D&D 5E Why Don't We Simplify 5e?

[jmartkdr2]

But this seems to emphasize the fact that trust between players is a key element to an ttrpg unlike video and board games with more defined rules. Not only because of dm discretion as the referee and final arbiter of the rules, but also because of ‘problem players’ of various kinds. I think without that trust and level of communication rpgs are not worth playing. Story games do a good job of providing advice for both gms and players for how to approach the social situation of playing an rpg.

I can trust your intention without trusting your skills - if, in order to have fun with the game, I need to first make sure the dm is good at running the game, a set of skills not measurable by knowledge of rules, systems, or other provided knowlege, then any time I join a game it's a gamble as to whether the game will be fun. Because maybe you're not good, and my evening will be crap. Unless you know of a reliable method for judging the skills of a dm that's noticeably easier than playing with them?

Also, if I don't play with unskilled dms, how will they get skilled? (Answer: systems to guide them, but you seem to be arguing against using systems to guide the game, so what else is there beside 'fail a lot and drive away players'?)

 

[sominator]

Back in the D&D Next days, my impression of the new edition was that the game would be streamlined and/or have its bumps ironed out. WotC would produce something more accessible to the masses, and maybe even ride the popularity of some lighter-weight games at the time (looking at you, Savage Worlds). Crunch would be Pathfinder's thing, and more power to Paizo.

But here we are with regular rules discussions from WotC, and regular rules discussions here (now in the helpful format of How To articles). A "basic rules" document. An advanced 5e on the way from ENpublishing, and a full-on battle royale thread about the plethora of DMG options. Several threads are about adding more rules to make an aspect run better or more realistically.

And here I thought 5e was about the rulings that the DM would make, not the rules. Players make their characters from the book, and the DM does the rest, right? Why don't we see more discussions here about simplifying D&D?

This is actually what we attempted with our 5E cyberpunk/fantasy RPG, Entromancy. After playing and GMing 5E and seeing how long it can take to onboard new players, our intention was to create something that was playable after ~10 minutes of sitting with the rules.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to the approach, but we're happy with where we netted out.

 

[Malmuria]

I can trust your intention without trusting your skills - if, in order to have fun with the game, I need to first make sure the dm is good at running the game, a set of skills not measurable by knowledge of rules, systems, or other provided knowlege, then any time I join a game it's a gamble as to whether the game will be fun. Because maybe you're not good, and my evening will be crap. Unless you know of a reliable method for judging the skills of a dm that's noticeably easier than playing with them?

Also, if I don't play with unskilled dms, how will they get skilled? (Answer: systems to guide them, but you seem to be arguing against using systems to guide the game, so what else is there beside 'fail a lot and drive away players'?)

A well-written ruleset can be an asset to a new dm and group, but it can also hinder them if it's too extensive. I mean, look at this (from 2e):

Or the infamous grappling rules from 3e. I actually wonder if those sorts of rules were actually ever correctly used RAW, including by the designers.

Ultimately, the "skill" of being a dm is a social one, which is where we get a most common current dm advice (move the spotlight, say yes and, keep the game moving). I think a game's published content can include that advice to help, and there are many storygames that emphasize that the dm is also a player, that, unlike in dnd, everyone's fun doesn't have to just be on their shoulders.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But this seems to emphasize the fact that trust between players is a key element to an ttrpg unlike video and board games with more defined rules. Not only because of dm discretion as the referee and final arbiter of the rules, but also because of ‘problem players’ of various kinds. I think without that trust and level of communication rpgs are not worth playing. Story games do a good job of providing advice for both gms and players for how to approach the social situation of playing an rpg.

Eh, there's issues of degree here. I won't play with a GM who I don't trust their intentions; I don't have unlimited trust in any GM's judgment, nor do I expect players to when I'm GMing.

 

[overgeeked]

A well-written ruleset can be an asset to a new dm and group, but it can also hinder them if it's too extensive. I mean, look at this (from 2e):


View attachment 142434View attachment 142435

Or the infamous grappling rules from 3e. I actually wonder if those sorts of rules were actually ever correctly used RAW, including by the designers.

Ultimately, the "skill" of being a dm is a social one, which is where we get a most common current dm advice (move the spotlight, say yes and, keep the game moving). I think a game's published content can include that advice to help, and there are many storygames that emphasize that the dm is also a player, that, unlike in dnd, everyone's fun doesn't have to just be on their shoulders.

Cough. Grapple in 3E. Cough.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though grapple is always the low-hanging fruit; even in otherwise well designed systems its hard to find grapple rules that work right or aren't overly complex even by the standard of the system they're in, or both.

Of course its also something that anyone without a fair bit of experience in wrestling is unlikely to even get half right, so...

 

[Cadence]

Though grapple is always the low-hanging fruit; even in otherwise well designed systems its hard to find grapple rules that work right or aren't overly complex even by the standard of the system they're in, or both.

Of course its also something that anyone without a fair bit of experience in wrestling is unlikely to even get half right, so...

The one I always wonder about is if there is a way to put in rules for knocking someone out by surprise (like in all the crime noir books, movies, and radio shows) into D&D.

 

[overgeeked]

The one I always wonder about is if there is a way to put in rules for knocking someone out by surprise (like in all the crime noir books, movies, and radio shows) into D&D.

Treat everyone as a minion when they’re out of combat and/or unprepared for a fight, sleeping, etc. Minions are one hit to kill. You can do non-lethal damage instead of killing someone outright. That covers slitting someone’s throat and the pistol grip to the melon to knock em out. Just don’t slit the PCs’ throats...too often.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The one I always wonder about is if there is a way to put in rules for knocking someone out by surprise (like in all the crime noir books, movies, and radio shows) into D&D.

In practice, it should be about as easy as outright killing someone from surprise, given it sidesteps hit points.

 

[teitan]

So, one reason we don't simplify 5e is because it's easier just to run a simpler game than to simplify 5e?

Does 5e butt up against actual rules-light games, which leaves room for adding rules but not subtracting them?

By the way, I'm seeing some good conversations here that might be carried into their own threads...

That’s not what I said. I was trying to imply 5e is already simple, in some cases simpler than those games. 5e, for D&D, is pretty rules light and yes does butt against rules light games such as the ones I listed, because, aside from DCC, those games are a part of what 5e was designed to compete against with the success of OSR games.