It is said, "Too many cooks spoil the broth." What about rules for RPGs?
Are RPG’s outgrowing themselves? Have they become too complex? There is a fine line between playability and realism. The two are inversely proportional, like the balance between the air and water in a glass: the more of one, the less of the other. Do we need to get back to basics, back to simplicity?
When role playing games began, the rules were simple. A character was created and basic information was provided to help player visualization. Five minutes of work and off the characters went on an adventuring career, to do or die at the whim of fate. Many a dungeon was explored in those days. Many a foul, noisome denizen of the dark met its doom. Many brave adventurers found final resting places in the lightless, evil-infested labyrinths of ancient civilizations lost to the mists of time. Then, something happened. The Greater Gods -- those who hold immutable sway even over the deities worshipped in the worlds of the gaming multiverse -- started taking a more direct hand. They began asking questions like, "What is this character's motivation to travel with this group?", "Wouldn't a weapon's length effect who goes first in melee?", "Why can't a character take all those actions in one round?", etc. Suddenly, there came into being an advanced version of the game. The rules were overhauled. Some things were added. Some problems were cleared up. But a lot of other problems were created. Charts and graphs galore fluttered down about our heads.
More and more detail was added until game pace began to choke, heave, and stumble, as wads of rules became suffocating obstructions rather than streamlining aides. "Rules Lawyers" began arguing with refs and other players, saying, "Yes, my character can do that, because it says so right here ....", or "The rules don't address that problem, so I'll do what I want." Game play turned into a drudgery of wading through arguments and delays until, disgusted by the lack of progress, discouraged and frustrated by friction, players began packing the game away, fervently praying that next time would be better, provided they bothered with a next time.
Again the Greater Gods pondered the issue and acted. Again they missed the mark. A few more problems were fixed. Some streamlining was done. But ever more rules were added. More detail rained down from the heavens until -- now -- gamers are drowning in a flood of books, kits, and compendiums and other add-ons. It seems as though no attempt has been made to maintain playability. Instead, everything has become progressively more complex. And more expensive.
At one time, $25 would buy you the rule books and dice, some paper, and a couple of writing implements. This was all the hardware needed to play. A little time, imagination, and enthusiasm was supplied by the participants. The reward was a thoroughly entertaining evening of voyeuristic escapism. Today a player can spend $300, or more, without getting a fraction of the materials needed to play the game. Teaching new players has become a nightmare of confusing question and answer periods that would make a week long appearance on JEOPARDY! seem like calm in a hurricane. The game has turned away from being a hobby for the players, and into a money making machine for the writers, designers, and publishers. The sheer volume of material to absorb has turned a game session that used to take an evening into one that can now occupy the proverbial month of Sundays. By the time a character makes third or fourth level, the player can be too weary to continue. Gamers are getting trapped into hours of finagling to figure out which characters are adventuring together, supplying motivation, and wishing fervently that there were better ways.
Look at what's going on in the gaming world. Look at the number of role playing systems there are on the market. Would there be so many if the few that existed early on had really given the players what they wanted? Would the number continue to grow every year if any of the new systems were competently filling in the gaps left by the older ones? And just what is it that everybody is missing? What is the magical ingredient that will solve everyone's problem?
I always felt the missing ingredient was simplicty. We tend to use too much of what's available. We don't exorcise the imagination for which the game was built and rely too much on the crutches of game aides to help us along.
Your thoughts?
Even though D&D have lots of rules, if you compare it with other RPG(Gurps, etc"), I think D&d is the easiest one. I tried once learning Gurps but ,WOW, tons of advantages, quirks, etc, blablabla.
And we DMs can always use house rules and/or change some of the rules to help our games.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
At one time, $25 would buy you the rule books and dice, some paper, and a couple of writing implements. This was all the hardware needed to play. A little time, imagination, and enthusiasm was supplied by the participants. The reward was a thoroughly entertaining evening of voyeuristic escapism. Today a player can spend $300, or more, without getting a fraction of the materials needed to play the game.
Interesting to note $25 in 1980 is roughly $62+ now. So even with only 3 core rulebooks "needed" to play ($81 on this site a mere $32.50 c.1980) I think given improved prodution values we're getting a heck of a lot more for our money. As for the ease of the rules I think the language usage alone simplifies the current version game, and with the d20 system almost exclusively relying on a single die mechanic it is my opinion that the current options add more than detract.
Yes, there are rough spots but when in doubt roll a d20 add what makes sense and (always) hope for high results.
Of course this comes from someone who has purchased every supplement I could afford for each incarnation of the game since I started playing over 20 years ago. So perhaps I'm a bit biased. ;)
I recommend Castles & Crusades if you feel there are too many rules. I plan on running a C&C game soon, just to feel out the system. It's not going to replace D&D 3.5 for me, but will be a nice RPG brain break.
"Too many rules" will always depend on you and your group. Personally, I find that D&D is right at the top end of what I will accept in terms of complexity, and would probably prefer the next edition to clean up and simplify those areas that are unnecessarily complex (grapple, flight, and a few others).
It is also worth noting, though, that number of rules does not indicate the complexity of the system in actual play. Reducing the number of rules can result in the remaining rules having to do more, and the interactions between rules becoming much more complex to compensate.
Personally I think that D&D is great the way it is. Some things could use some clearing up (grapple, what you can do in flight, the in-game econimics, and the round system which can be a little confusing at times) but for the most part works fine. In my group we tweak the rules a little bit so that it works well. I think that it is just a matter of of adjusting things according to your group's personality. And if you want a simpler game just play an earlier edition. I am just starting to play second editon myself and it makes for a nice change of pace.
I disagree with the "older was simpler" argument. The only thing that has changed is that the players have more control over what and how well their characters can do things. In the early days of D&D/AD&D, the DM had to make the call on just about everything the players did, which resulted in a mish-mash of different rules mechanics for different situations plus house rules to cover situations that the published rules didn't address. 3.0/3.5's skills and feats let the players make these decisions as part of the character creation/advancement process.
If anything, 3.0/3.5 is more simple than the earlier versions from a rules mechanic standpoint. As a DM, you can ease new players into the rules in many ways, the best being pregenerated/DM created characters: ask the player for a concept/background, create/adapt a character/NPC to meet the player's description, and give the character to the player with some explanation on the rules mechanics of the character's abilities.
uhm, yes, yes and possible yes but not necessarily; only go back to more basic if all the rules are impeading your fun and playability; we are all still learning the 3.5 stuff and it is a drag stopping to look up rules after not having to do so for many years.
Ok, now the surprise. That piece was written by a friend of mine for a fanzine that never got off the ground. I argued with him about it at the time, but since the guy trying to start the zine had specifically asked him for his opinion on the subject he gave it in spades.
I tend to agree with the general sentiment that gaming is less expensive and more "user friendly" now that it was in the earlier days. This evolution was inevitable, I'm sure. Though Gygaxx and Arneson started it, they certainly were not perfect. They did a good job with what they had. Considering the original starting point of a table-top miniatures being assigned attributes to track or explain their performance in combats, working in to Chain Mail and then working into an entire fantasy setting, they really pulled off miracles.
Time has helped grow the concept and market both. Thanks for the responses, and sorry if you feel used. The DM in me just couldn't resist a sleight of hand maneuver to see how others reacted...
Even if something isn't perfect to begin with, I'd not blame creators that came up with a brilliant idea. There are tons of things that I'm a fan of that I think have been refined and "perfected" over time, but I'm still in awe of the original creators for their genius in the first place.
If anything, 3.0/3.5 is more simple than the earlier versions from a rules mechanic standpoint.
Amen! Or have we forgotten the 1e tables for weapon vs. armor type? Saving throws for objects? Unarmed combat from the 1st ed. DMG? Nobody used most of those rules because they were so intricate they ground the game to a halt, not to mention the fact that none of the mechanics mentioned bore any resemblance whatsoever to any of the others.
That is a good point. While there are a lot of rules and rulebooks in 3.5, one of the things that was introduced in 3rd edition is that most new rules are "snap ons." Meaning that they work pretty much the same way as existing rules, they just do different things.
Psionics work pretty much like spells (except for power points), Incarnum (though not my favorite rule set) works based on magic item slots, truenaming works based on skill checks . . . in other words, these systems have a "common ground" with the core rules, instead of introducing a completely different set of rules that work counter to existing ones.
If the most complex game you played before trying RPGs was pachisi, then any RPG might be too complex, even the easiest, if you are not willing to get into it.
The rules of XD&D developed from (relatively) easy to complex and detailed, to overly complicated (AD&D1 weapon vs. armor, anyone?) to still complex, but mutually integrated and playable rules.
In general, older RPGs are a hodgepogde of rules, added together as needed or seen to be needed. The resulting complexity was seen as a necessary evil.
Newer RPGs try to create smoothly working rules with few mechanics, which could be applied to many rules situations.
This mirrors the development of RPGs ever further away from their wargaming origins.
I claim that there are RPG rules for all tastes - from very simple (BESM is like that, I heard) to extremely complex (Rolemaster). GURPS can be very complex, but can be simple. D&D 3.x is rather complex, whereas the old White Wolf storyteller system is relatively simple.
Stefan
As mentioned earlier often in earlier editions there were not rules for situations and the DM had to make one up on the fly. One question was "Who can my fireball effect, will it hit any party members?" 3rd Ed is more concise but that can be good. Through play we integrate the rules until they become common knowledge, "How many magic missiles do I get?"
What I dislike is the constant parade of books being put out with less and less useful information. Yes I can pick out something useful from probably each book but honestly when is enough enough. I think it was Mike Mearls who said there are perhaps 400 useful feats out of 2,000+ in existence. How many fighter/mage prestige classes do we need? What causes a problem is the DM takes time away from looking over the "All about Grappling" pages because the warblade is just the fighter his player has been waiting to play. What is needed is to condense, combine and organize the mess that has been created. Maybe 4th edition will do this before spinning out of control. I remain forever hopeful.
I would like to give a special thanks to the Paizo staff members who worked on the Spell Compendium. It is the best book put out in the last two years and goes a long way towards what I hope will make DnD better. We just need it on a larger scale.
About the rules in D&D 3.5, there are some interesting observations written here [url]http://www.rpg.net/columns/list-column.phtml?colname=briefhistory[/url] on WotC and Paizo entries about economics of printing rules vs flavor (all of the articles there are pretty interesting and recommended reading though).
About the complexity of rules, D&D 3.5 is more streamlined so while the initial entry is more complicated, in the long run things fit together and there are fewer obscure tables on page 174 in Unearthed Arcana, 1st edition, which say that you have to roll 8-10 with d12+modifier to accomplish the task and its doable only if you are a specialist transmuter (all of which was probably contradicted in Unearther Arcana, 2nd edition, on page 52).
For simple set of rules leading to complicated gameplay, there is of course notorious Mage by White Wolf, game where it was left very vague what exactly was possible and what not (leading to some of the best and worst adventures ever).
About the RPG systems available...well, they answer to different needs. Actually one of the driving ideas of indie RPG publishing is to have an idea and then create a rules system fitting to the idea instead of trying to force the idea to existing system...for example on another thread I mentioned game called Panty Explosion, which has a DC system similar to D&D but different characters throw different dice to overcome the DC. The system is not meant to be fair but it fits the theme of the game...