Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7570167" data-attributes="member: 20564">There are a few different parts to "complexity".You bring up AD&D 2nd Ed.  It had a profusion of different ways to resolve issues, separate subsystems for so many different things, all that had to be looked up (or ignored, like weapon against armor types).  Moving to a unified mechanic removes a load of complexity and speeds the game without watering down the system or removing choice at all.But yes, there is a shift in design paradigms as the industry has matured.  3.x ed tried to be a simulation, where there were rules laid out for everything.  What are the effects on your AC for being waist deep in water, etc.  For a computer system, having all of these well defined to know when to apply them would be good - for most normal players it meant time spent referencing rules instead of actually playing them.Another part of the complexity of 3.x was around character creation and advancement.  With more players than DMs, books with player crunch sold well, and the business model wanted one a month.  Combine this with the heavy use of prerequisites and the fact that multiclassing into Prestige Classes gave a lot more than staying in the core classes (except for some pure casters) it ended up that the level of complexity really favored building characters all the way up to 20th before starting play, referencing over a dozen books so they you wouldn't miss the requirements for feat X and have to wait 3 more levels, because that would push back getting into prestige class Y, which in part gave you a particular class skill so your max skill ranks would be enough to get into prestige class Z.Combine that while players focus on only a single character and welcome complexity, since foes were build on the same system it put a very heavy prep load on the DM.  And less DMs means less games.4e moved from attempting to simulating realism to an approach where the mechanics focused first on proving a balanced game.  Some would say too far, and combined with other design choices ended up causing a schism in the player base.Having a system that is both friendly toward growing the hobby, plus one that gets out of the way to let us play instead of constantly trying to find and reference specific corner case rules, is where they went with 5e.  It's a balanced compromise, and looking at the published numbers about what games are being played out there it has a lot more active games then the older systems so that seems the right business decision.  There are definitely people who miss the abundant meat for character creation that the one-book-per-month brought, but from a business plan perspective in earlier editions they have shared that only the core books were evergreen, keeping up regular sales.  The other books, which cost as much to design, produce, get art, layout, edit, print and distribute, had an initial spike but then settled down at a much lower level.  On the other hand the 5e model of fewer books coming out has kept them perennially selling well, as well as allowing more time for quality.So, with an aging original player base who have less time, with greater growth of new players than earlier editions, and with a more stately publishing plan, lighter rules and streamlined play is where we are.  There are plenty of other systems out there for those that enjoy other niches.</blockquote>

Verification