D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Ratskinner]

D&D has generally been a fairly complex, often very complicated, system. It's just the nature of RPGs in general, and class & level based ones, in particular, that they're complex games, and, on top of that, D&D is also 'list based' - you add to it by adding to lists of things, not by re-combining existing elements into new material - so grows in complexity as you expand options. The basic system in 5e is as complex as any d20 game (since it is d20), and thus a bit less complex than the arbitrary/varied sub-systems of classic D&D, 2e included. But that's less complex in the sense that a rhino is lighter than an elephant - it doesn't make the rhino a hummingbird. 5e is far from a rules lite game, and only promises to become more complex as more material is added (one reason the 'slow pace of releases' shouldn't be so discouraging, it means slower growth in complexity).

I think we as a community often fail to differentiate between "complex" and "tedious". There's more than one dimension needed to describe the mental load needed to play these games. So 3e greatly reduced (to my usage) the complexity of the game, but replaced it with a great deal of modifier-generated tedium. 4e decided to keep the tedium, but to extensively re-structure it. This works the other way, too. Fate, IMO, is actually not a very rules-lite game.* It is, however, a very low tedium game, because it avoids (almost entirely) the lists that you mention in favor of free-form descriptors. There is, I think, yet another dimension that would describe the need for at-table spontaneous creativity. IME, Dungeon World is a game that exemplifies that kind of load for the DM. The authors appear aware of it, as well, because the DM advice features notes on slowing the game down and techniques for extracting ideas from your players.

I can't think of another dimension, but I'm open to suggestions:
Complexity: the number of mechanically-distinct subsystems, procedures, currencies, etc.
Tediousness: the amount of in-game accounting and calculation.
Author-load: the amount of on-the-spot creativity required.
Each of these dimensions might be variable as well. Fate, starts with low-tedium, but some groups report play where keeping track of all the scene aspects gets out of hand. Also, as goes without saying anymore, whether any of these are good or bad to any particular degree is in the eye of the beholder.



*To be fair, my standards may be broken by spending too much time reading some very strange storytelling games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think we as a community often fail to differentiate between "complex" and "tedious".

Probably not a useful differentiation, since it's a very subjective distinction. Many - perhaps most - people would find the complexity of an RPG tedious, because they don't find the payoff of an imaginary character doing imaginary things in an imaginary would at all exciting. The tremendously complex, high-system-mastery chargen/level-up meta-game of 3.x is also something that could be seen as overwhelmingly tedious - or extremely engaging.

You'd end up just applying 'tedious' to complex games you had something against, and 'complex but not tedious' to game you happened to like.

I can't think of another dimension, but I'm open to suggestions:
Complexity: the number of mechanically-distinct subsystems, procedures, currencies, etc.

The other useful measure, I think, would be complication. You can have a complex game that is clear, orderly, even elegant. It's still complex, but it's complexity is easier to master, because it's easier to see and more consistent. You can have a game that's less complex in absolute terms, but because it's unclear, arbitrary, and/or inconsistent, it's more complicated, and harder to work with.

Another question about the complexity of a game is whether the meat of the game is complex, or the complexity is chaff. Mastering the former means mastering and leveraging all that complexity, mastering the latter is just a matter of identifying the few 'real' game elements that are worthwhile, and ignoring most of it.

 

[Ratskinner]

Probably not a useful differentiation, since it's a very subjective distinction. Many - perhaps most - people would find the complexity of an RPG tedious, because they don't find the payoff of an imaginary character doing imaginary things in an imaginary would at all exciting. The tremendously complex, high-system-mastery chargen/level-up meta-game of 3.x is also something that could be seen as overwhelmingly tedious - or extremely engaging.

You'd end up just applying 'tedious' to complex games you had something against, and 'complex but not tedious' to game you happened to like.

"tedious" may be too loaded a word....but I'm shooting for a distinction between high-regulation and high-accounting requirements. "Bookkeeping?" AD&D is fairly complicated in having a gazillion or so sub-systems for everything, but you don't have to worry about keeping track of too many modifiers for most of them. Whereas the systems trend that 3e was a part of tended to rely on one rolling method with a gazillion modifiers dependent on the in-game situation. After that, you are correct, that I'm just differentiating the types of headache one might encounter during play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Going to disagree... the Different DC's in 3e and numerous per round modifiers in 4e alone make this claim ring pretty false in my ears.

Yeah, I think others have already dealt with this, but 5e has spells which impose all sorts of modifiers, and often extra dice added to other dice, etc. Its NOT simpler. It does incorporate some 'ease of play' features, but oddly it also abandons a number of such features which made 4e easier to play.

On the whole its NOT a simple or 'lite' game. I have simple lite games, like PACE (3 page diceless system, THAT is simple), or Dungeon World which has literally one core mechanic that covers ALL possible things that players can do (make a move, toss 2d6).

 

[Tony Vargas]

"tedious" may be too loaded a word....but I'm shooting for a distinction between high-regulation and high-accounting requirements. "Bookkeeping?"

"Bookkeeping," sure. There's been a lot of that in D&D, Vancian casting is steeped in it, then there's tracking hit points, encumbrance to the 1/10th of a pound, layers of pre-cast spells & the duration & dispelling thereof, counting ammunition/charges/survival-days/whatever, even tracking the character's actual/maximum/adjusted age.

AD&D is fairly complicated in having a gazillion or so sub-systems for everything, but you don't have to worry about keeping track of too many modifiers for most of them. Whereas the systems trend that 3e was a part of tended to rely on one rolling method with a gazillion modifiers dependent on the in-game situation. After that, you are correct, that I'm just differentiating the types of headache one might encounter during play.

On balance, I'd still have to say that the 3e way is the less complex of the two. Mods may have be numerous and had named types, but they're all on the d20 scale, and the application of types had fairly clear rules, even if there were a lot of them.

Yeah, I think others have already dealt with this, but 5e has spells which impose all sorts of modifiers, and often extra dice added to other dice, etc. Its NOT simpler. It does incorporate some 'ease of play' features, but oddly it also abandons a number of such features....

It is selective about it, though. Favoring tradition and familiarity. A familiar complex system feels less complex than a simple, but unfamiliar one.

 

[Aenghus]

I think we as a community often fail to differentiate between "complex" and "tedious". There's more than one dimension needed to describe the mental load needed to play these games. So 3e greatly reduced (to my usage) the complexity of the game, but replaced it with a great deal of modifier-generated tedium. 4e decided to keep the tedium, but to extensively re-structure it. This works the other way, too. Fate, IMO, is actually not a very rules-lite game.* It is, however, a very low tedium game, because it avoids (almost entirely) the lists that you mention in favor of free-form descriptors. There is, I think, yet another dimension that would describe the need for at-table spontaneous creativity. IME, Dungeon World is a game that exemplifies that kind of load for the DM. The authors appear aware of it, as well, because the DM advice features notes on slowing the game down and techniques for extracting ideas from your players.

I can't think of another dimension, but I'm open to suggestions:
Complexity: the number of mechanically-distinct subsystems, procedures, currencies, etc.
Tediousness: the amount of in-game accounting and calculation.
Author-load: the amount of on-the-spot creativity required.
Each of these dimensions might be variable as well. Fate, starts with low-tedium, but some groups report play where keeping track of all the scene aspects gets out of hand. Also, as goes without saying anymore, whether any of these are good or bad to any particular degree is in the eye of the beholder.

I would suggest using some other term than "tediousness" as the sort of bean counting play this refers to is for a small minority actually fun and not tedious in their eyes. Tedium is a negative term, but what people find tedious is very subjective.

(withdrawn: "Accounting" may be a more neutral term for the dimension you refer to, and you use it yourself above.)

Reading ahead in the thread, "Bookkeeping" works for me.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I think others have already dealt with this, but 5e has spells which impose all sorts of modifiers, and often extra dice added to other dice, etc. Its NOT simpler. It does incorporate some 'ease of play' features, but oddly it also abandons a number of such features which made 4e easier to play.

I'm not getting into a 4e vs. 5e debate with you again... I find 5e less complex than both 4e and 3e, and contrary to your assertions I would say that's a pretty widely held view.

On the whole its NOT a simple or 'lite' game. I have simple lite games, like PACE (3 page diceless system, THAT is simple), or Dungeon World which has literally one core mechanic that covers ALL possible things that players can do (make a move, toss 2d6).

I didn't say it was a simple or lite game... I said it was less complex than 3e or 4e IMO.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not getting into a 4e vs. 5e debate with you again... I find 5e less complex than both 4e and 3e, and contrary to your assertions I would say that's a pretty widely held view.

I didn't ask you to! I merely listed the names of other editions of equivalent complexity. If you think every time someone write '4e' in a thread they're fighting with you, that isn't my fault.

I didn't say it was a simple or lite game... I said it was less complex than 3e or 4e IMO.

You didn't say anything, I said it was as complex as 4e and 3e and you objected. Then I said it wasn't a simple or lite game, and now you're arguing about that too, which presumably we both agree is the case. You really don't have to invent arguments.

5e is a complex game. It has approximately the same mass of core rules that 4e, 3e, 3.5e, and for that matter 2e had. It requires pretty much the same procedure to make a 3.x, 4e, or 5e characters, they have pretty much the same statistics and derived values, etc. The various subsystems are of roughly similar complexity, with 5e having more complex 'power' rules, and perhaps somewhat simpler combat rules, but there's really no appreciable difference. It takes the same 20 or so minutes for a practiced player to make a character in any of these systems, etc.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't ask you to! I merely listed the names of other editions of equivalent complexity. If you think every time someone write '4e' in a thread they're fighting with you, that isn't my fault.

No you decided to tell me how 5e got rid of these great 4e features (as if this was relevant to the discussion)... which yes leads me to believe you are once again trying to get into a 4e vs. 5e debate it's what many of the 4e fans, including you, seem to expend most of their energy doing in the 5e forums.

You didn't say anything, I said it was as complex as 4e and 3e and you objected. Then I said it wasn't a simple or lite game, and now you're arguing about that too, which presumably we both agree is the case. You really don't have to invent arguments.

If you quote me I'm going to assume what you are posting under said quote is addressing my statements... even if it's by implication. If you were agreeing with me then just consider it a clarification of my stance since I didn't want the fact that you quoted me then talked about 5e not being a simple or lite game to imply I was saying such.

5e is a complex game. It has approximately the same mass of core rules that 4e, 3e, 3.5e, and for that matter 2e had. It requires pretty much the same procedure to make a 3.x, 4e, or 5e characters, they have pretty much the same statistics and derived values, etc. The various subsystems are of roughly similar complexity, with 5e having more complex 'power' rules, and perhaps somewhat simpler combat rules, but there's really no appreciable difference. It takes the same 20 or so minutes for a practiced player to make a character in any of these systems, etc.

I disagree...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The other useful measure, I think, would be complication. You can have a complex game that is clear, orderly, even elegant. It's still complex, but it's complexity is easier to master, because it's easier to see and more consistent. You can have a game that's less complex in absolute terms, but because it's unclear, arbitrary, and/or inconsistent, it's more complicated, and harder to work with.

"Complex" and "complicated" are synonyms, both meaning "consisting of many interconnecting parts or elements."