D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[Yaarel]

Trouble with that reading is that the simple=good posters place simple on a pedestal of self evident inerrancy rather than wasting any keystrokes describing where the line belongs & why. Lacking any specificity that would mark the boundaries of a position the reader is left to interpret what very much seems to be "at any cost". I made a post about that earlier here but if anythingthe specificity has been reduced since then

Heh, simplicity is an inherent self-evident "good".

Useless, redundant, and unnecessary complexity is "ugly".

"As simple as possible, but not simpler."

Think of how evolution works. Useless traits atrophy. Useful and versatile traits get reinforced.

Think of how science works. The simplest, most elegant, paradigm that can account for all known data, is the one that excels, and via Occams Razor, the one most likely to be true.

In game design, the most "elegant" design is the one that can detail the most amount of genre concepts with versatile and fewest versatile mechanics.


Every game would be super simple, except. There needs to be details. If one can fly, how does one fly? Wings? Telekinesis? If one can fly, what is the speed? Can one creature fly faster than an other creature? And so on. These details invoke the second half of the Razor, "but not simpler".

The conflict between "lumping" into a single mechanic and "splitting" into several mechanics, can be a matter of taste. But there is powerful need for simplicity, especially if a game is complex.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I prefer Muscle, Mysticality, and Moxie.

A fellow citizen of Loathing I see!

 

[Remathilis]

So the best balance of simplicity vs complexity is the one that pleases the most people? Unless you work for WotC, I can't see that being true unless profit is the priority.

On the other hand, a near perfect system with no player base isn't exactly a good outcome either. The RPG graveyard is full of great RPGs that never found an audience.

 

[Yaarel]

On the other hand, a near perfect system with no player base isn't exactly a good outcome either. The RPG graveyard is full of great RPGs that never found an audience.

I interpret the heartbreakers as evidence that both mechanics and narrative are important. A great mechanical system, that lacks interesting stories and exciting adventures that use the system, is less likely to succeed. A great story and many adventures, but with a poor resolution mechanics, is also less likely to succeed.

Super simple games often lack both a story and a satisfying resolution mechanics.

The popularity of 5e is probably evidence for roughly the most useful amount complexity, and narratively somewhere around the better balance between default flavor versus freeform storytelling. Moreover the D&D narratives have the most support, with official settings and adventures and indy ones.

 

[tetrasodium]

Heh, simplicity is an inherent self-evident "good".

Except that it is not. The Simpsons did a whole episode on that. If you've ever been to Epcot and rode on the simple one rail monorail you know without question why that more complex second rail atop supporting trusses and gravel are undeniably critical

Useless, redundant, and unnecessarily complexity is "ugly".

Once again.. just not anything specific that you can point to?

"As simple as possible, but not simpler."

Am I to guess the lines here? That seems like a recipe for endless goalpost shifting while blaming the reader for guessing what you had in mind.

Think of how evolution works. Useless traits atrophy. Useful and versatile traits get reinforced.

We were talking about ttrpgs, specifically d&d

Think of how science works. The simplest, most elegant, paradigm that can account for all known data, is the one that excels, and via Occams Razor, the one most likely to be true.

Again this is not the subject being discussed, should the reader guess how nonspecific "science" relates to the ttrpg known as d&d?

In game design, the most "elegant" design is the one that can detail the most amount of genre concepts with the fewest amounts versatile mechanics.

You skipped right over anything that could be dubbed specific, are we to guess what you failed to include?

Every game would be super simple, except. There needs to be details. If one can fly, how does one fly? Wings? Telekinesis? If one can fly, what is the speed? Can one creature fly faster than an other creature? And so on. These details invoke the second half of the Razor, "but not simpler".

Random mechanics with no details of problems or descriptions other than "simple" why is the reader expected to make your case for those particular mechanics for you when nobody has really been talking about them in the thread till now?

The conflict between "lumping" into a single mechanic and "splitting" into several mechanics, can be a matter of taste. But there is powerful need for simplicity, especially if a game is complex.

You skipped the part where you actually try to make a case for that supposed "need"

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the other hand, a near perfect system with no player base isn't exactly a good outcome either. The RPG graveyard is full of great RPGs that never found an audience.

I'm getting very tired of these either/or arguments. A better game with a smaller audience is perfectly ok for anyone not representing a publicly traded megacorporation.

 

[Yaarel]

Except that it is not. The Simpsons did a whole episode on that. If you've ever been to Epcot and rode on the simple one rail monorail you know without question why that more complex second rail atop supporting trusses and gravel are undeniably critical


Once again.. just not anything specific that you can point to?

Am I to guess the lines here? That seems like a recipe for endless goalpost shifting while blaming the reader for guessing what you had in mind.

We were talking about ttrpgs, specifically d&d

Again this is not the subject being discussed, should the reader guess how nonspecific "science" relates to the ttrpg known as d&d?

You skipped right over anything that could be dubbed specific, are we to guess what you failed to include?

Random mechanics with no details of problems or descriptions other than "simple" why is the reader expected to make your case for those particular mechanics for you when nobody has really been talking about them in the thread till now?

You skipped the part where you actually try to make a case for that supposed "need"

A D&D example of the "atrophy" of gratuitous complexity is the evolution of from 1e and its abundance of conflictive disparate subsystems and ad hoc tables, to 3e and its attempt to consolidate and systematize all of the earlier rules into a simpler standardized d20 mechanical system with shared advancement.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A D&D example of the "atrophy" of gratuitous complexity is the evolution of from 1e and its abundance of conflictive disparate subsystems and ad hoc tables, to 3e and its attempt to consolidate and systematize all of the earlier rules into a simpler standardized d20 mechanical system with shared advancement.

You are assuming as self-evident, again, that unifying a collection of disparate bespoke mechanics designed to address specific areas of interest in the game under a single dice roll was an unqualified good. The entire OSR movement, not to mention fans of the actual TSR editions those games are based on would disagree.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I don't recall claiming that rules should only be complex. However, I certainly don't believe that rules should only be simple, or that there's something wrong with design that doesn't strive for as much simplicity as the concept being depicted allows for. That way lies boredom. Levels of complexity are better, if you insist that every game must be made for the widest possible audience. Separate games would IMO be even better than that.

By the way, I'm sure you're calling me out for not valuing simplicity in the way you did wasn't intended to paint that opinion as anti-diverse, right?

If you're not a person saying that the rules should only be complex, then I wasn't talking about you.

But complex design that is intended only for those who want something complex, is by its nature is exclusionary. They want a product that challenges them. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a valid preference for a game. I just don't think that is what D&D should be. It has a wider audience than that.

I wouldn't go so far as to call complex-preferring folk as anti-diverse unless they also specifically believe something like "It's not for stupid people" or "Complex games already are for everyone who can get it, and if they don't get it, that's their issue."

 

[MNblockhead]

So the best balance of simplicity vs complexity is the one that pleases the most people? Unless you work for WotC, I can't see that being true unless profit is the priority.

And because the popularity makes it easier to find people to play with and build a community around.

The perfect game for me in terms of the system is going to be a failure for me if I can't find people who want to play it with me.