Rules, too much or too little? YOU DECIDE!

[collin]

If I had to choose one, I would vote for simpler rules rather than more detailed or complex. My reason for this is I find it easier to add on complexity than it is to remove it, so if the rules are less complex to start with, I can always add in more rules, crunch, or what have you to make it seem more realistic or give it some more flavor.

 

[Blue]

Given that no one system can make everyone happy and that there is no such thing as a perfect game, I think 5E has hit a decent balance.

Before I say anything more - I agree with you. I think 5e is in a sweet spot. It definitely appeals to me.

There's a TED talk by Malcolm Gladwell that talks about opinion testers for companies on how to improve their product. It's been a few years, let me try to paraphrase it. This one guy was consulting for Pepsi quite some time back, and they wanted to know about changes to their formula to try to overtake Coke. So they ran batches with it sweeter, with it fizzier, all different variations. And he found spikes all over. So he told them, and they said "give us the right mix of bits", so he approximated it and they came up with a good change.

He later went to work for Prego (tomato sauce), who did the same thing. Tried all these different variations. But the spikes were even more pronounced. He was able to convince them to put out multiple products - this one chunky, this one more garlic, etc. And each had it's own market segment. And that's how we started getting a lot of variation because there was one-size-fits-all.

So 5e being a great balance is really good. But variations, some chunkier, some quicker, some more narrative, some more realistic, this one more tactical - each variation will have spikes of people who enjoy it "the most". There's audience for that. (Well, maybe not paid audience - the RPG market is rather niche.) But it can scratch a particular itch better.

 

[Oofta]

So 5e being a great balance is really good. But variations, some chunkier, some quicker, some more narrative, some more realistic, this one more tactical - each variation will have spikes of people who enjoy it "the most". There's audience for that. (Well, maybe not paid audience - the RPG market is rather niche.) But it can scratch a particular itch better.

Then the question is: would the market support that variation or would be get lost in the muddle?

Let's say we had a book come out, Mordenkainens Optional Rules Emporium (MORE). With MORE you have different buttons and levers you can push or pull to adjust your game to suit your needs for your group. This would be kind of awesome.

But MORE is also carries significant risk. Whether by sheer luck, good design or a combination therein, 5E is doing really well and supposedly still hasn't peaked (when, if, or if it's already happened is another discussion). If you add in all these optional rules, do you dilute the brand? Do you lose some of the "herd mentality" that is part and parcel of the D&D brand? If you veer off far enough from the base, some people will say the rules are a bit of a mess and they might as well play XXX because it's more focused on that niche.

I have no clue if that would be a problem, but I do know that corporations tend to be conservative and oftentimes are better off focusing on a "niche" product even if it doesn't scratch every itch. If I wan to drink mountain dew code red one day and mountain dew caffeine free diet* all I have to do is grab a different can from the fridge.

But a game? A game requires other people playing basically the same thing and being comfortable with the rules even if they aren't ecstatic about them. Divide it up too much and you might split the player base so much that it's not as sustainable.

In addition, there's always house rules and DmsGuild options, so I'm not sure I see the benefit to risk calculation being there. So I don't expect MORE, at least not for a while.

*WHY? What's the point of this abomination on the soda drinking public?

 

[Blue]

Hi [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] - I agree (and even mention) that the market may not be large enough to support a niche. For a small market, having one that has the wide appeal is good.

That's a different thing than saying any particular player will prefer a balanced compromise over a niche. When you're just looking at rules, not at publishing rules, different players enjoy different things. Almost a truism. So there's value in discussing what people want from rules.

Even if you just look at market, some people are playing Warhamemr Fantasy, focusing on gritty grimdark. Others Blades in the Dark, working on the Fantasy Heist mechanical focus. Plenty of Powered by the Apocalypse and Savage Worlds type games played in the fantasy genre.

5e is the widest played, and it strikes a great balance among the options, not throwing shade on that at all.

 

[BookBarbarian]

So 5e being a great balance is really good. But variations, some chunkier, some quicker, some more narrative, some more realistic, this one more tactical - each variation will have spikes of people who enjoy it "the most". There's audience for that. (Well, maybe not paid audience - the RPG market is rather niche.) But it can scratch a particular itch better.

It may just be me, but I'd rather see OGL products address these flavors that WotC products.

Cubicle 7 gave me 5e in Middle Earth. No spells but more crunch for overland travel and specific social encounters. I found it to be quite to my taste. Though I also still play 'vanilla' 5e.

Or even Eberrron which kind of strikes the middle ground between Official and not quite official.

Hmm. I may be ready for a fiddly setting and a more streamlined setting.

 

[Blue]

It may just be me, but I'd rather see OGL products address these flavors that WotC products.

Cubicle 7 gave me 5e in Middle Earth. No spells but more crunch for overland travel and specific social encounters. I found it to be quite to my taste. Though I also still play 'vanilla' 5e.

Or even Eberrron which kind of strikes the middle ground between Official and not quite official.

Hmm. I may be ready for a fiddly setting and a more streamlined setting.

Interesting - I didn't take this as D&D / Wizards vs. 3rd party in the slightest. I just assumed he posted in the 5e forum because he leads talking about his other posts, which were here.

If this thread is supposed to be just about 5e, then much of what I was talking about is out of scope.

Though it does fit with the "knobs and dials" that 5e was teased with prior to the D&D Next playtest. So I guess it still has some relevance.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Interesting - I didn't take this as D&D / Wizards vs. 3rd party in the slightest.

Of course not. That would mean you followed my random train of thought which would be very surprising

I just assumed he posted in the 5e forum because he leads talking about his other posts, which were here.

Yup all posts as far as I can tell about added complexity to 5e. Which prompted my thoughts.

If this thread is supposed to be just about 5e, then much of what I was talking about is out of scope.

Naw don't read into it that much.

Though it does fit with the "knobs and dials" that 5e was teased with prior to the D&D Next playtest. So I guess it still has some relevance.

Slight relevance maybe.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've designed nearly a dozen RPGs myself, half of them published, and they run the gamut from the "Rules Lite" level of complexity all the way up to the "Shadowrun" level of complexity.)

How long does it take to write a system of Shadowrun complexity? Have you published any of those?

 

[ParanoydStyle]

About two or three years, I think? it was a while ago.

And yes, and it's a Silver best seller on DriveThru RPG actually (I know that's not all that impressive, but I've had a rough couple of years, let me take some pride where I can find it). The Singularity System. It's a setting-neutral science fiction game engine with cheap "plug and play" add-on modules (not "module" in the D&D sense) that let you pick and choose whatever you want to include for the setting you're building, or replicating. I often recommend it to people who want to play in a setting that either doesn't have an RPG or does not have an RPG with rules they like.

Like for instance if you want your setting to have cyberware, buy this. If you don't want your setting to have cyberware, do not.
If you want your setting to have psionic powers (or I guess magic), buy this. If you don't want your setting to have psionic powers, do not.
And so on.

It's an homage to Traveller (Traveller covers have traditionally always been black and red minimalist, which is why the Singularity core book's color is white and blue minimalist) but by way of mechanics that are like a streamlined version of Shadowrun 4th Edition (which I wrote quite a lot of stuff for).

Our company's final release was Systems Malfunction, an upgraded version of the Singularity System wedded to an incredibly complex and thoroughly played in campaign setting well over a decade in the making. If the idea of fighting a spirit dragon in powered armor tickles your pickle at all you might want to check it out.