Simplification vs. "Dumbing Down"

[Imaro]

I have read numerous posts where people seem totally against the "dumbing down" of D&D.

1.)What if any is the difference between simplification and " dumbing down"?

2.) Is it better for a rules set to start simple and give more complexity as an option? I find it harder and more time consuming to determine the effects rule A has on the rest of the game, take rule A out of said game and apply patch to fix said ramifications to the rest of the rule set and then play test my game without rule A. To me its easier starting simple and having a certain amount of complexity added through supplemental books that explain the effects the new rules will have on the game(an example would be Unearthed Arcana 3.x edition), especially if I am new to a game.

3.) To those who claim this model wouldn't sell as well I say that's the model that is being used right now. Since the core books came out we have had new types of actions, feats, spells, classes, class abilities, PrC's, uses for specific skills and general skills, etc. and those who want them, buy them.

3.) why do people feel character options and complexity must go hand in hand. To me Talislanta gives a myriad of possibilities in its magic system and is less complicated than remembering and applying the individual spells of D&D.

4.) Why is simplification even looked at as dumbing down? Why is it wrong for people to want a simpler set of rules if these simple rules can be built upon for those who want more complexity. I feel as if this issue might just be elitism rearing its head in the hobby.
a.) Anyone who wants to play should have to take the time to read 300 pgs, otherwise they shouldn't be playing.
Hate to say this but if I hadn't gotten interested in D&D when I was younger, I probably wouldn't be playing. As it is now I find it a headache to run. For some people games are just that, games meant to be played as a fun diversion. Are these people wrong because in the realm of life they don't find reading and memorizing these text...uh rulebooks fun? Yeah I know justy hand wave stuff. Wait, better idea give me a simpler ruleset that I can play as is or add complexity to as I desire it.

5.) Just a final note. I have played with some new people(co-workers who had asked me about D&D) who turned out to be really great roleplayers, they were however turned off by the amount of rules knowledge necessary to effectively play a game of D&D. Character creation alone had them kind of overwhelmed, and our first combat I had to use mini's so they could visualize the combat rules(which most ony had a faint grasp of). I guess their reaction coupled with my expanding responsibilities as a grown man made me switch the game to C&C. Have to say they love it, why? Because we are playing cool fantasy stories. They are beginners and don't really need all the kewl optimizations, and builds etc. that us older gamers clamor for. It's new and exciting to them without all that. Are they "dumb" because of that?

Do I want to give the hobby up? No. Do I want to stop playing D&D, thats a harder question. If the current level of complexity is where D&D is going to stay...Yeah I think I'll stick with games like True20 and C&C, YMMV.

 

[Mark CMG]

I have read numerous posts where people seem totally against the "dumbing down" of D&D.

1.)What if any is the difference between simplification and " dumbing down"?

(. . .)

Do I want to give the hobby up? No. Do I want to stop playing D&D, thats a harder question. If the current level of complexity is where D&D is going to stay...

I believe rules can be complex without being complicated. I think you can have rules for Attacks of Opportunity without them being confusing. I believe that rules for grappling can be more seamlessly integrated with other combat rules (it doesn't need to seem like a different system). I believe you can have one spell that allows two similar effects from which the caster can choose at the time of casting rather than prior to their need. The number of rules have reached a critical mass far beyond the number of things the rules need to specifically cover. I believe that the current expression of many rules obscures rather than sheds light on convenient and expeditious gameplay.

 

[phindar]

Personally as an experienced-- nay, gifted-- gamer, I feel the D&D rules are slightly more complicated than they need to be. The theory being that simple systems are fast but not as detailed, whereas complex systems are slower, but provide a satisfying level of crunch, a feeling that you know where every stray bullet is going. Every group and ultimately every gamer is going to have a different opinion of how much detail is needed, and how slow is too slow.

For my money (roughly $30 a book), D&D has some complex areas that don't have any real corresponding level of satisfaction in terms of the detail they provide. Combat maneuvers like Trip, Sunder, Bull Rush, and Grapple (just to name a few) tend to be like this. My group almost always has to stop and look the rules up (unless a particular pc is specialized in one maneuver and has the rules already pasted on his sheet), because we don't want to just rule by fiat ("Roll good and you trip him,") but we don't want play to grind to a halt every time somebody has to grapple someone. Nor do we want to fall into a "Well, I'm just going make a normal attack because I don't want to slow things down by looking the rules up." D&D is a game of heroic fantasy (let's say), so doing neat things in combat should be something the rules facilitate, not hamper.

My group falls somewhere north of True20 in terms of rules complexity (we tried it and found it a little light for us), but not willing to go whole-hog D&D (Bo9S, ToB, et al). I prefer a rules design that falls back to a few, easy to remember axioms ("Tie goes to the Defender", "Always Round Down") that apply across the board. You boil the system down to as simple and fast as you can, and then you add the complexity and detail back in where you want it.

That said, systems do things, and if your group is having fun with the way another system works, I say stick with it for that game, at least until you are comfortable branching out. Whether or not you are having fun is really the only mark by which a game succeeds or fails (though "fun" in this example is as ambiguous as you need it to be, tactical wargamers and improv theatre groups are both having fun, but they probably shouldn't rent the rec center room on the same night).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I guess their reaction coupled with my expanding responsibilities as a grown man made me switch the game to C&C.

After reading through your post I was going to suggest C&C, but then I hit this part.

 

[Psion]

1.)What if any is the difference between simplification and " dumbing down"?

AFAIAC, Dumbing down is deciding to sacrifice elements that actually perform a function in the game in the name of making it simpler.

Dumbing down is an oft resorted to and usually detrimental method of simplificiation. A better approach is streamlining, doing things smarter, omitting unnecessary rules or steps and achieve the same result.

Unfortunately, streamlining takes more skill. Most people who aim to simplify usually end up doing what I would call "dumbing down." Of course, what elements you consider expendable varies according to who you ask, so YMMV. But games that crow about their simplicity like Savage Worlds and C&C make undesirable sacrifices AFAIAC.

2.) Is it better for a rules set to start simple and give more complexity as an option?

I believe in a more robust baseline and less special cases, because special cases tend to evolve into more niggly little hard to remember, easy to goof-up rules.

 

[mmadsen]

AFAIAC, Dumbing down is deciding to sacrifice elements that actually perform a function in the game in the name of making it simpler.

Dumbing down is an oft resorted to and usually detrimental method of simplificiation. A better approach is streamlining, doing things smarter, omitting unnecessary rules or steps and achieve the same result.

Unfortunately, streamlining takes more skill. Most people who aim to simplify usually end up doing what I would call "dumbing down."

Very well said.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

AFAIAC, Dumbing down is deciding to sacrifice elements that actually perform a function in the game in the name of making it simpler.

The soft spot in that statement is that opinions differ on what mechanical functions are necessary or beneficial in the game. One could argue that almost any rule performs a function in the game -- the real question is whether it is a necessary function, or a function that "carries its weight" (adding real benefit to offset the additional complexity).

And that comes down to mere opinion and preference.

 

[Imaro]

The soft spot in that statement is that opinions differ on what mechanical functions are necessary or beneficial in the game. One could argue that almost any rule performs a function in the game -- the real question is whether it is a necessary function, or a function that "carries its weight" (adding real benefit to offset the additional complexity).

And that comes down to mere opinion and preference.

BINGO! That's why I think a game should start with the basics and be modular enough to add complexity. I feel AoO as presented RAW are ridiculous. I think a "free attack" when someone disengages is enough. I train in Escrima and would never turn my attention away from an opponent to hit someone running past or doing something near me. If my opponent is anywhere near my skill level he will hit me.

 

[Psion]

The soft spot in that statement is that opinions differ on what mechanical functions are necessary or beneficial in the game.

Which is why I said:

Of course, what elements you consider expendable varies according to who you ask, so YMMV.

So let's not pretend you are saying anything I didn't already say.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

So let's not pretend you are saying anything I didn't already say.

Not to worry -- look at it as me highlighting and emphasizing the critical point of your post.