For a long time now, I've heard people talk about how 5e is much simpler than it's predecesors. It's not just conjecture, WotC have openly said before that they streamlined the rules to try and make it more accessible to more people, and considering the rise in players over the last decade, it's undoubtedly worked.

I'm curious, though, to see how many people prefer the simplistic approach, vs how many like there to be more complexity and depth? Personally I like systems that have a little complexity to them. I'm the kind of person that spent a whole day organising my junk when they introduced the inventory managment so everything was in the right place. Hell, I'm writing a homebrew campaign and spent 6 months entirely reworking the 5e economy from the ground up!

So what do you think? Is a simple straight line the way to go? Or do you like a few twists and turns along the way?

Edit: To be clear, I'm specifically talking in terms of D&D and it's offshoots like Pathfinder, since they use them same basic foundation. There are a myriad of TTRPG games out there, much of them vastly different, so I don't think it's a fair comparrison.

3.5 and Pathfinder were too much. 5e is not enough. Something with a simpler, trimmer base system like 5e with tons character classes and options like PF would be the cat’s pajamas IMHO.

The sample of people in this forum (I would guess) are likely to prefer more complexity :)

It is tough because I think a simple system makes everything more accessible and can be an easy way to introduce a system. At the same time, if everyone is playing the same generic heroes, then it loses the reason to play in the first place, creating a unique experience with the ability to shape yourself into anything you can imagine. Early DnD had that issue with your choice limitations and the gaming community has evolved so much that something that simplistic (with the obvious exception of figuring out your Thac0, haha) feels like you are limiting your imagination and creativity too much. Balance is the biggest issue, because you end up with a bunch of PAM built fighter style characters offset with a bunch of what ever is a PAM build for casters.

I personally enjoy more complexity in creating as close to the exact fantasy as I have in my head, then working with the DM to see how close I can get without breaking their storytelling.

I like simple mechanics. Mechanics basically get in the way of everything else - in the way of the game. I've tried a few times to introduce a bare-bones system in my group, with awful results. Turns out, my group cannot really function without the complexity. Give them a clean slate - you can play anything, be anything, put together whatever skills and abilities you like, hell, even name them what you please - and they quite simply don't know what to do. Too much freedom.

But give them a straitjacket of classes and subclasses and skills and abilities, where they can only move distributions around, they thrive like bloody shrooms in the dark, mudgrubbing peasants that they are =)

So nothing can ever just be easy, right. I can't have the game I want, because my silly friends require a bit of direction to find their way. Pfft :p

Quote from Acromos >>

I like simple mechanics. Mechanics basically get in the way of everything else - in the way of the game. I've tried a few times to introduce a bare-bones system in my group, with awful results. Turns out, my group cannot really function without the complexity. Give them a clean slate - you can play anything, be anything, put together whatever skills and abilities you like, hell, even name them what you please - and they quite simply don't know what to do. Too much freedom.

But give them a straitjacket of classes and subclasses and skills and abilities, where they can only move distributions around, they thrive like bloody shrooms in the dark, mudgrubbing peasants that they are =)

So nothing can ever just be easy, right. I can't have the game I want, because my silly friends require a bit of direction to find their way. Pfft :p

 I understand this all too well from their perspective. It's like with games like Minecraft - plop me down in a server with complete freedom to create whatever I want, and my brain just bluescreens and crashes 😅

I do love the irony of that, though. Give your characters complete freedom and they freeze, but try to limit them and they'll defeat the BBEG with a paperclip, a llama and an industrial sized vat of glitter 🤣

I prefer simpler to overcomplex system. To me 5E strikes a good balance between the two.

A balance between complexity/restrictions and simplicity/freedom is what makes RPGs RPGs.

Too much simplicity, too much freedom, and you drop the G... it just becomes RP. Victories can feel hollow because of a lack of any real challenge, players can be confused and directionless, and creativity can fester into utter nonsense. You can't be creative with and make the most of what you have if you can have whatever you want. There's a reason people don't write books by getting a bunch of writers into a room, assigning them each a character, and then giving them all complete control of the script.

Too much complexity, too many restrictions, and suddenly there's not really RP; just G. Sure, on a mechanical level it might be more put-together and organized, but if you're at the point where you can only do what your sheet says you can do... where did all the creativity go? Where are the fun solutions? At that point, people start to forget all the potential a paperclip, a llama, and an industrial sized vat of glitter can have. On top of that, a lack of character to your character removes any reason to even want to win for a lot of people.

Of course, there are RPGs all across the spectrum of complexity and simplicity. For me, the sweet spot probably leans a bit more to complexity. I need a solid amount of structure to really sink my teeth, and I can't stand rules-lites. That being said, I'm opposed to rules for the point of rules- I don't need a five-tiered proficiency system for my Use Rope skill. I'd say 5e is pretty damn close to where I want, maybe just needing some extra rules here or there. Honestly, though, it could also use some simplifying in places like weather.

I guess it depends on how you define the terms. I wouldn’t go back to the 1/2/3 e era of D&D complexity. I wouldn’t mind just a touch more crunch in 5e, but that said, I’m pretty happy with this edition. It’s not perfect, but it’s really in a sweet spot. 

Quote from LilithFairen >>

It's not a question of one or the other, but rather "approachable, yet with depth".

 This!

Unfortunately, I think your question is flawed.

Complexity in game systems varies a lot. 5e is complex compared to some of the really rules light role playing systems out there. Some of those have very little in the way of stats or dice. On the other hand 5e is relatively simple compared to 3.5e/Pathfinder, 2e or even AD&D. AD&D had significantly more detail and complexity than 5e plus some unwieldy design ideas. However, 3.5e/Pathfinder aren't as complex as Rolemaster (I think that one .. I have the books for it but haven't played it much) or some of the other systems that have dice, stats and rules for almost everything.

So when you ask "Complex or Simple" ... I have to say neither, since the really complex and really simple games don't have much appeal to me (for opposite reasons). I like 5e because it is a rules medium to lighter game. There are parts of the rules that could use some refinement but overall 5e is a good and accessible system that is relatively easier to explain to newcomers than the earlier versions while retaining the same flavor and feel as the earlier versions.

I'd probably rate rules as the following:

Hard core (rules for everything)

Challenging (rules for most things)

Middle of the road (rules for some but not all things - 5e is likely in this category)

Easier (limited rules for specific interactions)

Simple (minimalist rules only - GM and players fill in the blanks and make most things up as they go along)

So, for me, just saying Simple and Complex is far from sufficient.

Quote from David42 >>

Unfortunately, I think your question is flawed.

I thought the question was clear, but my apologies if not - I meant in comparrison to earlier editions. I don't care about "Blades in the Dark" or "Call of Cthulu" in this context, because while they might be TTRPG's, their foundations are completely different. I'm talking specifically about D&D and D&D-like games, so Pathfinder could reasonably be included since it uses the same foundation. In that context, you've confirmed that 5e is the simplest in comparrison.

I find this hard to answer, because while I'd prefer the base game to be a lot simpler and even more streamlined, there also needs to be enough complexity to characters to keep them mechanically interesting.

The thing I find most difficult in 5e is when you play a character that feels like it's getting stuck in a rut and just doing the same thing every round, because they either don't have much in the way of options (like Barbarians or Fighters can) or the options you have just aren't good enough to be worth using most of the time.