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

[Argyle King]

No, it's really not. Like really, really not "harder and more complex" for the GM to run a game like that. It's infinitely easier. I do that kind of minimalistic gaming regularly. It's far more of a chore to worry about the complexity of the system as written than to make a call and/or declare a DC and push forward. If the GM and players know the world well, you can get a game up and running inside of five minutes (including character creation). If you're worrying about game books and mechanics, it'll take you longer than that just to talk about which game system to play.

It is simplifying because instead of wondering what the rule book says about physics and how the game differs from physics, you can start with everyone's rough idea of cause and effect and just get on with it. It's only things that change physics that take a moment longer to suss out. If you can't agree, pick some dice and make an opposed roll. Whoever wins is right and that's how it plays out. And you move on. Remembering all the ways the game mechanics break physics is a lot more of a mental load.

ETA: If you roleplay your character as person living in a real-to-them world, the game mechanics don't matter. So you don't need to worry about them. Not only do you not need to know them, you mostly don't need to have any. If knowing the game mechanics will change the decisions you make for your character, that's metagaming, and playing to the rules of the game rather than playing a person living in a real-to-them world.

I think it can be a barrier to play a character living in a real-to-them world if there's a lot of ambiguity concerning how that world works.

I agree with that approach to playing a character. Though, personally, I find that having some general understanding of how the world works helps in that endeavor more-so than it hurts.

A lot of the issues I have when trying to teach D&D to newer players is that how D&D says something works sometimes greatly differs from how they would imagine or intuit that a situation would play out.

 

[overgeeked]

I think it can be a barrier to play a character living in a real-to-them world if there's a lot of ambiguity concerning how that world works.

Which is why having a solid understanding of how the world works first is so important. D&D is its own genre. It’s not really emulated in anything else but D&D. But when you grab a group of friends who are Avatar fans, Star Wars fans, or Star Trek fans and sit down to play in those worlds you can be up and running in minutes.

I agree with that approach to playing a character. Though, personally, I find that having some general understanding of how the world works helps in that endeavor more-so than it hurts.

Right. No one’s saying the player can’t or shouldn’t know how the world works. Dig into the setting to understand how the world works. The mechanics should support and emulate the world. If they don’t they’re badly designed rules and should be tossed. Default to everyone’s basic understanding of the real world and change things from there. This causes a lot of confusion for D&D players because to a large degree, with D&D the mechanics are the world.

A lot of the issues I have when trying to teach D&D to newer players is that how D&D says something works sometimes greatly differs from how they would imagine or intuit that a situation would play out.

Exactly. It’s a big problem. Which is why you should ditch those bits of the D&D rules and go with the players’ understanding of the real world first, then add in the fantastic elements on top of that.

You get a lot more understanding and engagement a lot faster when the players grok the world. The world is vastly more important than the rules. If you talk to a non-player and say D&D they might vaguely know what that is or what an RPG is. But they will draw a blank on the world and how it works. If you say Lord of the Rings, they’ll most likely know exactly what you mean. Then you’ll have to spend a heap of time explaining all the ways D&D is not LotR.

New players are hit with both barrels because they don’t know how the world works or how the game works. The mechanics don’t emulate a recognizable world to most. Even fantasy fans can have a hard time with the D&Disms.

But if you start with a world they know and understand and/or one that works mostly like the one they’re most familiar with, then they don’t have anywhere near as much confusion. You don’t have to say “you can try anything” as many times. Or remind them that the answer isn’t on the character sheet or in the rule book. The answer is what makes sense for your character in that world. Not what the rules tell you your character can do. D&D has built itself into this unique thing, so much so it required a lot of explaining. Which is sometimes good and sometimes bad...especially bad with onboarding new players.

 

[Argyle King]

Which is why having a solid understanding of how the world works first is so important. D&D is its own genre. It’s not really emulated in anything else but D&D. But when you grab a group of friends who are Avatar fans, Star Wars fans, or Star Trek fans and sit down to play in those worlds you can be up and running in minutes.

Right. No one’s saying the player can’t or shouldn’t know how the world works. Dig into the setting to understand how the world works. The mechanics should support and emulate the world. If they don’t they’re badly designed rules and should be tossed. Default to everyone’s basic understanding of the real world and change things from there. This causes a lot of confusion for D&D players because to a large degree, with D&D the mechanics are the world.

Exactly. It’s a big problem. Which is why you should ditch those bits of the D&D rules and go with the players’ understanding of the real world first, then add in the fantastic elements on top of that.

You get a lot more understanding and engagement a lot faster when the players grok the world. The world is vastly more important than the rules. If you talk to a non-player and say D&D they might vaguely know what that is or what an RPG is. But they will draw a blank on the world and how it works. If you say Lord of the Rings, they’ll most likely know exactly what you mean. Then you’ll have to spend a heap of time explaining all the ways D&D is not LotR.

New players are hit with both barrels because they don’t know how the world works or how the game works. The mechanics don’t emulate a recognizable world to most. Even fantasy fans can have a hard time with the D&Disms.

But if you start with a world they know and understand and/or one that works mostly like the one they’re most familiar with, then they don’t have anywhere near as much confusion. You don’t have to say “you can try anything” as many times. Or remind them that the answer isn’t on the character sheet or in the rule book. The answer is what makes sense for your character in that world. Not what the rules tell you your character can do. D&D has built itself into this unique thing, so much so it required a lot of explaining. Which is sometimes good and sometimes bad...especially bad with onboarding new players.

I agree with most of this.

I had misunderstood your previous post.

 

[ART!]

I think not expecting people who are trained (possibly self-trained) in trad games to have an issue with the constraints assumed on the GM in most incarnations of PbtA is a pretty big reach though (I won't speak of Blades in the Dark because I'm not familiar with it). In many respects they're much less top down and GM-authority than most trad games.

[raises hand]

I have lots of experience running D&D and D&D-ish games, and struggled so hard with Masks (which I will point out is an amazing system at doing what it sets out to do. I love it.) that I had to give up after several sessions. The storytelling approaches are very different, and basically a lot of my instincts were useless and even an active hindrance.

 

[Jaeger]

The fact they didn't in the cases you saw is not an indicator that a routine rank and file D&D GM would not run into big expectation problems with them.

Neither is your opinion that they will.

Eh. I think the fine line of demarkation a lot of people draw there is illusory. You might be able to easily tell at one extreme or the other, but there are plenty of games that meet in the middle to some degree at least.

I think that it is rather straightforward to parse them. We obviously disagree.

We are talking about the edge cases anyway.

A former D&D GM is far more likely to try one of the many other RPG's that has a similar play paradigm to what they are already doing.

i.e. Long standing D&D alternates: CoC, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Vampire, WHFRP, current version of Star Wars, etc. (Free League and 2d20 games are getting noteworthy now as well due to the IP they have.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Neither is your opinion that they will.

We've had at least one poster indicate it did for him, so I'd say my view is at least as valid as yours

I think that it is rather straightforward to parse them. We obviously disagree.

We are talking about the edge cases anyway.

A former D&D GM is far more likely to try one of the many other RPG's that has a similar play paradigm to what they are already doing.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Often people moving away from D&D are trying to get away from elements of it, so they're going to look for things that look pretty different. If they just want a different genre, its pretty much possible to find a D&D based game for almost any genre now.

i.e. Long standing D&D alternates: CoC, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Vampire, WHFRP, current version of Star Wars, etc. (Free League and 2d20 games are getting noteworthy now as well due to the IP they have.)

I think I'd argue that in and of themselves even though they are technically trad games, at least two of those (CoC and Vampire) have traits that are going to require someone to get part way out of the D&D mindset to engage with them (you can very much argue that SR and Cyberpunk just have reskinned the typical D&D adventure in different contexts for what they usually do).

And that's not even getting into how some of D&D's mechanical assumptions if internalized will bite you pretty hard with a number of those games.

 

[jgsugden]

If you think rules are the problem, I challenge you to go play some version of Dread with friends. It is as rule light as you get with a built in luck element.

Here is my modified version of it that I play via Zoom with my friends.

Everyone gets a Jenga tower and sets it up on camera.

Then, a GM tells the players a premise. My last premise was that one of the PCs was headed off to a Cabin in the Woods to spend a weekend with their relative, a famous archaeologist. They were going to bring some friends for the weekend. However, the archaeologist relative was supposed to call them and let them know what groceries to bring and has not called them. If you get an Evil Dead vibe - that is intentional.

The GM then asks the players to make up a character that they'll describe in about 30 seconds (an elevator pitch). In my example above, one player was to build that PC, and the other players would build PCs that either join that PC on the trip, or are already near the cabin. One player ran the relative's boyfriend, another ran the boyfriend's little brother, another ran a convict from a nearby prison that escaped into the woods, and the last wanted to run the relative that was already at the cabin.

The GM then begins the story and folds in the characters, quickly. The GM gives the PCs threatening situations that they need to survive. Every time they do something, the DM will ask them to pull a number of Jenga pieces and put them on the top of their tower. The number they will pull is a reflection of the difficulty of what they attempt to do. If a tower collapses, it is a disaster for the PC (usually death). If it doesn't, they succeed. For example, the PCs might need to jump start a car. That requires one pull. If the tower falls, the PC is electrocuted when the malevolent spirit of the Cabin in the Woods, moves the cable.

To keep players in the game, once their tower fails they reconstruct it. Whenever a living player pulls a piece, they also pull a piece. If their tower falls, it is a disaster for the survivors as well (but usually not death - just added complications). Every 10th piece they pull allows them to introduce something into the story that benefits the survivors. In that story, the young brother had died when a tree monster attacked him and his tower fell, but when he pulled his tenth piece he decided that his brother had his pocket knife, which allowed the brother to remove a door.

The game ends when the PCs meet some pre-established criteria, or when the group is all dead.

Everything in this game is GM adjudication except the tower pulling. It is a lot of fun. The GM is improvising constantly because the GM doesn't even know what the PCs are going to be playing. This style of game is a great exercise for players that focus on the rules or depend upon rules for their fun.

 

[Jaeger]

We've had at least one poster indicate it did for him, so I'd say my view is at least as valid as yours

Opinions will vary.

Often people moving away from D&D are trying to get away from elements of it, so they're going to look for things that look pretty different. If they just want a different genre, its pretty much possible to find a D&D based game for almost any genre now.

IMHO mostly they'll try something they have heard about from someone they know who has been into RPG's for a lot longer. So the odds are in favor of one of the legacy alternates I mentioned.

Of course there are always exceptions.

I think I'd argue that in and of themselves even though they are technically trad games, at least two of those (CoC and Vampire) have traits that are going to require someone to get part way out of the D&D mindset to engage with them (you can very much argue that SR and Cyberpunk just have reskinned the typical D&D adventure in different contexts for what they usually do).

Unless one's thinking it totally ossified, I just do not see the issue.

It is simple a matter of understanding the mechanical differences in the new rule set. CoC, Vampire, SR, and Cyberpunk are all straight forward RPG rule sets.

And that's not even getting into how some of D&D's mechanical assumptions if internalized will bite you pretty hard with a number of those games.

If, and, or but... One could come up with infinite scenario's.

If one's thinking of what is an RPG is so straightjacketed by D&D's mechanical rules, then I will take with a grain of salt any claim that they would be a good GM to play under at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Opinions will vary.

Obviously.

IMHO mostly they'll try something they have heard about from someone they know who has been into RPG's for a lot longer. So the odds are in favor of one of the legacy alternates I mentioned.

The problem with that is in some areas, someone has to try first, and they're heavily dominated by D&D so there's not necessarily anyone who knows more than they do (which can create some problems if you want to try something new, don't want to GM, and aren't willing to play virtually, but that's the same as its ever been).

Of course there are always exceptions.

I'm simply unconvinced in a lot of cases this is the default, especially these days when its easy to learn about games no one has played locally.

Unless one's thinking it totally ossified, I just do not see the issue.

Neither do I, but I think more people drop well and deeply into a rut than I suspect you do.

It is simple a matter of understanding the mechanical differences in the new rule set. CoC, Vampire, SR, and Cyberpunk are all straight forward RPG rule sets.

Its not about the rules (though going from the particulars of D&D which have a notable degree of stylization present in few other games that are not derivatives from those is not, I think, as trivial for many people as you're suggesting), but learning that you just can't run CoC or Vampire in the same mindset as D&D and have it go well (as I noted, you probably can do that to some extent with SR or Cyberpunk)

If, and, or but... One could come up with infinite scenario's.

If one's thinking of what is an RPG is so straightjacketed by D&D's mechanical rules, then I will take with a grain of salt any claim that they would be a good GM to play under at all.

You might be right, but I've seen enough of it (and people transitioning specifically talking about their problems with it) over the years to stand by my position that its extremely common.

(Its not just limited to D&D either; people used to one particular game both in system and the type of things you do in it will often have trouble going to the next one unless they do it early. Its just that the nature of the beast means a very large percentage of people who have that situation are going to come form D&D just because of the reality of where people tend to enter the hobby).

 

[ART!]

You can do short and snappy spell descriptions that are much more precise that Thom's example, though. This is the full description of Sleep in 5 Torches Deep:

"2HD/level worth of targets in 30’ fall asleep. Attack. 8 hrs"

All the spells are like that, and it means all 60 spells in the core rulebook fit on two pages.

1000 times this.

Complete-sentence prose is nice and all, but there's a lot to be said for defining some terms and structure, and then just rattling off the essentials.