The best example I know is Mage Hand Press's Warmage. Gets a few cantrips, a scaling buff to cantrip damage (which puts the cantrip damage in the same tier as Warlock Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast), but no spells, just some invocations that add riders to the cantrips and some spell-like abilities.

 

[overgeeked]

I am reminded of the saying that complexity is the currency with with you buy depth. Now, you can certainly get better or worse deals when doing so, but if you want a mechanically deep game you're going to need some complexity in it.

And that is orthogonal to the point. You can explain it however you want or justify it however you want. The fact still remains. The more complex the system, the less accessible it is.

 

[overgeeked]

Of course it is. As I said in my post, simpler games are generally more accessible.

There's a correlation between accessibility and complexity, of course. But they aren't opposites.

A complex game can be more accessible than a simpler one if it has superior attempts to explain its procedures and a flatter learning curve.

A complex game cannot be accessible, by definition.

A simple game might be accessible, depending on presentation.

Increased complexity reduces accessibility.

 

[overgeeked]

I think in order for a game to grant a certain experience, a minimal number of mechanics of a minumum amount of complexity is required. Remove too much, and you don't have the game anymore. We can discuss all the day about the amount of mechanics to be removed (and we do, see the thread and also see my productivity cratering) but there is a threshold below which we are just playing a tea party.

And, again, that's orthogonal to the point. You can explain why you want a more complex and less accessible game all you want. It's still a less accessible game in the end.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah. It's a great starter adventure. It's almost like video games with their dramatically bigger budgets and actually tracked metrics have figured things out...like providing a detailed, step-by-step tutorial. D&D had this back in the BECMI days with the red box. Literally walked you through playing the game.

It's been awhile, but didn't MtG Arena have a really detailed tutorial for new players? If so, WotC at least used to have someone who knew how to make one.