L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
The D&D Edition Complexity Thread- How do you order Edition Complexity?
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
For myself, as I explained it to members of our table than never played 1E, it goes like this:
1E, "the game" is complex and has crazy in-depth rules for a lot of stuff, but the characters were pretty easy to build and play--most often choices were made after sleeping (what spells to prepare) and that was about it.
5E reverses all that. "The game" is pretty simple to learn, only certain aspects become complex at all IMO; but the characters can get CRAZY complex with so many options during an encounter paralysis can set in!
That is my take on it, any way.
1E, "the game" is complex and has crazy in-depth rules for a lot of stuff, but the characters were pretty easy to build and play--most often choices were made after sleeping (what spells to prepare) and that was about it.
5E reverses all that. "The game" is pretty simple to learn, only certain aspects become complex at all IMO; but the characters can get CRAZY complex with so many options during an encounter paralysis can set in!
That is my take on it, any way.
Enrico Poli1
Adventurer
Least < BECMI - 5e - 2e - 3e - 4e > Most
Actually, I skipped 4e but when I tried to play it, I was unable to figure out how.
3e and Pathfinder become too complex and virtually unplayable after LVL 13.
Actually, I skipped 4e but when I tried to play it, I was unable to figure out how.
3e and Pathfinder become too complex and virtually unplayable after LVL 13.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
JeffB
Legend
Complexity is weird.
Some editions are really easy to start with and a PITA and more complex over the long run to play and run.
Some editions that seem complex at first, get easier and easier to play/run over time.
BTW- Chainmail is not necc to play OD&D- it gets referenced in the LBBs alot because
A) marketing
and
B) Gary assumed a large portion of the audience would be medieval miniature enthusiasts who would better understand the terminology he was using in D&D and how to incorporate the two together-like say Fighters who now had a freehold and needed to wage a big battle against their neighbor.
Also Swords & Spells was a separate miniatures game in the opposite vein. It was a way to run a fantasy minis wargame that was compatible with all the LBBs. It is not in any way shape or form necc to learn to use it to play OD&D.
Some editions are really easy to start with and a PITA and more complex over the long run to play and run.
Some editions that seem complex at first, get easier and easier to play/run over time.
BTW- Chainmail is not necc to play OD&D- it gets referenced in the LBBs alot because
A) marketing
and
B) Gary assumed a large portion of the audience would be medieval miniature enthusiasts who would better understand the terminology he was using in D&D and how to incorporate the two together-like say Fighters who now had a freehold and needed to wage a big battle against their neighbor.
Also Swords & Spells was a separate miniatures game in the opposite vein. It was a way to run a fantasy minis wargame that was compatible with all the LBBs. It is not in any way shape or form necc to learn to use it to play OD&D.
I think it depends on whether you know/played older editons or not.
5e is the most straighforward because you do not need these darn tables of 2e / 1e odd
Of course it got some mechanics that 2e did not have, but 2e had its own extra add ons like magic resistance, the need to track spells memorized, ongoing spell durations magic plusses diminishing away from home planes a totally unrealistic initiative system if you used it etc.
4e is load of descriptors to learn and loads of stategic positioning and movement.
3e imho is most complex to play because of buffmania and attack routines and feat dependencies.
So of all editions i like 5e best. Even if other editions might be a bit easier to learn for starters, which i cannot say for sure from my pov.
5e is the most straighforward because you do not need these darn tables of 2e / 1e odd
Of course it got some mechanics that 2e did not have, but 2e had its own extra add ons like magic resistance, the need to track spells memorized, ongoing spell durations magic plusses diminishing away from home planes a totally unrealistic initiative system if you used it etc.
4e is load of descriptors to learn and loads of stategic positioning and movement.
3e imho is most complex to play because of buffmania and attack routines and feat dependencies.
So of all editions i like 5e best. Even if other editions might be a bit easier to learn for starters, which i cannot say for sure from my pov.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
atanakar
Hero
5e is the less «complex» edition of D&D imho. Because it is a less «complicated/convoluted» ruleset than the Rules Cyclopedia, 1e and 2e. The core is very simple and the group adds whatever optional ruleset they want. The Advantage/Disadvantge removes the need for a lot of bonus hunting from the d20 era. It also avoids the «illusion of choices» syndrome that plagues to 3e and 4e. By illusion of choice I mean that at the end of the day there is only one optimal build for each character archetype so why bother offering so many options that never get chosen. 
So in order «ease of play and learn» : Easiest 5e---»4e---»1e---»2e---»RC---»3e Most Daunting.
So in order «ease of play and learn» : Easiest 5e---»4e---»1e---»2e---»RC---»3e Most Daunting.
You run into some thorny problems with how you define complexity, too.
I ran two 4e games for most of its lifespan. I found it easy to run - vastly much more so than 3e! However, as @GreyLord said, player complexity was much higher. For my two groups in particular, very few of the players were strongly invested in the mechanics of 4e, which meant that I ended up having to spend several hours helping them every time they levelled up, providing advice and resources. That made levelling up such a slog that I used to dread it.
But the thing is, I believe that a group that was invested would likely not even recognise the problem I faced; it seems to me that a lot of 4e's complexity was in the choices and a limited set of interactions. It's a complexity that's easy to learn.
Basically, I'm saying that complexity means different things to different people in different situations. Sometimes complexity can be hidden by good design (the board game Scythe is an excellent example here; it can easily take 30-40 minutes just to understand the rules... but it's common for players to get to the point within a single game where the average turn is about 5-10 seconds), or sometimes poor design can make something seem much more complex (yes, OD&D. I'm talking about you).
I personally define complexity as anything that acts as a barrier to understanding the rules. By this terrible and arbitrary measure, I'm going to order the editions like this:
Starting from least complexity, and limiting to things I've actually played:
5e. It's easy to understand, the basic rules are free online (so easy to obtain), and the SRD contains full chargen instructions
3e. A relatively unified system. SRD is available and has a lot of information on how to play, if not actual mechanics of chargen (although Pathfinder did include some...)
4e. Simpler as a system than 3e and (perhaps) 5e, but with more barriers to entry. You had to pay something or know someone who had.
2e. I always found it a bit easier to understand than 1e, although I never had the chance to play 1e, so maybe that's just bias.
I ran two 4e games for most of its lifespan. I found it easy to run - vastly much more so than 3e! However, as @GreyLord said, player complexity was much higher. For my two groups in particular, very few of the players were strongly invested in the mechanics of 4e, which meant that I ended up having to spend several hours helping them every time they levelled up, providing advice and resources. That made levelling up such a slog that I used to dread it.
But the thing is, I believe that a group that was invested would likely not even recognise the problem I faced; it seems to me that a lot of 4e's complexity was in the choices and a limited set of interactions. It's a complexity that's easy to learn.
Basically, I'm saying that complexity means different things to different people in different situations. Sometimes complexity can be hidden by good design (the board game Scythe is an excellent example here; it can easily take 30-40 minutes just to understand the rules... but it's common for players to get to the point within a single game where the average turn is about 5-10 seconds), or sometimes poor design can make something seem much more complex (yes, OD&D. I'm talking about you).
I personally define complexity as anything that acts as a barrier to understanding the rules. By this terrible and arbitrary measure, I'm going to order the editions like this:
Starting from least complexity, and limiting to things I've actually played:
5e. It's easy to understand, the basic rules are free online (so easy to obtain), and the SRD contains full chargen instructions
3e. A relatively unified system. SRD is available and has a lot of information on how to play, if not actual mechanics of chargen (although Pathfinder did include some...)
4e. Simpler as a system than 3e and (perhaps) 5e, but with more barriers to entry. You had to pay something or know someone who had.
2e. I always found it a bit easier to understand than 1e, although I never had the chance to play 1e, so maybe that's just bias.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I never played some of these options, so my field of vision is smaller.
For me:
Least <--B/X -- BECMI -- 5e -- 2e -- 3E/3.5E -- MTH410: Partial Differential Equations --- Pathfinder --> Most
For me:
Least <--B/X -- BECMI -- 5e -- 2e -- 3E/3.5E -- MTH410: Partial Differential Equations --- Pathfinder --> Most
