The Knock On effect and Complexity Complaints

[Hussar]

There are two complaints that I see about 3.x DnD. Well, that's not true, I see more than two, but, I only want to talk about these specific two right now, so sit yer pedandic butt down in the back.

The first complaint that I see is that the d20 rules are so tightly wound that it is virtually impossible to change the rules. Usually the term Knock On Effect is used to say that any change you make will cascade into a large number of unforseeable effects that will grind the game to a halt. To some degree I agree with this. There are some rules in the game that would be very difficult to change.

Take initiative for example. Rerolling initiative every round could have many effects, and most of them are bad. Generally, any change to base mechanics is going to have multiple effects and, frequently, they will have bad effects. Then again, IMO, this is true of any game. If you change base rules of any game, it will lead to massive changes in gameplay. If you gained 500 dollars every time you rolled doubles in Monopoly, it would have a very large effect. If pawns in chess could move three squares at a time, it would have a huge effect.

None of this is terribly big news. We know this.

But, what confuses me is there is a fairly large and vocal crowd who talks about how complex D&D has become with endless splatbooks and optional rules. I've read comments about how it's virtually impossible for some DM's to keep up with all the new rules and whatnot.

How does this jive with the first complaint? If D&D is so incredibly tightly wound that we cannot make house rules, then how can we have so many optional rules?

In my view, both complaints are fallacious. While there are some things in D&D that are difficult to change, there are a huge number of things that are very easy. Within the game we now have some five or six different spells systems - Vancian, Point Based (Psionics), unlimited per day (Warlocks), Limited per day (Shadowmages), Skill based (Truenamer) and probably two or three that I've forgotten.

Never mind the two or three THOUSAND feats published by WOTC alone which are all variations on combat rules. Or the couple of dozen new classes, few hundred PrC's and, of course, the variant rules in Unearthed Arcana.

Add to that the d20 publishers out there and I'd say that 3e is emminently tweakable.

But, does that make it too complex for any one DM? IMO, no. For a few reasons.

First, you will never see all those rules in the same campaign. At best, you might see half a dozen of them. The majority of the game will still draw from core and base rules. Sure, the feat might tweak this or that rule, but it rarely outright changes any. The unified mechanic is still used.

Secondly, even if every player is using elements that are completely non-core, not a single piece of equipment, class, spell, everything, is from outside core, you still are only looking at a small number of new elements to learn. At most, eight classes - all of which follow more or less the same pattern as core classes - a handful of feats, this and that. At no point does a DM have to learn all that material. That's what players are for.

Arghh, ran out of time, will finish this thought anon.

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, I'll be honest -- the complexity of the DM side of things can be overbearing at times. I have zero issues with complexity as a player, though. The things that make D&D complex for me as a GM come in two forms -- feats and skills.

In the RAW, each feat and skill is essentially a rule system unto itself with very specific mechanical effects that work around the rest of the rules (in the case of feats) or very specific conditions and DCs that attach (in the case of skills).

I think that True20 has the most honest definition of feats ever -- "Feats allow heroes to 'break the rules' in certain ways..." And, in point of fact, that's exactly what feats do -- they make an end run around other rules in the game.

Now, taken in small doses, this kind of minutae isn't a problem for me, but D&D really doesn't deliver these things in small does -- the sections on skills and feats in the PHB are dwarfed only by the spell lists at the back of said book.

I honestly and genuinely find D&D to be too complex at times (especially once you pile on the supplements), but I really don't buy the "Knock On" effect. Although it is true that implementing ceratin options without thinking ahead can muck things up badly (as certain charcter builds have proven), poor use of DM judgement in this regard can cause this same outcome in any game system.

 

[Cor Azer]

I don't really get the "too complex" opinion myself. There are a lot of options (especially if you use supplements) sure, but options don't necessarily lead to complexity. And "complexity through options" (if you want to call it that) is simply solved by the DM not allowing all those supplementary options.

That said, certain supplements are complex, but I tend to attribute that to not having the time to playtest the supplement as much as 3.X (or any core system) was/is (which I completely understand - a company cannot devote years to testing a supplement product; it's just not financially feasible). Adding something onto a functioning whole is going to lead to greater complexity than if the new thing was inherently present - I think that's obvious, but maybe that's because I'm a software engineer.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMNSHO the "Knock On Effect Problem" is a complete myth.

I have challenged many posters to cough up explicit arguments and evidence to support this opinion over the years following the release of 3.0 and all I have ever gotten is gibberish in response.

(For example, here http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3099263&postcount=51)

Certainly there are some kinds of rules changes that have bigger effects than others. But that is true of every game system. The claim that this is a greater problem in 3e than previous editions of D&D has never been supported with an iota of evidence or logic in the dozens of discussions I have visited on the topic. In fact, IMO the knock on effects are more predictable in 3e than in most games, so they are much less of a problem than in other systems simply because it is easier to the DM to make appropriate corrections & adjustments.

The underlying basis of the Knock On sentiment is the startling success 3e. 3e has raised the bar of expectations, and some have responded by creating a double-standard.

Because 3e rules are so shocking well written compared with what came before them, all houserules get judged by this implicit new standard. Fine.

Where the double standard comes in is when the filtered memory of writing crappy house rules that seemed adequate for the already hopelessly confused system they spent ~15-20 years customizing, reworking, relearning gets compared to writing new houserules in the new system. So on one had they are comparing the experience of writing a houserule where their standard of quality is low or non-existent with the other hand where they cannot do random brain surgery with a rusty hacksaw without the quality of their effort being obvious.

At this point, another illogical argument is usually trotted out: It has to be that way because 3e is an integrated system, so it is impossible to add non-integrated elements without every particle of the entire multiverse exploding at the speed of light.

Then I point out that there is no logical reason that a houserule is harder to put in a silo in an integrated system than a non-integrated system. Furthermore, your brain surgery with a rusty hacksaw is easier to handle in an integrated system because the knock on effects are predictable, and therefore easier to correct for on the part of the DM.

As you have pointed out Hussar, the mountains of d20 products are extremely strong evidence that doing a competent job creating new rules for 3e is not particularly hard. Perhaps even easy.

As for the "too complex" argument, that is just another double-standard. Once upon a time, it was difficult to find a supplement with significant houserules that most DMs would even consider touching with a 10' pole, IME. Now there is an excessive number of options. So an amazingly successful system is being relabelled as a failure because it is so successful.

A DM must exercise some degree of editorial control. No RPG I have ever played can survive the failure to do so. While I sympathize with DMs who are biting off more than they can chew and I recognize that sometimes pushy players contribute to that problem (is this a new thing?), that is not a failing of the game system.

 

[Nomad4life]

The primary reason I dropped 3.5 in favor of True20 and C&C was largely because I got to the point where I loathed GMing it (with most of that loathing due to the rigors of prep time.) It simply wasn’t fun anymore… Or, about as much fun as doing calculus homework anyway.

Oddly, I don’t have that same sense of loathing for playing 3.5. (Still a bit too clunky for my tastes, but I can endure it if nothing else is available.)

Even so, I don’t really consider D&D “flawed” so much as I consider other systems “better suited” for what I need them to do.

 

[blargney the second]

Speaking of ripple effects, the one thing I'd really love to ditch is Attacks of Opportunity.
-blarg

 

[Lanefan]

To answer a point by Hussar: there's a difference between what the "splat books" do to the rules and what others elsewhere have discussed doing to the rules, and that's that the books merely add to the foundation already laid, while others have been discussing how to change parts of that foundation and whether it is even possible without having to rebuild the whole foundation. Big difference.

You use re-rolling initiative as an example...to me, this is one change that can easily be made without much knock-on at all. You just...re-roll. Sure, it affects your in-combat tactics, but that's different...and is in fact the improvement the change brings. But from a hard rules perspective, there's little if any knock-on at all. Things that last for one round still last for one round (instead of "until your next action"), for example...trivial change.

An example of a change that would have serious knock-on would be, say, ditching the entire feats system. This would force a near-complete re-build of the Fighter class to make it playable, and a decision on whether the idea of metamagic is worth keeping and if so how to implement it, and a question of how to handle things like blind-fighting, and..., and... And that is the level of changes and tweaks that are being looked at, and where the knock-on effect becomes a serious issue.

Lanefan

 

[Crothian]

Ya, if you take out a large portion of the game (feats are a large part) then it is going to have a huge change. But removing AoO or rolling initiative each round does not have that big an effect over the whole game.

The bottom line though is how good is the DM. I know DMs thjat couldn't remove the toughness feat without it destroying their game. But then there are DMs that can take out the level system and be fine. It isn't that D&D can't life without certain things, it is what a DMN can live without and be able to handle.

 

[cildarith]

I pretty much agree with James and Lanefan. The thing I dislike most about D&D3.x are the skills and feats. From what I can see it would be pretty difficult to just rip those out of the game and not have it be unaffected, playability wise. It is sooo much easier to just play a different game that does what I want it to do.

If I want a game with skills and feats, however, there are also plenty of other games that handle these much better than D&D does, IMO.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I think it's easier to come up with new rules within the framework of d20 than with prior systems. You have to be aware of the law of unintended consequences (nerfing magic and then wondering why the fighters take over, for example), but if you act sensibly, it can work.

On the complexity front, the game is as complex as you let it be. There are a hundred shortcuts you can use to make things go easier as DM. Electronic tools, shortcuts, sample statblocks, etc. I don't need to know all the rules - I just need to know the rules I use in my game. This is a lot easier for the 40-year-old me than it would have been for the 20-year-old me, to be fair.

Combining the two elements of the OP, d20 is such a toolbox that you can more easily and quickly take elements out of various sources and create a totally new, and interesting non-core version of D&D.