Simplistic or Complete (and why we can't have both)

[Remathilis]

The battle for the heart of D&D isn't what most people think. Basically, its a battle between two very diametrically opposed theories.

D&D rules should be simple, abstract, and modifiable to suit the given situation.

D&D rules should be complete, all-encompassing, and try to simulate reality.

There is some slide scale and middle ground areas, but overall a rule is at its best when its simple enough to modify or complete enough to cover all bases.

D&D has swung through the pendulum fairly wildly. Original and Basic very much fall in the simplistic model, while 3e (and 4e via powers) is very strongly in the latter group. AD&D fluxed wildly (and sometimes randomly) between both camps, being hopeless abstract in one place (1 minute rounds) and Concrete in the next (Weapon Speed).

Almost every rule in D&D has been subject to the abstract/complete paradigm. Take Hit Points for example. The simplistic version of the rules assumes a pool of "hits" you can take before you die/drop. Its an abstract rule that covers lots of things, and doesn't do necessarily well. It doesn't take into account the nature or source of the damage, nor does it try to explain exactly how the damage happens. A more complete HP system would attempt to separate physical wound from luck/skill/grit, take into account specific injuries, and perhaps have rules for more damaging critical hits. These rules would solve a lot of arguments about the nature of HP, but at the cost of the simple "take 2 damage and go" nature of HP.

D&D Next has promised some ability to slide scale the particular simplicity/complexity of the rules, but at the heart of the game some things can't be dialed around, and thus the decision must be made: do we as a community want a D&D that's simple, light, and abstract or one that's complete, heavier, and more iron-clad? When you boil it down, a lot of debates here and elsewhere boil down to this very battle.

Again and again, this dance plays out. HP vs. specific wounds. AC vs. dodge/DR, roll-to-hit vs. combat maneuvers, rules for morale, different levels of surprise, concrete skills vs. ability checks, even things like monster roles and so on. Each time a rule is discussed, it almost always ends up becoming more complex, and hence more complete, to attempt to model all (or nearly) all situations where it may arise.

In the end, is it better to have rules that are more complete-but-complex (3e) or simplistic-but-abstract (basic)?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The party-line answer here would be, of course, that it should be simplistic with optional modules for those who wish to make it complete in various ways.

My personal answer is that any time people start talking about making the game more "realistic" it quickly becomes clear that this has more to do with which movies they've seen, books they've read, and Ren Fairs they've visited than with anything happening in 13th-century Europe (even discounting the wizards and dragons and stuff). So you get 20-page forums arguments about whether a katana could cut through chain mail, and the "gamist" people go play Yahtzee in the corner while the "simulationists" hash it out endlessly.

When it comes to the core concepts of the game (HP, AC, etc.), it seems clear that the default will be D&D's traditional loose, simplistic system, and that any module that tries to move away from that simplicity will necessarily sacrifice not only simplicity and elegance but also balance. (So maybe you can play a game where platemail gives you damage reduction and HP is replaced by a condition track, but don't expect that ruleset to be "fair" to every character out there.)

 

[Jester David]

In the end, is it better to have rules that are more complete-but-complex (3e) or simplistic-but-abstract (basic)?

Some people will say the first, others will say the second. There is no "better" any more than there is a "better" flavour of ice cream, there is just preference.

And the point of D&D Next is that you don't even need to choose. The base game is simple but there will be options that add complexity, modules that can add more realism and simulation aspects.

 

[Ratskinner]

D&D rules should be complete, all-encompassing, and try to simulate reality.

Personally, I'd prefer it simulate fantasy, but that's just me.

In the end, is it better to have rules that are more complete-but-complex (3e) or simplistic-but-abstract (basic)?

Well, I think the obvious answer is to start simple and let modules add complexity in the direction of each group or player's desire...just 'cause its a lot harder to remove complexity than add it. Additionally, I feel speed of play is extremely important to beginning and sometimes older players, and complexity almost always slows things down. Its much better, IMO, to have our newbie players and DMs rocking and rolling through adventures, rather than picking through nuance after nuance of subtle complicated rules.

The second part of that..."simulate a fantasy world" is a lot tougher. See, you can get very good stories out of almost any type of rules: Extreme Simulation, extreme Gamism, there are even games that have rules that directly address Narration and skip right over Gamism and Sim. Of course D&D will likely be something on that Sim-Gam line, and since we want to start simple and get more complex....well, I don't know which direction (if any) on that axis, is easier to go. Perhaps more relevant, I don't know which one(s) would be accepted or to what degree by the D&D-playing public. I've seen some very simple games that work wonderfully at generating story, but wouldn't be (I don't think) accepted as a replacement for D&D.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'd say traditional vs innovative is just as significant a divide.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think the simple triumvirate of AC/Ability Scores/HP and Checks/Saving throws is a great little chassis, which we slap on all sorts of crap.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

An issue I see is that simplicity and complexity both have consequences, particularly complexity. Complexity has a bad tendency to make a game clunky and slow. The games base skeleton can have a lot to do with whether or not the complexity is carried well and the negative consequences are minimized. A simple core with modular complexity isn't necessarily that sort of skeleton, especially when it has to serve multiple masters("feel", tradition, ect.).

 

[Gadget]

I would say that, though the divide outlined in the OP is certainly present, since the OP lists both 3E and 4E as being on the complete, all encompassing side of the scale, and these are the two main sides in the edition wars (with props given to the OSR crowd), there must be a different divide. I would posit it as the Simulationists (3E) and the Gamists (4E).

 

[Jacob Marley]

I'd agree with others that have stated the game ought to start out with a "rules-light" (simple) chasis with "rules-heavy" (complete) modules added on.

I would say that, though the divide outlined in the OP is certainly present, since the OP lists both 3E and 4E as being on the complete, all encompassing side of the scale, and these are the two main sides in the edition wars (with props given to the OSR crowd), there must be a different divide. I would posit it as the Simulationists (3E) and the Gamists (4E).

There are many dividing points in-and-amongst gamers of all editions: linear campaigns versus open campaigns; dynamic campaigns versus static campaigns; defined fluff versus mutable fluff; characters builds versus organic growth; and on and on and on and on and on. We could have a whole thread devoted to coming up with everything that diveds gamer "A" from gamer "B"!

 

[P1NBACK]

Yeah, I don't buy the "simple / abstract" is not "realistic" either. [I'll use "plausible" instead of "realistic" though.]

B/X is simplistic, abstract in a lot of ways but relies heavily on plausible fiction backed by some elements of wonder and magic. The barebones rules lean on the gamers at the table to make varied judgment calls about what may or may not make sense within the context of their game world.

4E is super detailed, not very abstract but relies more on game constructs taking precedence over plausibility within the fiction. The gamers rely on the super detailed rules to make the game churn and bend their game world to fit the rules.

I would argue that fans of old school D&D are more interested in a rules set that allows them more of a B/X experience, whether simple and abstract (core) or detailed (modules).

Whereas 4E fans prefer the latter experience, whether simple and abstract (core) or detailed (modules).

Specific numbers of how many people want the rules to supplement their game world vs. how many people want the game world to supplement their rules I have no idea.

But, if Mearls and Co. can strike a solid balance or give both camps the right simple / abstract core, then I think they'll be able to have some success with both.