WotC "dumbs-down" stuff? What's bad with it?

[WhatGravitas]

Hmm... sometimes, I read that on boards, that WotC tends to "dumb-down" material, like with the new statblock. And usually, this is used to complain. And I'm curious... why are people complaining about "dumbing-down" or simplifying stuff?

After all, ease of use is usually seen as accessibility, thus as something good, since complexity for complexity's sake is definitively not a virtue.

Actually, I've head a certain politician saying "A good tax reform should fit on a beer mat!" (okay, that's actually somewhat muddy in translation, but you get the gist)

Yet I hear people saying stuff is "dumbed-down" or "made for those kiddies"... so I'm curious: Where's the problem?

 

[Crothian]

People like to think of RPGs as something smart people do thus meaning they are smart since they play. Making the game simple enough for everyone defeats this. There is an elitist attitude with gaming that seems to rather common no matter what the system being played is.

 

[Roman]

Hmm... sometimes, I read that on boards, that WotC tends to "dumb-down" material, like with the new statblock. And usually, this is used to complain. And I'm curious... why are people complaining about "dumbing-down" or simplifying stuff?

After all, ease of use is usually seen as accessibility, thus as something good, since complexity for complexity's sake is definitively not a virtue.

Actually, I've head a certain politician saying "A good tax reform should fit on a beer mat!" (okay, that's actually somewhat muddy in translation, but you get the gist)

Yet I hear people saying stuff is "dumbed-down" or "made for those kiddies"... so I'm curious: Where's the problem?

I don't use the terminology 'dumbing down', but simplification can sometimes annoy me. I like complexity, for example, when it provides diverse character options, when it enables more satisfactory 'simulation' of something than a simple mechanic, and when the complex rules evoke a certain feel that I like (and yes, rules CAN evoke or facilitate a type of feel in a game). That does not mean I always oppose simplification, particularly when the conditions I mentioned above can be retained, but it does mean that I can oppose simplification sometimes.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I don't use the terminology 'dumbing down', but simplification can sometimes annoy me. I like complexity, for example, when it provides diverse character options, when it enables more satisfactory 'simulation' of something than a simple mechanic, and when the complex rules evoke a certain feel that I like (and yes, rules CAN evoke or facilitate a type of feel in a game). That does not mean I always oppose simplification, particularly when the conditions I mentioned above can be retained, but it does mean that I can oppose simplification sometimes.

Your sentence about sometimes liking simplification is too complicated. Can you simplify that?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

D&D has always been a pretty bad system for simulation, beyond broad strokes.

 

[EricNoah]

I for one appreciate any change in the game that reduces my need for on-the-fly math calculations. Some call that sort of thing "dumbing down." But I was never very good at those timed math tests and it just slows down my ability to run the game!

 

[Stalker0]

Simplification, when used to streamline or speed up the game is often a good idea. However, when mechanics are sacrificed in the name of simplification problems can occur.

A very good example is 3.5 Power Attack. WOTC felt that power attack needed an upgrade, and a good balance would be -1/+1.5 for TWO handers, -1/+.5 for light weapons. However, they changed it to -1/+2 and -1/+0 because they felt the math was too complicated. In this scenario, simplification was promoted above balance, to the deteriment of all in my opinion.

 

[Razz]

Hmm... sometimes, I read that on boards, that WotC tends to "dumb-down" material, like with the new statblock. And usually, this is used to complain. And I'm curious... why are people complaining about "dumbing-down" or simplifying stuff?

After all, ease of use is usually seen as accessibility, thus as something good, since complexity for complexity's sake is definitively not a virtue.

Actually, I've head a certain politician saying "A good tax reform should fit on a beer mat!" (okay, that's actually somewhat muddy in translation, but you get the gist)

Yet I hear people saying stuff is "dumbed-down" or "made for those kiddies"... so I'm curious: Where's the problem?

The real problem with the simplifying is not that the act of simplifying is bad at all. No, I am glad they simplify things.

It's when they have to add a million pages to one aspect in order to simplify it. Good examples are:

New Prestige Class Format
Oodles of pages used per prestige class just to tell you,"ROLE PLAY!"

New Monster Format
Tons of more pages used to say,"MAKE YOUR WORLD MORE REALISTIC! THE COLOR OF THE CREATURE'S FECES MIGHT BE IMPORTANT!"

Maps and Encounters in All Books
Tons of pages used to simplify things and telling you,"HERE'S A TON OF MAPS WE'LL MAKE YOU PAY FOR SO YOU KNOW HOW TO MAKE ONE, THEN WE'LL OFFER IT FREE ON OUR WEBSITE. OH, AND HERE'S SOME ENCOUNTERS FOR YOU SINCE YOU'RE CONFUSED ON HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER EAT THE PLAYERS"

That about sums up some of it. So, yeah. Simplifying things is ok, but don't take up more page count and space to do so. It can easily be done the way it was back in 3.0

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I didn't like it cause I was use to the old format and was pretty good at using it. The new format didn't really feel like an improvement, just different. And change for change's sake is a bad thing.
Though I do appreciate when they write down a good attack routine/strategy for some of the more complicated critters, I wish they'd do that with more of them.

Doesn't really matter for me though 'cause the only book I own with the new stat block format is DMG2

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yet I hear people saying stuff is "dumbed-down" or "made for those kiddies"... so I'm curious: Where's the problem?

What kind of person says these things?

Therein lies your answer, probably.