A lot of the longest discussions here currently center around a debate over simplicity vs complexity. On whether certain classes need changes, whether the changes already in the UAs are enough, or whether they go too far and sacrifice flavor, and so on. But very few of us seem to be speaking the same design language, making these topics very hard to make productive.
I think it's important to understand that everyone means something different when they say a rule is 'simple' or 'complex.' These terms can apply to many very different aspects of the game's design. And that can lead to very different gut reactions to hearing them, based on what each individual is imagining.
Here are some examples. They are based only on my own experiences with running and playing many different RPGs over the years, with a wide range of player experience levels. I've played at least 6 versions of DnD, the original Middle Earth rpg, Rolemaster, RIFTs, most of the White Wolf games, the old West End Games star wars rpg, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, homebrew games, indie games, a multitude of wargames, etc. So I've seen a lot of different approaches to mechanics. That by no means makes me an expert, nor does it give any more weight to my opinions. I just want to better explain where my experiences come from. I'm also drawing on the various opinions I've seen repeated here.
I'm going to list some different types of simplicity and complexity, and common opinions associated with them. These will in no way encompass every possible scenario or individual experience, so if it doesn't match your view, I encourage everyone to provide more examples.
Types of simplicity vs complexity:
Options During Character Creation - choices that have to be made when you create a character, or level them up. These include backgrounds, races, classes, abilities, feats, skills, spells, and so on. Simplicity here means limited options. It is often favored by new players who can be overwhelmed by choice. Or older players that just want to start playing. A system that favors simplicity here has the advantage of quick character creation, ease of introduction, and balance. Complexity here means having many options. It is often favored by experienced players and optimizers, who know the game well and are looking for fun new combinations. A system that favors complexity here has the advantage of versatility and replayability.
Options During Play - choices that have to be made in the middle of an encounter. Attack options, spell options, ways to interact with NPCs and the environment. Simplicity here means few choices to make. It is again easier for new players, or for people who want fast casual games with quick turns. Complexity here means many choices to be made. It generally appeals to experienced players who are bored after many games, or those who want something they consider more 'realistic.'
Verisimilitude - how closely a player feels the rules capture 'realism,' in the context of the game world. This includes things like variable ACs, special weapon rules, tables for gathering herbs, cycles of the moon, detailed movement modifiers, etc. Simplicity here often sacrifices verisimilitude in favor of ease of play. Complexity creates a great deal of nuance to try to capture a more realistic scene, at the expense of gameplay. Preference here is largely individual. But those who favor more 'crunch' are usually the ones bored of the same old options, or highly invested in the fantasy of a living world. Those who want simplicity here usually feel the details are largely unimportant to the story and only slow things down.
Implicit and Explicit Rules - concerns whether or not an ability must be explicitly written to have value. A class might not have a specific feature listed to give them bonuses to climb walls. But if that class is one of the few that tends towards high Strength, and has Athletics proficiency, it will naturally be better at it than other classes in most cases. Spells are more Explicit rules. They are options that tell you exactly what they do. Expertise leans more towards the Implicit side of the scale. It tells you only that you are good at a wide range of general things, but not what encounters might make use of it in the future. People who value complexity here often mean more Explicit rules. Having options written on your character sheet makes them feel more real. People who value simplicity here feel like Implicit rules are more elegant, with wider applications. Both often miss the other side's advantages. Explicit rules can both expand options and limit them. Players who focus on Explicit abilities often don't see the options that are just implied. While Implicit options can open vastly more choices, but leave a player lost when they aren't obvious.
Mechanical Complexity - this concerns how much math and reading needs to go into using a feature. Often mechanical complexity occurs as a side effect of attempting Verisimilitude, adding Options, or Explicit benefits. This includes things like situational bonus and penalty calculations, additional dice pools or points to track, complex interactions based on positioning, terrain, and other effects. Mechanical complexity often tries to solve other problems, but can make them worse for everyone. This is the biggest roadblock to learning rules and playing fast games, and it's benefits are often an illusion. Many games have very complex mechanics that add nothing to the end results but more math and confusion. Mechanical Complexity is also a huge accessibility barrier to many players with different needs.
Hidden and Illusory Complexity - this covers everything that is not obvious at first glance, or sometimes even the fiftieth glance. Some rules appear to be simple and short, but they have a wide range of interactions that aren't clear upon reading. It's not always obvious how they will work in play. Or their related rules are covered in other parts of the PHB. Or even worse, their implications are only known if you read the DMG. These create pitfalls for many players, lead to confusion at the table, and slow everything down. Other rules seem complex, but it's only an illusion. All of the text and math amounts to very little in actual play. It can lead to a false sense of superiority over simple rules, while also confusing players. But the same, or similar, outcomes could be achieved with much more simple rules.
Dnd has experimented with tuning all of these dials in past editions. I personally think 5e found the best balance so far. And the new 1DnD appears to be giving people more of what made 5e popular. Character creation options are opened even more. Mechanics are being cleared up where there was ambiguity. Loopholes are being closed.
But these forums show that they have left some people still wanting more.
Some wish the character creation process had more options. Some want more options during encounters. Some want more Verisimilitude. Some want more Explicit rules. Some see mechanical complexity to be the answer to these problems. Everyone labels these requests as 'Complex,' because they are. But they are not all complex in the same way. Nor do they need to be.
And on the other side some are happy with the game where it is. Or they want the complex options to be made simpler for a variety of reasons. Whether it's accessibility for players, speed of play at the table, or game balance. These requests are being called 'Simple' for the same reasons the others are called 'Complex.' But they are simple in as many different ways. It doesn't always mean the same thing.
The best course of action is to offer as many advantages as possible, and avoid as many drawbacks. Everyone deserves to play this game, from new players to old, from casual storytellers to gritty simulationists. And I think most people can actually be satisfied to some degree, with some compromise and the right rules. 1DnD is on the right track, even with some hiccups. We just have to manage our expectations and consider everyone's needs.
The next edition of DnD will not be Pathfinder. It won't be ADnD 1e. It won't be Vampire the Masquerade. Those are all good things. It will be DnD 5e with some polish.
The trick they have to pull off is giving as many options as possible for people to live out their fantasies, without making them difficult. Complex options are needed, but with simple mechanics. Simple options are needed to avoid overwhelming, while also being engaging. It is entirely possible to make complex rules simple to understand and use. But only when the complexity is focused in the right places.
DnD 5e is built around these design principles when it comes to these topics:
Character Creation Options - High overall, but more limited for some specific classes. Options are Explicit (compared to games without classes)
Options During Play - varies between classes and subclasses
Verisimilitude - low, but usually functional enough for most games
Implicit vs Explicit - mostly Explicit, to the extent that it has become what is expected and Implicit benefits are often overlooked
Mechanical Complexity - low, with some exceptions that stand out in comparison
Hidden and Illusory Complexity - medium, caused by poor book formatting, natural language, and lack of examples
I imagine that 1DnD is going to look pretty much the same. What they seem to be doing is trying to patch some of these holes. When new options risk becoming overwhelming, like with Backgrounds and Prepared spells, they are offering sample choices for new players. Verisimilitude is unlikely to change, but it's working pretty well as is. Ambiguous mechanics are getting cleaned up. And hidden complexity is being addressed to some degree with features that have broader applications, defining certain interactions better, and using keywords.
The only place I see them offering a mixed bag is with Implicit and Explicit rules. I think this leads to people feeling like a class doesn't have much to offer, when it's really just not as easy to see. I think this is the place they could do the most work.
So when we look for improvements in the game, it's most useful to temper our expectations first with what kind of game this is. And next we need to be speaking the same technical language. So when one person asks for complexity or simplicity in one place, another person doesn't hear it as a different kind that they dislike. Because it is possible to write rules that give choices without confusing players. Options without mechanical complexity. Realism without math. Guidance without dumbing down. Balance without sameness. Interest without hidden pitfalls. Accessibility without boredom.
To me, the direction they need to focus is offering as many options to players as possible, while also making it as mechanically simple and easy to choose as possible. Expand without overwhelming. Make rules Explicit when possible, and when they aren't, explain the Implicit rule with examples of how it can be used. Make it clear what everyone is able to do in an encounter, no matter their class. Avoid the illusion of choice. Avoid the illusion of intersting complexity when it's really just a more complicated means to the same end. Avoid actual hidden complexity pitfalls when possible, and when it's not, make the player's assumptions be the correct answer. If a player picks a class based on a fantasy, it should fulfill that fantasy. Even if they don't know all the rules, or if the implications are hidden, the natural way they play it should work correctly.
Hopefully this will help these discussions going forward. Both to understand where the game is going, and to talk about complexity with more nuance. Please remember that everyone on this forum is a real person, and try to treat each other with respect. In the words of Treantmonk, DnD is for everyone.
A lot of the longest discussions here currently center around a debate over simplicity vs complexity. On whether certain classes need changes, whether the changes already in the UAs are enough, or whether they go too far and sacrifice flavor, and so on. But very few of us seem to be speaking the same design language, making these topics very hard to make productive.
I think it's important to understand that everyone means something different when they say a rule is 'simple' or 'complex.' These terms can apply to many very different aspects of the game's design. And that can lead to very different gut reactions to hearing them, based on what each individual is imagining.
Here are some examples. They are based only on my own experiences with running and playing many different RPGs over the years, with a wide range of player experience levels. I've played at least 6 versions of DnD, the original Middle Earth rpg, Rolemaster, RIFTs, most of the White Wolf games, the old West End Games star wars rpg, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, homebrew games, indie games, a multitude of wargames, etc. So I've seen a lot of different approaches to mechanics. That by no means makes me an expert, nor does it give any more weight to my opinions. I just want to better explain where my experiences come from. I'm also drawing on the various opinions I've seen repeated here.
I'm going to list some different types of simplicity and complexity, and common opinions associated with them. These will in no way encompass every possible scenario or individual experience, so if it doesn't match your view, I encourage everyone to provide more examples.
Types of simplicity vs complexity:
Options During Character Creation - choices that have to be made when you create a character, or level them up. These include backgrounds, races, classes, abilities, feats, skills, spells, and so on. Simplicity here means limited options. It is often favored by new players who can be overwhelmed by choice. Or older players that just want to start playing. A system that favors simplicity here has the advantage of quick character creation, ease of introduction, and balance. Complexity here means having many options. It is often favored by experienced players and optimizers, who know the game well and are looking for fun new combinations. A system that favors complexity here has the advantage of versatility and replayability.
Options During Play - choices that have to be made in the middle of an encounter. Attack options, spell options, ways to interact with NPCs and the environment. Simplicity here means few choices to make. It is again easier for new players, or for people who want fast casual games with quick turns. Complexity here means many choices to be made. It generally appeals to experienced players who are bored after many games, or those who want something they consider more 'realistic.'
Verisimilitude - how closely a player feels the rules capture 'realism,' in the context of the game world. This includes things like variable ACs, special weapon rules, tables for gathering herbs, cycles of the moon, detailed movement modifiers, etc. Simplicity here often sacrifices verisimilitude in favor of ease of play. Complexity creates a great deal of nuance to try to capture a more realistic scene, at the expense of gameplay. Preference here is largely individual. But those who favor more 'crunch' are usually the ones bored of the same old options, or highly invested in the fantasy of a living world. Those who want simplicity here usually feel the details are largely unimportant to the story and only slow things down.
Implicit and Explicit Rules - concerns whether or not an ability must be explicitly written to have value. A class might not have a specific feature listed to give them bonuses to climb walls. But if that class is one of the few that tends towards high Strength, and has Athletics proficiency, it will naturally be better at it than other classes in most cases. Spells are more Explicit rules. They are options that tell you exactly what they do. Expertise leans more towards the Implicit side of the scale. It tells you only that you are good at a wide range of general things, but not what encounters might make use of it in the future. People who value complexity here often mean more Explicit rules. Having options written on your character sheet makes them feel more real. People who value simplicity here feel like Implicit rules are more elegant, with wider applications. Both often miss the other side's advantages. Explicit rules can both expand options and limit them. Players who focus on Explicit abilities often don't see the options that are just implied. While Implicit options can open vastly more choices, but leave a player lost when they aren't obvious.
Mechanical Complexity - this concerns how much math and reading needs to go into using a feature. Often mechanical complexity occurs as a side effect of attempting Verisimilitude, adding Options, or Explicit benefits. This includes things like situational bonus and penalty calculations, additional dice pools or points to track, complex interactions based on positioning, terrain, and other effects. Mechanical complexity often tries to solve other problems, but can make them worse for everyone. This is the biggest roadblock to learning rules and playing fast games, and it's benefits are often an illusion. Many games have very complex mechanics that add nothing to the end results but more math and confusion. Mechanical Complexity is also a huge accessibility barrier to many players with different needs.
Hidden and Illusory Complexity - this covers everything that is not obvious at first glance, or sometimes even the fiftieth glance. Some rules appear to be simple and short, but they have a wide range of interactions that aren't clear upon reading. It's not always obvious how they will work in play. Or their related rules are covered in other parts of the PHB. Or even worse, their implications are only known if you read the DMG. These create pitfalls for many players, lead to confusion at the table, and slow everything down. Other rules seem complex, but it's only an illusion. All of the text and math amounts to very little in actual play. It can lead to a false sense of superiority over simple rules, while also confusing players. But the same, or similar, outcomes could be achieved with much more simple rules.
Dnd has experimented with tuning all of these dials in past editions. I personally think 5e found the best balance so far. And the new 1DnD appears to be giving people more of what made 5e popular. Character creation options are opened even more. Mechanics are being cleared up where there was ambiguity. Loopholes are being closed.
But these forums show that they have left some people still wanting more.
Some wish the character creation process had more options. Some want more options during encounters. Some want more Verisimilitude. Some want more Explicit rules. Some see mechanical complexity to be the answer to these problems. Everyone labels these requests as 'Complex,' because they are. But they are not all complex in the same way. Nor do they need to be.
And on the other side some are happy with the game where it is. Or they want the complex options to be made simpler for a variety of reasons. Whether it's accessibility for players, speed of play at the table, or game balance. These requests are being called 'Simple' for the same reasons the others are called 'Complex.' But they are simple in as many different ways. It doesn't always mean the same thing.
The best course of action is to offer as many advantages as possible, and avoid as many drawbacks. Everyone deserves to play this game, from new players to old, from casual storytellers to gritty simulationists. And I think most people can actually be satisfied to some degree, with some compromise and the right rules. 1DnD is on the right track, even with some hiccups. We just have to manage our expectations and consider everyone's needs.
The next edition of DnD will not be Pathfinder. It won't be ADnD 1e. It won't be Vampire the Masquerade. Those are all good things. It will be DnD 5e with some polish.
The trick they have to pull off is giving as many options as possible for people to live out their fantasies, without making them difficult. Complex options are needed, but with simple mechanics. Simple options are needed to avoid overwhelming, while also being engaging. It is entirely possible to make complex rules simple to understand and use. But only when the complexity is focused in the right places.
DnD 5e is built around these design principles when it comes to these topics:
Character Creation Options - High overall, but more limited for some specific classes. Options are Explicit (compared to games without classes)
Options During Play - varies between classes and subclasses
Verisimilitude - low, but usually functional enough for most games
Implicit vs Explicit - mostly Explicit, to the extent that it has become what is expected and Implicit benefits are often overlooked
Mechanical Complexity - low, with some exceptions that stand out in comparison
Hidden and Illusory Complexity - medium, caused by poor book formatting, natural language, and lack of examples
I imagine that 1DnD is going to look pretty much the same. What they seem to be doing is trying to patch some of these holes. When new options risk becoming overwhelming, like with Backgrounds and Prepared spells, they are offering sample choices for new players. Verisimilitude is unlikely to change, but it's working pretty well as is. Ambiguous mechanics are getting cleaned up. And hidden complexity is being addressed to some degree with features that have broader applications, defining certain interactions better, and using keywords.
The only place I see them offering a mixed bag is with Implicit and Explicit rules. I think this leads to people feeling like a class doesn't have much to offer, when it's really just not as easy to see. I think this is the place they could do the most work.
So when we look for improvements in the game, it's most useful to temper our expectations first with what kind of game this is. And next we need to be speaking the same technical language. So when one person asks for complexity or simplicity in one place, another person doesn't hear it as a different kind that they dislike. Because it is possible to write rules that give choices without confusing players. Options without mechanical complexity. Realism without math. Guidance without dumbing down. Balance without sameness. Interest without hidden pitfalls. Accessibility without boredom.
To me, the direction they need to focus is offering as many options to players as possible, while also making it as mechanically simple and easy to choose as possible. Expand without overwhelming. Make rules Explicit when possible, and when they aren't, explain the Implicit rule with examples of how it can be used. Make it clear what everyone is able to do in an encounter, no matter their class. Avoid the illusion of choice. Avoid the illusion of intersting complexity when it's really just a more complicated means to the same end. Avoid actual hidden complexity pitfalls when possible, and when it's not, make the player's assumptions be the correct answer. If a player picks a class based on a fantasy, it should fulfill that fantasy. Even if they don't know all the rules, or if the implications are hidden, the natural way they play it should work correctly.
Hopefully this will help these discussions going forward. Both to understand where the game is going, and to talk about complexity with more nuance. Please remember that everyone on this forum is a real person, and try to treat each other with respect. In the words of Treantmonk, DnD is for everyone.
[Removed by request]
Please do not contact or message me.
Since this was a reply to the previous post that was removed, I'm going to delete it as well. I hope that's good for everyone.