L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
So, I think we may already be up against that "idosyncratic" thing.
In what way do you feel OD&D is more complex than 1e?
Have you read OD&D?
It starts just trying to actually read the badly written thing. And then you discover its incomplete - omits stuff & assumes your referencing Chain Mail or something.
For me:
Least<BECMI--OD&D--1e--2e--5e--4e--3e>Most
I would argue that OD&D (First three books only) may be inscrutable, but it's not overly complicated.
In some ways 2e is simpler than 1e, but it also adds a whole new sub-system, Kits, and makes the skill system a core part of the game. 1e's biggest foe is its own organization of information.
5e is easy to understand, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not without complexity. But it also enables a player to modulate their complexity, and I think that's one of the things that makes it so great. I can play a Champion Fighter that just hits things or a Life Cleric that heals and heals and heals, or I can play a sorcerer/paladin and go wild with metamagic and divine smiting (not that I would ever play such a thing). I can go for Feats or Ability Score Increases.
I picked 3e as the most complicated for any number of reasons. Giant skill list. Giant feat list. Equivalent Character Level charts. A million and one modifiers and triggers for attacks of opportunity. Prestige classes. The list goes on.
I think, for me, one of the prime indicators of how complex a system is how easy it is to take something out. If I remove X, what are the effects? In 1e, removing weapon vs. armor adjustments works just fine. In 3e, removing attacks of opportunity creates all sorts of issues.
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?