The D&D Edition Complexity Thread- How do you order Edition Complexity?

[Oofta]

I can't really contribute a lot to the thread because when it comes to older editions ... well I have a hard time remembering what I ate for breakfast, much less a game who's rules I last read 20+ years ago. I will say that I always felt we were getting to a better, and in many ways simpler game up until 4E (more on that in a sec). I also went pretty much from the brown box set (just a few games) to the original blue box set to AD&D to 3.x. So there are variants I never played more than a game or so.

So I think the free basic rules pdf for 5E are the simplest.

I know, I know, sacrilege right? But we have more consistency - roll a D20, high is good. No looking up on charts to see what you hit, no verifying what the size of the monster is to determine damage or what armor the target is wearing. A +1 really gives you a plus one not a +1 that you need to subtract. You can pick the race that makes sense for you without worrying about level caps or what class you can or cannot take. All the spells are the same, you don't have to look up the version of the spell for the cleric to see if it was different for a spell with the same name for a wizard.

Anyway the list goes on. OD&D was kind of half a game from what I remember. We made it work, but that's because there wasn't really much of a game outside of combat.

5E with all options turned on is slightly more complex, but it still has the relatively clean math and better consistency. No game is perfect of course, but I think it's as popular as it is because of it's approachability.

I'd put 3.5 next. Yes, it was a unholy mess of feats, bonuses, stupidly high numbers. If I went back to it I'd limit everyone to the main core books and never touch later expansions as much fun as I had with them.

In some ways 4E would be higher, but it's simplicity of having things spelled out covered over a complexity of implementation. Lots of tracking of statuses, auras, conditions. What powers have you used, and how do they really interact? There were so many powers and (especially as a DM for LFR) just too many to understand how they worked. You frequently had to read each power in detail so in theory it was simple in practice I found it complex.

So 5E basic PDF - 5E - 3.5 - 4E - AD&D - OD&D. Can't really speak to BECMI or B/X although I will say that a lack of rules doesn't necessarily mean more simplicity. I still want a basic structure, just not necessarily a set of rules that try to cover every scenario. Complexity can also be WTF do we do now?

 

[HarbingerX]

It's a good point about player complexity vs DM complexity, and also core vs core + splat.

Another way of looking at complexity is also how much can get done in a 4-hour session? Complexity takes time to run. For me, the fastest rules I've ever used was the OSR Swords & Wizardry core which is styled off of OD&D but modern. We got so much done each session I'd sometimes check my watch and be amazed only 2 hours had gone by.

By that measure 5e isn't quite as simple - things like individual initiative, and lots of PC options and dice-rolling for DC checks slows things down.

 

[HarbingerX]

As an aside, in older rules you generally never wanted the DM to tell you to roll dice because that meant you could fail. In new games, you always want to roll because it means you can bypass having to convince the DM your idea will work.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Least Complex <---5e--4e--Basic/Moldvay--3.x--2e--1e---> Most Complex

A couple notes to add to the above line from me.

In my mind "Basic", "Moldvay", "Holmes", "BECMI", and "Rules Cyclopedia" are all the same game system with minor tweaks and or content split up over different numbers of books. Much like in my mind 3.0 and 3.5 are the same game system. I do not separate them in my head. I didn't even know until today that there is a system people like "B/X" which they consider different enough from "Rules Cyclopedia" to be able to champion one over the other.

If I were to rate JUST the Basic and Expert Erol Otis Dragon Cover rulebooks I would say they are certainly the least complex version of DnD. I wouldn't rate them as a separate system, though, because they really are the BE to BECMI and I am rating rules sytems based on their ENTIRE pile of rules, not just subsections of those rules.

Also, I have never played, much less read, or even glanced at a 0e book. I have no reference to put it on my scale.

And now my justifications for my ratings. I fully recognize that this is my opinion only, and that I am only listing some pros and cons (not every) that went into my rankings.

5e: Sticks to D20+MOD=DC resolution. Few additional rules 5 years in. Advantage/Disadvantage replaces 100s of +1/-1 modifiers. Spells and abilities mostly use pre-defined conditions rather than having multiple slightly different variations of "restrained".

4e: All characters have X at-will, Y encounter, and Z daily powers. You have a handy card that tells you exactly how the power works. D20+MOD=DC resolution for most everything. Every spell description says EXACTLY what it does with no interpretation. Complexity started to build with the number of splatbooks and the mini-reboot of the Essentials line of product that was confusing to newcomers.

Rules Cyclopedia: For the "basics" of the game this is indeed super simple, but as soon as you veer off the road into something other than attack/magic missle/use a skill the rules quickly become impossibly complex to remember. Everything is in one book! Easiest character creation, especially at 1st level. Sometimes you want to roll high, sometimes low, sometimes with a d20, sometimes a d6. Backwards AC chart.

3.X: Much simpler to teach basic combat and skill use rather than 1e/2e because of the D20+Mod=DC usage. Not too hard to create a character if you ignore feats, but once you add in feats, and more feats, and more feats, and more feats it became a nightmare. The best characters (powerwise) were built by those who remembered the locations of the 40000 feats to tweak your character the best. Just way too much material to incorporate and keep track of.

2e: Mostly the same game engine as 1e but organized and explained much much better. Proficiency as a core rule added complexity, especially with the weapon proficiencies. Kits were a total mess.

1e: While I know that 1e has less rules overall than 2e because of the billion splatbooks, the actual PHB and DMG of 1e is a monolith of near college level reading comprehension with zero to poor organization. A revised 1e book with a proper editor or technical writer to reorganize it would have saved a lot of the complexity.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve only played 3e, 4e, and 5e, and I would say each has been less complex than the previous. The general impression I get is that 3e was less complex than 2e, kind of, in that it unified a lot of disparate systems, but also kind of more complex in that PCs had a lot more moving parts, and also the movement away from DM adjudication towards comprehensive rules systems. So maybe those two are similarly complex but in different ways? No idea between 1e and 2e which is more complex and it probably depends heavily on what supplementary material is being used. I generally assumed AD&D was more complex than the others because of the “advanced” part of the name, but on the other hand, I can’t even sort out how many different versions of D&D there were prior to AD&D, let alone what the differences between them were, so maybe they were more complex after all? I dunno, my D&D experience has been one of ever-decreasing complexity though.

 

[reelo]

In my mind "Basic", "Moldvay", "Holmes", "BECMI", and "Rules Cyclopedia" are all the same game system with minor tweaks and or content split up over different numbers of books. [...] I didn't even know until today that there is a system people like "B/X" which they consider different enough from "Rules Cyclopedia" to be able to champion one over the other.

B/X is a complete (and elegantly simple) ruleset all by itself. BECMI is B/X stretched over almost 2½ times the levels (with all the problems that entails) as well as Weapon Specializations and other nonsense.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

B/X is a complete (and elegantly simple) ruleset all by itself. BECMI is B/X stretched over almost 2½ times the levels (with all the problems that entails) as well as Weapon Specializations and other nonsense.

Is this set (The B in B/X?)

different from this set (The B in BECMI?)

in ways other than artwork and layout?

In other words is there a difference between the B/X and BE(with no CMI)?

 

[Salthorae]

This is facinating...

For me:
Least Complex <---5e--Basic/Moldvay--3.x--4e--2e--1e---> Most Complex

 

[dave2008]

The question isn't about what game is most poorly written, though. Assume you weed through the bad writing - in actual play, how is it more complex?

Consistency and organization was one of the metrics in the OP. I'm guess that is how if slides towards complexity?

 

[Mr. Patient]

Even leaving aside the organization of the books, I think we have to distinguish between 1e as written (initiative rules, weapon speed factors, attack adjustments vs. armor types for each weapon, training rules for leveling, determining which opponents you can deploy your shield against, grappling/pummeling/overbearing, none of which is presented as optional, as far as I can recall), and 1e as actually played (not doing any of this stuff).

As written, nothing even comes close to 1e in terms of complexity. As played, it's somewhere in the middle, I guess.