The Dilemma of the Simple RPG

In my experience with contemporary college game clubs, there are many younger people who have not yet tried tabletop RPGs. I was also told that many of the players coming to the evening games at a local shop have been new to tabletop RPGs. This is different from my pre-Internet, pre-video gamegeneration (Boomers), where most game-minded people were exposed to D&D because it had so little competition for leisure time.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Another reason for the difference may be the “crunchiness” of many contemporary RPGs. That is, the fiddliness and time needed to generate a character and start actually playing the game is offputting. Then there is the difficulty of running a character because there are so many details and numbers (such as skills) involved. The rules interfere with the adventure.

Yet we continue to see the most popular RPGs loaded down with vast rulebooks. Unfortunately, the seeds of long-range destruction of any RPG edition are built into the capitalist economy.

You don't need a Ph.D. in history to know a lot can be explained if you "follow the money". To make money you need to sell product. If your primary business is RPGs you have to produce a game that is not only large but very extensible, so that you can sell additional rules. In the long run, that makes the game crunchy and unwieldy, dooms it to become too complex to appeal to the less than hard-core players.

Complexity may be a boon for some players. 3rd Edition D&D (3e) became "find rules somewhere that give me an advantage." This is a complete contrast to my advice to GMs dating back to the 70s: prevent players from gaining unearned advantages. When I GMed 3e I said "core rules only, no add-ons." When the highly-tinkered-by-additional-rules "one man armies" are present in a game, the more casual players are left behind in several ways.

"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstien

Complex games also make the GM's job harder. As there are more rules, there's more work for the GM. The biggest problem of tabletop RPGs, compared with other games, is that GMing is work, not play. We need more GMs to "grow" the hobby, yet complex games with constant rules add-ons lead to fewer GMs available.

The typical course of events is that RPGs get more complex as more rules are added, until the entire edition is abandoned and a new one comes out. While D&D Second Edition wasn't much different than 1e, and many more or less ignored 2e (I did), each succeeding edition has changed the game drastically to help persuade players to buy the new version, coming full circle with 5e. In each case, a new edition led to lots of sales. And each was then subjected to the rising pyramid of additional rules.

Money talks. Unfortunately for RPGs, money argues for complexity, not simplicity.

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher

SaveSave​

 

[PMárk]

So just because people are lazy we need to dumb down a game? Maybe RPGs don't need to be mass-market, maybe they are, and should be, just a niche game. Not everything needs to have mass appeal.

Yeah, thought the same. I'd add that not every rpg need to have mass appeal and that's still not true, since fairly complex games are quite popular, while there are plenty of really obscure minimalist games.

It's just not that simple as "people don't want complex games in this rushing world".

 

[Yaztromo]

I can understand this point of view: there are simple and quick RPG systems that work pefectly well and that allow you to start playing purposefully in five minutes (lieterally). They would be perfect to involve new players and new game masters, but reality is that there is more money to make in complex games that appeal to hard core fans and scare away possible newcomers that may expand the number of gamers. More money in complex games means more opportunities to hire best creative talents for complex games.
Simple games have to go uphill.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

I can understand this point of view: there are simple and quick RPG systems that work pefectly well and that allow you to start playing purposefully in five minutes (lieterally). They would be perfect to involve new players and new game masters, but reality is that there is more money to make in complex games that appeal to hard core fans and scare away possible newcomers that may expand the number of gamers. More money in complex games means more opportunities to hire best creative talents for complex games.
Simple games have to go uphill.

I don't think this actually holds out anymore.

Paizo, which pretty much is one of the complex system kings, repeatedly indicated even during their best years that they were not making that much profit for their game. They were trapped in having to rely on the more-expensive books to keep their profits up enough to stay in business; the guy in charge indicated repeatedly this was exactly why their subscription services don't offer PDF-only options, despite the fact they offer pretty much everything as a PDF. And keep in mind this was back when Pathfinder was the dominant tabletop; I have no clue what financial shape they're in now, but I seriously doubt it improved.

WotC, on the other hand, has made it a point to use a slow release schedule with a, for DnD, massively simplified system... and they've shown profit repeatedly ever since 5E came out. Even Hasbro has mentioned them positively in a few shareholder reports, which is quite rare for WotC.

Pinnacle Entertainment, on the other hand, makes most of their money not through selling a load of books, but by leveraging Kickstarter to fund their projects so that all income they get after the books release is profit. They also advertise the Kickstarters of other companies using their ruleset, guaranteeing those companies will do the same for them when they decide to do a project.

Pretty much, the two companies doing well are not doing so through complex systems; neither 5E nor Savage Worlds are actually complex. And the one big-name that did rely on a complex system wasn't doing that well even at their height.

 

[zurg]

I disagree with the article. Complex games are easier to GM because you can rely on the rules as others have stated. Also, who doesn't love giving their money to companies and people making new editions, new games, new rules, etc? These people are the ones keeping our hobby alive and moving forward. I support as many of them as I can, even buying games and supplements I know may never hit my table. All hail capitalism and its ability to constantly destroy and advance things.

 

[thzero]

Pinnacle Entertainment, on the other hand, makes most of their money not through selling a load of books, but by leveraging Kickstarter to fund their projects so that all income they get after the books release is profit.

Got a cite for that?

While 5e may not be 3.X/Pathfinder complex, its hardly 'simple' and I wouldn't put it at the same complexity level of Savage Worlds either.

Pretty much, the two companies doing well are not doing so through complex systems; neither 5E nor Savage Worlds are actually complex. And the one big-name that did rely on a complex system wasn't doing that well even at their height.

but reality is that there is more money to make in complex games that appeal to hard core fans and scare away possible newcomers that may expand the number of gamers.

Thats junk. Go to GenCon, most everyone will be there except maybe WotC, and ask them point blank.... "are you trying to scare away possible newcomers?" I bet the answer is a resounding "no".

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Got a cite for that?

Yeah. "Stuff I Interpreted From Watching Them Do All Those Damned Kickstarters," ArchfiendBobbie, Miskatonic University Journal of Business, December 15th, 2016.

(I hope you got a laugh.)

While 5e may not be 3.X/Pathfinder complex, its hardly 'simple' and I wouldn't put it at the same complexity level of Savage Worlds either.

Savage Worlds is actually a bit more complex. Take a good, long look at the rules for vehicle chases, certain bits of magic, etc. 5E core rules involve a lot less wonkiness and a lot fewer special cases as long as you're not throwing in optional mechanics like crazy.

Thats junk. Go to GenCon, most everyone will be there except maybe WotC, and ask them point blank.... "are you trying to scare away possible newcomers?" I bet the answer is a resounding "no".

Been. Asked. Got that answer from everyone, including WotC.

Asked them the follow-up question of, "How many complain about the complexity of your rules?" The more complex the rules were, the more complaints they got.

Followed up with a third question of, "How many buy your stuff here?" The answers broke down along lines expected due to a combination of marketing and how well-known they are, though I noticed Paizo's answer was lower than Pinnacle Entertainment's and WotC's.

Call it junk all you want... but go ask the people at Paizo directly why they don't do PDF subscriptions. They'll tell you flat-out they can't afford the profit loss. Assuming that you don't get fifty million people quoting you and referring you to one of the dozens of other times people asked that question and got that same answer.

Ask that of Pinnacle Entertainment, and they'll flat-out tell you they simply don't do subscriptions because they don't need to. And WotC will, if asked about PDFs, do their normal verbal shrug or point you to Fantasy Grounds in their typical "we don't really care" tone.

If you want more fun? Go take a look at the release dates of their products. WotC never had a fast schedule on 5E, so it's no surprise they're not bothering with new releases that often. Pinnacle Entertainment pretty much treats Savage Worlds like hobby income, so it's really no surprise they have a schedule of "when we feel like it" for how fast they get products out. But Paizo, for whom Pathfinder has been serious since day one? They're ramping down their production schedule in Pathfinder; new Campaign, Companion, and Modules are being released on a reduced schedule as of late and now they're going bi-monthly with the APs. What does it tell you that rather than ramp up production with a new product coming out, they're ramping down and devoting half their resources to that new product?

I want Paizo to succeed as well. They're a good company, and their products are amazing. Golarion you can run nearly any form of fantasy you can imagine in without changing to a different setting. But the same attention to detail that had them producing so many products for so long has bit them on the rear hard, and you can see it both with how they're ramping down Pathfinder production even before Starfinder was an announced project and in how they're planning to treat Starfinder. And you can hear it every time they admit that allowing pure PDF subscriptions would put them out of business.

Edit: And because this post was depressing, I invite everyone to contemplate Ponyfinder. Because Ponyfinder is awesome.

 

[thzero]

Savage Worlds is actually a bit more complex. Take a good, long look at the rules for vehicle chases, certain bits of magic, etc. 5E core rules involve a lot less wonkiness and a lot fewer special cases as long as you're not throwing in optional mechanics like crazy.

It's also a 'generic system' and 5e is not. If you look at just the core Savage Worlds even tossing in fantasy it is really quite straightforward.

Been. Asked. Got that answer from everyone, including WotC.

..lots of blah blah..

Well, forgive me if I don't believe random person on internet actually did what they said (I wouldn't believe me either...). Do it journalist style, I'll be more than happy to at least give it credence.

Edit: And because this post was depressing, I invite everyone to contemplate Ponyfinder. Because Ponyfinder is awesome.

Ponyfinder is about as far from awesome as you can get. That's just depressing.

 

[thzero]

I want Paizo to succeed as well. They're a good company, and their products are amazing. Golarion you can run nearly any form of fantasy you can imagine in without changing to a different setting. But the same attention to detail that had them producing so many products for so long has bit them on the rear hard, and you can see it both with how they're ramping down Pathfinder production even before Starfinder was an announced project and in how they're planning to treat Starfinder.

I play PF a lot. However, I hate Golarion with a passion - not that I was really a fan of Forgotten Realms - both try and add everyone's taste into it, and it just ends up tasting like bland gruel.

I admit, I've not bothered to chart out the spacing of the Paizo products; but they are still doing quite a bit of PF right now. New bestiary, a new campaign settings, a couple of new APs, fairly steady stream of PFS scenarios, etc.

Re: Starfinder... ever think that since its a unknown, and no idea how it will be received, that any company would be wise not to take things rather slow with said new property? Yeah, seems to be wise idea.

 

[mflayermonk]

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] posted a video where WotC people were talking about a survey they conducted.
Results: "One interesting tidbit was that there was a positive correlation between complexity of class and non-combat satisfaction, and a negative correlation between complexity of class and combat satisfaction. Good stuff!

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...nd-Crawford)-at-DigiPen-(video)#ixzz4fo561t9C
"

Not totally on topic, but an interesting side note.

 

[aramis erak]

Rules Light doesn't actually make GMing well easier - only the lookup time changes. This can make it LOOK easier, but faster and easier are not synonymous.

Rules light requires the GM to make more rules calls, more interpretations, and be more in tune with his players.

And I find that I'm better able to wing things with a mid-complexity game rather than a low-complexity one.