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

[doctorbadwolf]

I’d say poor writing makes a game more complex in play, as does poor organization.

For me, having never played the oldest editions (no one in my gaming curcles is into the OSR or anything, and I began with 2e), so I’ll only judge the complexity of the editions I know.

Least complex <- 4e <- 5e <- 2e <- 3/.5e<- most complex

 

[Wiseblood]

I’d say poor writing makes a game more complex in play, as does poor organization.

For me, having never played the oldest editions (no one in my gaming curcles is into the OSR or anything, and I began with 2e), so I’ll only judge the complexity of the editions I know.

Least complex <- 4e <- 5e <- 2e <- 3/.5e<- most complex

4e least complex. Would you share your reasoning behind that?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

4e least complex. Would you share your reasoning behind that?

It works without any adjustment, “right out of the box”, for one thing. Only 5e can also claim that (IMO), and not nearly to the same extent.

Also, IMO complexity is partly about usability, and how often you have to examine a combination of game elements to make sure the game isn’t likely to break from them. 4e basically just...doesn’t have that. As a DM, you can literally just choose to never look at anyone’s character sheets, and it will be fine. (A good DM IMO still does in order to build more engaging challenges, but that’s separate from complexity)

Another factor is the ease of use of encounter building.

Another is the fact that the format of classes is the same, so everyone’s numbers go up at the same time, everyone gets powers on the same recharge schedule, etc.

Even things like conditions were simple, the skill list was simple, the only real complexity was complexity in the individual powers.

 

[mrpopstar]

Going to try this out, because it popped up in a different thread.

Please do not use this to edition war! This is about complexity of editions of only, not about your opinions as to what editions are "better" or "worse."

This idea was originally proposed by @Sabathius42 who was using the following definition:



I am proposing that we have the opportunity to provide our own complexity continuums; if you are using a different or idiosyncratic form of "complexity," make sure you explain it. I think that the one used in the quote is pretty good. Complexity is both the rules as written (how complex are the rules to understand and apply) and how easy they are to apply consistently by the players and the DM in the game (consistency and organization of the rules).

Editions that you can rank (or omit) would include:
OD&D
Holmes
1e (AD&D)
B/X (Holmes / Moldvay)
BECMI (Mentzer - Cyclopedia)
2e
3e (including 3.5e)
4e
5e


My personal complexity ranking would be:

Least <--B/X -- 5e -- Holmes -- BECMI -- 4e -- 3e -- 2e -- 1e -- OD&D --> Most


Which, for the most part, has a very interesting temporal/edition look to it, doesn't it?

I like the temporal/edition look, @lowkey13. My ranking would look much the same!

 

[Wiseblood]

It works without any adjustment, “right out of the box”, for one thing. Only 5e can also claim that (IMO), and not nearly to the same extent.

Also, IMO complexity is partly about usability, and how often you have to examine a combination of game elements to make sure the game isn’t likely to break from them. 4e basically just...doesn’t have that. As a DM, you can literally just choose to never look at anyone’s character sheets, and it will be fine. (A good DM IMO still does in order to build more engaging challenges, but that’s separate from complexity)

Another factor is the ease of use of encounter building.

Another is the fact that the format of classes is the same, so everyone’s numbers go up at the same time, everyone gets powers on the same recharge schedule, etc.

Even things like conditions were simple, the skill list was simple, the only real complexity was complexity in the individual powers.

I see now. Thank you.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So, I was going to get back to this, but I've been busy. There's a fair amount to unpack here!

Let's start with nomenclature.

Holmes- the 1977 Holmes "Basic Set."
B/X- the 1981 Moldvay revision of Holmes (the new "Basic Set"), including the Expert Set by Cook.
BECMI- the 1983 "Red Box" by Mentzer that so many are familiar with, along with the later Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal Rules.
RC- the 1991 revision and codification of the Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master rules.

There are two things that are worth noting- first, these are all different. Second, the biggest difference is between Holmes and everything else.

So let me explain. Holmes was tasked with creating a Basic Set (hence the term!) that would simplify the core rules of OD&D and allow players to transition to the forthcoming AD&D.

So Holmes has many of the hallmarks of what we would later consider de rigueur for a Basic set- it only dealt with levels 1-3, and explained the game and introduced key concepts. But while it introduced ideas that would later be used by Moldvay when he made his basic set, it was fundamentally a different product- it's really an attempt at simplifying the OD&D rules, and it has a muddled conception of race (using race as class, but also explaining that the ability to differentiate race from class will be present in AD&D).

B/X, on the other hand, is an entirely new ruleset. There are certainly background issues regarding this (Arneson/Gygax litigation), but this is the real point of differentiation between AD&D (1e) and a completely different ruleset (that uses, for example, race-as-class). Many people, including myself, thing that the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert set remains one of the best, most elegant rulesets designed for D&D. So while a person can say that B/X continues some of the concepts in Holmes (such as the emphasis on clear instruction, and breaking out levels 1-3), it is the beginning of a completely different branch of D&D.

BECMI has some changes from B/X. While people can, and do, quibble about some of the minor rules variations, the most significant changes are in the layout, instruction, and effect of having future editions (the CMI).

The one area where Mentzer is slightly superior, in my opinion, is the layout/graphics presentation. It really shines here. However, the tone/instruction/clarity of the rules is much better in the Moldvay rules. In addition, by having a natural cap of level 14, the progression of character levels makes a lot more sense.

The RC is a codification/resources for people who played BECMI. It doesn't have the "I" (Immortal) rules because, um, they are crazy. It contains some extraneous stuff (such as some skill stuff) and presents various material from the Master/Companion series retroactive to the beginning (think classes, like Druid and Mystic, that might clutter up the presentation of B/X).

This is the short and sweet of it all.

Didn't one of them separate race from class? I played red box and RC, and having them combined was my least favorite part.[/QUOTE]

 

[oknazevad]

Didn't one of them separate race from class? I played red box and RC, and having them combined was my least favorite part.

Race-as-class was one of the things Moldvay did to internationally simplify the game for B/X. Original D&D and Holmes Basic Set don't actually have that, but the strict class limitations on the demi-human races in the original D&D boxed set, which began to be loosened with the introduction of the thief class in Supplement I: Greyhawk, but which were carried forward by Holmes, made them effectively the same in practice, which is why Moldvay made the simplification he did.

 

[Salamandyr]

D&D has gotten progressively simpler over the decades:

5e is the simplest, from in front of the dm screen and behind it. It has a simple resolution method, easily applicable to nearly every situation---as a player, you have a handful of flavorful actions on your character sheet that grant the illusion of variety. A DC 15 is a moderately difficult task, regardless of what that task is. It's predictable. And except for some cases where the DM drastically changes the rules, plays the same regardless of dm's.

4e is next--it has a lot of moving parts, but those moving parts fit together in predictable ways, and once one facet is mastered, all other facets work similarly.

B/X & BECMI are next--fewer moving parts than either 4e or 5e, but there is no universal mechanic to help out, and task resolution changes depending on the task--maybe 2 in 6, maybe 1 in 6. Perhaps you roll 2d6 and consult a table. Or maybe you have a percentile chance. Who knows? There is very little a player can do, mechanically, to affect his chances--like all pre-3rd edition systems, the REAL game goes on in the mind, with the player using his imagination to come up with a solution that minimizes the "dice game" and maybe, just succeeds by fiat "I look up" "You see the net" rather than relying on a role. However, since that part of the game is subject to DM fiat--what works at one table works entirely differently at other tables.

3rd edition is deceptively complex; at first it seems simple, introducing as it does the universal mechanic. And universal mechanics are easy. The deceptive part is that DC's don't mean the same thing. A DC 15 strength check is different from a DC 15 skill check which is different from a DC 15 saving thrown. And add to it, if you choose to go down that path, each individual skill has a completely separate method of calculating DC. On top of that, there are over a dozen modifiers, each of which could come into play to modify your roll. And from a player perspective, there are a steep system mastery aspect, with seemingly innocuous choices potentially crippling the long term effectiveness of your character. And then there is the illusion of flexibility, wherein the system promises the ability to do all things, but where unless you have built specifically to do something it's usually a foolhardy endeavor.

2e is next, on balance for being a little more clearly written, though some of the subsystems don't work at all. But you can generally default to stat checks for everything but combat and it works out. Not RAW, but it works.

1e, has the B/X problem on steroids. Every system is different; mastery of any system doesn't lend itself to anything else; some things like psionics feel like they're bolt-ons from other games. It's so abstruce that modules will often include mechanical resolution systems for situations the game already covers, but with a different resolution mechanic. And the last few years of its existence, the game company nearly quit selling the main game, in favor of short rule summaries in their modules (with ability checks taking over for all the previous mechanical subsystems).

Finally 0D&D--largely on the basis that no one really owned the game--it was more of an idea of a game, than a set of rules that someone could point to. Any given table you sat down at might as well be playing a completely different game. Ironically, it was just this that led to Advanced D&D - intended to standardize the game, but itself so complex that one really couldn't hold it all in ones brain at one time.

Something to keep in mind--OD&D & 1e might appear simpler for the player than 5 or 4e, and definitely than 3e, but that's only because much of the heavy lifting for the game gets pushed on the Dungeon Master. In fact, for everything before 2e, the resolution method could be boiled down to "roll what the DM tells you". The major complexity comes that the real gameplay isn't what happens with the dice, but with the player describes and the DM judges. There's no rule for setting up an ambush to get a greater chance to surprise a monster--and no text instructing the DM to take player efforts into account, and adjusting surprise chances based on the player preparation--but that sort of thing is a core part of the early game-that's almost completely missing in the rules text.

None of the above is meant as a criticism. AD&D and B/X are actually my favorite editions of D&D and the easy to use 5e is my least favorite, while 3rd edition, which I rake over the coals, is the edition that has, in my opinion, the greatest potential (which Pathfinder quite awe-inspiringly manages to completely fail to invoke in any fashion).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

D&D has gotten progressively simpler over the decades:
...

That assessment is so good it makes me actually somewhat interested in playing a 1e or 2e game, if that game uses ability/proficiency checks instead of the multitude of out of combat subsystems.

 

[anthr]

My Rank from Least to most complex:
Holmes is omitted as I've never used it (not because it's bad, but because it's only level 1-3).

Least Complex...

B/X - Only 2 thin books needed. It's called basic for a reason. The version I love the most - but I'm an OSR-player so it's not surprising.
RC - I don't have BECMI, but RC is almost the same thing. It has more levels than B/X so it's more complex.
ODD - A strange beast. I'd say it's unplayable without Chainmail, Greyhawk and Blackmoor - but with those it's not that complex (if you are able to understand the badly written text).
5E - With the 3 core books it's back to basics.
2E - With only the 3 core books it's 1E, but streamlined.
4E - I personally hate this version. The rules are quite simple, but it becomes quite complex when you add different powers together during a fight.
3E - It has rules for everything, and that's too much. And we are only discussing the core rules, then we add a bookshelf of splatbooks.
1E - The game I started with during 1980s and the reason I still love DnD. We tried to play the core rules RAW a couple of years ago, and it was horrible. Have you ever tried to play 1E RAW? Have you ever tried to use weapon speed? Have you ever tried to use AC adjustment? Have you ever tried to go back to attack matrix after you learned THAC0 and acending AC? Horrible!

...Most Complex