D&D 5E Whats so hard about character creation?

[Jeff Carlsen]

but why? if people want a simple RPG they can play WoW. I enjoy the complexity of having options. Or are we talking about two different types of complexity?

I think we are. Right now, D&D Next lacks a sense of order. Each part of the system is doing its own thing, has slightly different mechanics, and has it's own set of options to choose from.

Options are a good thing, at least to a point.

Order is more easily implemented once you've figured out exactly what you want to have in the game.

Absolutely. I don't begrudge the experimentation. But part of the process is speaking up about problems in each packet.

 

[Droogie]

but why? if people want a simple RPG they can play WoW. I enjoy the complexity of having options. Or are we talking about two different types of complexity?

You can have options without complexity. Maybe this is just a case of watching sausage being made, but right now Next is a pretty fugly game. Also, suggesting someone go play something else is rarely a satisfying answer. If you want complexity and truckloads of options, stick with Pathfinder. See what I did there?

 

[Evenglare]

Originally we were promised a simple base system that could be expanded with modules to add complexity. That's why we want a simple system. Obviously this is looking less and less like what they promised us with crazy dice concepts for classes and other things that don't make it feel ANYTHING like the old editions.

 

[triqui]

but whats the fun of a simple edition? I like having my options

I don't know if it's fun, but it's one of the stated goals. And it's a goal they aren't achieving

 

[Sunseeker]

Originally we were promised a simple base system that could be expanded with modules to add complexity. That's why we want a simple system. Obviously this is looking less and less like what they promised us with crazy dice concepts for classes and other things that don't make it feel ANYTHING like the old editions.

Woah hold on a second here. Since when does "simple" mean "like the old editions"? Because I feel you're drawing a connection here that isn't even close to the stated goals of DDN.

Modules aren't simply to add complexity, of the many things I image they do that might be one of them, but at their core they're there to provide options, to create variations in play experience.

And I have a very strong feeling that "simple" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

I don't know if it's fun, but it's one of the stated goals. And it's a goal they aren't achieving

I have a feeling that "simplicity" has a lot of different meanings to a lot of different people. So far people have mentioned speed in character creation, combat speed, overall game speed, number of options, types of options, clarity of explanations, elegance in game design, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some others. "Simplicity" does not necessitate minimalism.

I'm not saying the system as-is is perfect, I'm just saying that I keep seeing "simplicity" being thrown around without anyone really defining what they actually want that to be. I mean I've seen time-values for character creation, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, obviously people have different expectations and that is most likely based on differing experiences with other players. With a solid character concept in mind I could probably whip up a character in any edition in 5 minutes or less. I don't know if I could reasonably expect someone who's never played any edition of the game to be able to do that. I don't know if I'd want to.

 

[jrowland]

I think this playtest is where I would expect it in the BETA state that it is in. We've seen simple rules, we're seeing more complexity at each stage in such a way that "going back" to the simpler system is built in. Some systems need work still, like skills which clearly an experiment to test skill dice.

Treating each successive packet as the entirety of the ruleset that will see publication is the wrong approach. We've apparently lost warlocks. Should I start a "bring warlock back!" thread and cry to heaven over the foolishness of WotC for abandoning the class? of course not.

Bottom line, beta-testing the simple "base" system was bound to be quick. Expect to spend more time, MUCH more time, in the beta test with complex systems. By their nature, more testing will be needed. We are seeing the early stages of these complex systems. I doubt very seriously maneuvers will be listed as part of the "Basic" game. The XD mechanic will be, but as a simple damage dice, with maneuvers for the complex game module.

Thus, complaining about maneuvers making character creation complex is circular: Of course it is, its part of the more complex fighter module!

Hopefully, as mEarls has mentioned, they will be more direct about the testing goals in the future so as to avoid this seemingly endless confusion.

 

[Storminator]

but why? if people want a simple RPG they can play WoW. I enjoy the complexity of having options. Or are we talking about two different types of complexity?

I want a nice, simple system so I can invite people that have never played any RPG before to my game, make characters in 10 minutes, and start gaming right away without any system knowledge at all. I already have fantastic complex games I can play with my serious RPG-veteran friends.

Hopefully we'll get something like that in the end. Maybe we'll even get something that can do that AND replace my beloved tactical 4e game in one rules package (different options, obviously). Where we sit now doesn't really do either of those, but were we sit now isn't an actual game yet.

PS

 

[Neonchameleon]

but why? if people want a simple RPG they can play WoW. I enjoy the complexity of having options. Or are we talking about two different types of complexity?

Reality check. WoW mechanics are massively more complex than D&D's. That's because of the relative advantages of humans and computers - when you have a processing speed measured in thosands of floating point operations per second you can handle a far more complex system than any human. This is playing to the computer's strengths. To play to the human's strengths, a simple but flexible system such as Spirit of the Century (see the Kickstarter for the most up to date version) or Leverage produces detailed and evocative characters without being mechanically complex. So it's more true to say "If people want a complex RPG they can play WoW. Simplicity and flexibility help at the gaming table and do things computers can never match."

 

[Mon]

if people want a simple RPG they can play WoW.

If people want to play a complex RPG they can play GURPS.

That is a silly thing for me to have said, because many people want to play complex D&D and have every right to do so.

Conversely, many people want to play simple D&D and likewise have every right to do so.

but whats the fun of a simple edition? I like having my options

From my POV, I wonder what is the fun of a complex game? To me, thousands of options seem to get in the way of the fun. However I know many people love them so I don't begrudge expansions that add them and I certainly won't be (seriously) telling them to go play another game because of it.

Simple D&D has been around for a long time: BECMI, 1e, 2e, early (no splats) 3.x and ealry (no splats) 4e. None of them are overly complex "out of the box".

We like it that way. We run businesses, have families, play sports, go the pub, travel overseas. For these reasons and more D&D has always been a casual, but much loved, creative and social outlet for us. A fun, social, shared world.

That's the fun of a simple edition

(NOTE: It's also very much part of the fun of a complex edition, we just try to avoid that complexity to focus on the above because we enjoy that aspect more).

Sure, you can add complexity to these editions with splats etc; Late 2e/3e/4e are all extremely complex. However the splats for 3/4e and the innate complexity of pathfinder drove us away from "supported" D&D for the past 4-5 years. I don't begrudge others that enjoyment, however.

So why can't 5e, the supposedly inclusive edition, allow us to return to the "supported" version of the game we've loved for so many years? Because your method of "complex" fun is better than our method of "casual" fun? Thus, 5e should cater to you can we should go play some other game? That's as unfair and unreasonable as my opening line in this post.

Also, I don't enjoy video games (is there a simple tabletop version of WOW? If so disregard this line).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

but why? if people want a simple RPG they can play WoW. I enjoy the complexity of having options. Or are we talking about two different types of complexity?

WoW isn't simple, and those are fighting words on a Tabletop RPG forum.

If you're looking for a simple RPG, to be honest, you'll have to settle on another game, or an older version of D&D. Those games already exist, and are even newly on sale again. Why pay for something a second time (if you didn't have it the first time)?

Also, I don't enjoy video games (is there a simple tabletop version of WOW? If so disregard this line).

There's a tabletop version of WoW. It's a 3rd party supplement, D&D 3.x, with some new classes/spells/races, etc. I've never played (either it or the video game version) and can't tell you if it's good or simple, or not.