Complexity Levels and DND: A Proposal - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Complexity Levels and DND: A Proposal

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
The-Magic-Sword
Nov 28, 2011 15:34:51 Over the last few Legends and Lore articles (from each), Mearls and Monte have been tossing around the idea of having different complexity levels, potentially in a future edition of DND. The appeal of this idea is obvious, the game can be intimidating for new players- i'm soon going to have a new player join my group (whom are 2 levels short of paragon tier) and part of me is already anticipating the task of not just teaching her the basics of the game, but bringing her up to the complexity of 11th or so level as well- and the ability to scale difficulty might make it easier to attract new players, something the tabletop industry (and wizards) probably ought to do, the less of a niche it is, the healthier the game's prospects can become. I think we can all agree that if it can be done with sacraficing the potentially complex aspects of the game, it ought to be.

That is of course, where we hit the snag, isn't it? How do we create a game that can be simple for those whom want it to be, but complex for those whom ache for detailed character creation, intense simulation, or advanced tactical play? This in my opinion, seems to be where Legends and Lore falls short- Mearls suggested a system in which rule complexity "levels" corresponded to the amount of supplementary rulesets added into the game, Adding naval combat? add a level, Adding a proffession system? add a level. From what i can tell though, it doesn't address where the bulk of the complexity currently lies: Character Creation and Combat. It also in some cases seems to bring up a situation in which the complexity level only sometimes come into play, so in your level 3 sea based campaign, the game only lives up to it's stated complexity when ships are involved, but not when the group is say... fighting in port, or somethign of the like.

Worse, many games don't necessarily have such a focus, what does the group who may have an adventure at sea, in an otherwise landlocked campaign to do? boost up their complexity level? it's just not a very versatile system. Cooke's most recently proposed system depends on level, but what if you want to play characters of godly power with a simple ruleset? Or play fledgeling adventurers as an advanced group, used to their options and tactics? I can't say either of these proposals appeal to me

However, they certainly sparked my imagination- now consider this- a 5th Edition, with scaling complexity, built into the core of the game.

Each level of complexity would be clearly defined, and would relate to an all pervasive aspect of the game

Complexity level 1 (5E PHB): Class, Mechanically speaking, most players will only have to worry about their choice of class- the book would have a list of powers to be taken from the full power lists for a level 1 character. Roleplaying wise? all bets are off, they can be any race, flavor their attacks however they like, and so on, it just won't have a mechanical effect. (maybe complexity 1 characters would have pre-assigned stat allocations as well, it would depend on what this edition did with ability scores, defenses, skills etc)

Complexity level 2 (5E PHB): Race, Complexity level 2 would add Race as a choice the player needs to make and make it effect their abilities in various mechanical way, whether it's racial features, stat boosts, racial powers- or whatever. (It might also throw in self-selected stats? again, it depends on how complex the stat system would be)

Complexity level 3 (5E PHB): Feats, Complexity level 3 could focus on Feats, selecting them and so on, adding significantly not only to the choices players have to make at level up, but also adding to the things they have to remember during play. This might also be a good point to throw in power choice, if it wouldn't be in complexity 2.

Complexity level 4 (5E PHB): Path, Path is basically similar to build, long story short having a path would be the difference between being a wizard, and a summoner wizard, a fighter, or a great weapon fighter. The paths add certain elements to the character to deepen their tactical depth, i'm not even all that sure why i'm including this- it's a somewhat seperate idea that takes the concept of a subclass, but makes it more like a focused facet of the overarching class than a seperate class.

Complexity level 5.... and so, i think you get the point, each complexity level would basically add in essential game elements, a certain difficulty between 1 and whatever would be recommended as a "normal" complexity setting.

Players on the high end of the spectrum, would have a game as advanced as 4E, maybe more (especially if supplementary books decide to really push the complexity for those that like it) Monsters would be designed with the scaling complexity and power creep in mind, (Monster stat * Complexity Level = final stat , along with minimum CL requirements on monster powers?) you could further tie it in by making certain things apply only upon crossing certain complexity level thresholds, like oppurtunity attacks and the like. Keep the powers on CL 1 class lists relatively simple as well, (they might have to scale with CL as well, depending)

The complexity level solution would be focused on where the bulk of the current complexity is: not on sub-systems, but on character creation and combat. It retains complexity for those whom like it, and allows those whom don't, or aren't ready yet to play a simpler game.

additional rules could be presented as additional rule systems, why not have a book devoted to ocean adventures- and the like, and include the naval combat rules within?

You can even compile the "rule systems" under a DDI service for those who don't want to buy certain books for just the specific system.

So please, feel free to rip my idea to shreds, i mostly just want feedback

(TLDR: Scale complexity based on the amount of the rules used in character creation)
#2
Samrin
Nov 28, 2011 15:40:16
You've added more complexity in the form of choosing, tracking, and evaluating complexity levels than you can possibly save.

Yeah, it kind of defeats the purpose.
#3
mattador666
Nov 28, 2011 17:19:00
You've added more complexity in the form of choosing, tracking, and evaluating complexity levels than you can possibly save.

not to mention attempting to get all the players to agree on a level, then building a campaign around that "Complexity Level" (a name which makes it sound even more complicated).

and what if Wizards releases some new thing that's just perfect for your campaign or character, only it's too "simple" or "complex" for your game?
#4
lofgren
Nov 28, 2011 17:33:46 I see where you're going and it's an interesting idea, but I think there will be too many complications with implementation. One of those things that, as an ideal, would be awesome but is far too impractical for human brains to actually create and maintain.

I think two complexity levels should satisfy. Basically you want something for the occasional player who wants to be able to pick up and play with minimum refresher. A system for people who play every few weeks and don't spare much thought for the game in between. Then you want the labrynthian ruleset for folks who delve into every detail. There will definitely be people who want something in between, but trying to cater to them will only compromise both approaches, and no matter how you implement you'll end up with somebody who's looking for something a little bit more complicated or a little bit simpler.

Anyway the last thing you want is to paralyze the folks who want a simple system with too many choices to make. Selecting from five different levels of complexity means that you have to play and be familiar with all five before you can even start a game with confidence that you have picked the right complexity. Whereas "Less" and "More" are something everybody can understand without too much elaboration.
#5
Preston_R
Nov 28, 2011 18:05:39 What about encounters vs. home brew?

Introduce people to the game via lvl 1-3 premade characters (this is what this character gets at lvl 1. Here's this character at lvl 2. Here's this character at lvl 3.) Have simple adventure meant for new DMs at those level ranges that teach how to run combat, skill challenges, etc, but don't require a great mastery of the system. Introduce gear as item cards.

Magic Sword - Item name
(instructions to the DM: Give this magic sword to either the pregen Fighter or Ranger character as a treasure reward) - this tells the DM who the treasure is good for.

Player Instructions: Add 1 to all melee attack rolls made with this weapon. Add 1 to the total damage rolled for this weapon. If you roll a critical hit you roll 1d6 and add that to the damage total. These instructions tell the player exactly what the sword does for them. Bolded terms tell players about special game terms that they may need to look up.

By making the characters simple, and the adventures simple, but then allowing the players to move on from there by customizing characters and adventures gives everyone a simple vs. complex D&D without having to make 2 seperate systems.
#6
lofgren
Nov 28, 2011 18:55:18 It's not just about introducing players to the game, it's about a system that can be played with a low level of mastery. For example, by players who play less often or players who want a reduced emphasis on math or mechanical manipulation.

If the goal is to teach new players the game then two different systems hurts more than it helps, at least in my opinion. Better to jump right in than to learn the same thing twice. If your concern is new players learning the game then two systems is not the solution you are looking for. That makes the game harder to learn, not easier. A simpler system could serve to introduce people to the game, but it would have to be a good game in and of itself because as a stepping stone it will only make things more complicated.
#7
bone_naga
Nov 28, 2011 21:45:17
You've added more complexity in the form of choosing, tracking, and evaluating complexity levels than you can possibly save.

not to mention attempting to get all the players to agree on a level, then building a campaign around that "Complexity Level" (a name which makes it sound even more complicated).

and what if Wizards releases some new thing that's just perfect for your campaign or character, only it's too "simple" or "complex" for your game?

Well that's really no different than the optional rules modules of past editions. In 2e there were a ton of optional rules just in the PHB and DMG, not to mention splat books. Yet somehow campaigns were built around those rules and the players managed to agree on which ones to use.

As for something you want that doesn't fit within the complexity level, that could be fixed by using optional rules modules (as mentioned above). The optional rules would add levels of complexity, but it wouldn't be a strict "mechanic X goes with difficulty Y". So if you wanted classes, PPs, and EDs, but not feats or themes, you could easily do so (right now you sort of can, but the idea of these optional rules would be that they wouldn't have such drastic effects on the game as to unbalance things one way or another, themes fit that bill, but I'm not so sure about feats).
#8
warrl
Nov 29, 2011 0:51:35 I have a simpler approach:

1) There is only one set of rules for building a character.

2) For each class/subclass/major option there are 1-3 prebuilt characters, deliberately designed by a competent character-creator to be reasonably good and as simple to play as that class allows - but fully in compliance with the rules.

3) A player can build a character from scratch, start with a prebuilt and modify it to taste, or take a prebuilt straight out of the book and play it.

This way a new player can enter a campaign at any point and be handed a complete ready-to-play simple but functional character. The Character Builder could have the prebuilts set up in it so you just pick the campaign setting, the desired class and prebuild, and the starting level, and you can print the character sheet.
#9
lofgren
Nov 29, 2011 9:59:22 That doesn't really reduce complexity, just prep time. And it does it at the expense of investment in character, since designing a character is as much a part of the game of playing it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 The-Magic-Sword Nov 28, 2011 15:34:51	Over the last few Legends and Lore articles (from each), Mearls and Monte have been tossing around the idea of having different complexity levels, potentially in a future edition of DND. The appeal of this idea is obvious, the game can be intimidating for new players- i'm soon going to have a new player join my group (whom are 2 levels short of paragon tier) and part of me is already anticipating the task of not just teaching her the basics of the game, but bringing her up to the complexity of 11th or so level as well- and the ability to scale difficulty might make it easier to attract new players, something the tabletop industry (and wizards) probably ought to do, the less of a niche it is, the healthier the game's prospects can become. I think we can all agree that if it can be done with sacraficing the potentially complex aspects of the game, it ought to be. That is of course, where we hit the snag, isn't it? How do we create a game that can be simple for those whom want it to be, but complex for those whom ache for detailed character creation, intense simulation, or advanced tactical play? This in my opinion, seems to be where Legends and Lore falls short- Mearls suggested a system in which rule complexity "levels" corresponded to the amount of supplementary rulesets added into the game, Adding naval combat? add a level, Adding a proffession system? add a level. From what i can tell though, it doesn't address where the bulk of the complexity currently lies: Character Creation and Combat. It also in some cases seems to bring up a situation in which the complexity level only sometimes come into play, so in your level 3 sea based campaign, the game only lives up to it's stated complexity when ships are involved, but not when the group is say... fighting in port, or somethign of the like. Worse, many games don't necessarily have such a focus, what does the group who may have an adventure at sea, in an otherwise landlocked campaign to do? boost up their complexity level? it's just not a very versatile system. Cooke's most recently proposed system depends on level, but what if you want to play characters of godly power with a simple ruleset? Or play fledgeling adventurers as an advanced group, used to their options and tactics? I can't say either of these proposals appeal to me However, they certainly sparked my imagination- now consider this- a 5th Edition, with scaling complexity, built into the core of the game. Each level of complexity would be clearly defined, and would relate to an all pervasive aspect of the game Complexity level 1 (5E PHB): Class, Mechanically speaking, most players will only have to worry about their choice of class- the book would have a list of powers to be taken from the full power lists for a level 1 character. Roleplaying wise? all bets are off, they can be any race, flavor their attacks however they like, and so on, it just won't have a mechanical effect. (maybe complexity 1 characters would have pre-assigned stat allocations as well, it would depend on what this edition did with ability scores, defenses, skills etc) Complexity level 2 (5E PHB): Race, Complexity level 2 would add Race as a choice the player needs to make and make it effect their abilities in various mechanical way, whether it's racial features, stat boosts, racial powers- or whatever. (It might also throw in self-selected stats? again, it depends on how complex the stat system would be) Complexity level 3 (5E PHB): Feats, Complexity level 3 could focus on Feats, selecting them and so on, adding significantly not only to the choices players have to make at level up, but also adding to the things they have to remember during play. This might also be a good point to throw in power choice, if it wouldn't be in complexity 2. Complexity level 4 (5E PHB): Path, Path is basically similar to build, long story short having a path would be the difference between being a wizard, and a summoner wizard, a fighter, or a great weapon fighter. The paths add certain elements to the character to deepen their tactical depth, i'm not even all that sure why i'm including this- it's a somewhat seperate idea that takes the concept of a subclass, but makes it more like a focused facet of the overarching class than a seperate class. Complexity level 5.... and so, i think you get the point, each complexity level would basically add in essential game elements, a certain difficulty between 1 and whatever would be recommended as a "normal" complexity setting. Players on the high end of the spectrum, would have a game as advanced as 4E, maybe more (especially if supplementary books decide to really push the complexity for those that like it) Monsters would be designed with the scaling complexity and power creep in mind, (Monster stat * Complexity Level = final stat , along with minimum CL requirements on monster powers?) you could further tie it in by making certain things apply only upon crossing certain complexity level thresholds, like oppurtunity attacks and the like. Keep the powers on CL 1 class lists relatively simple as well, (they might have to scale with CL as well, depending) The complexity level solution would be focused on where the bulk of the current complexity is: not on sub-systems, but on character creation and combat. It retains complexity for those whom like it, and allows those whom don't, or aren't ready yet to play a simpler game. additional rules could be presented as additional rule systems, why not have a book devoted to ocean adventures- and the like, and include the naval combat rules within? You can even compile the "rule systems" under a DDI service for those who don't want to buy certain books for just the specific system. So please, feel free to rip my idea to shreds, i mostly just want feedback (TLDR: Scale complexity based on the amount of the rules used in character creation)
#2 Samrin Nov 28, 2011 15:40:16	You've added more complexity in the form of choosing, tracking, and evaluating complexity levels than you can possibly save. Yeah, it kind of defeats the purpose.
#3 mattador666 Nov 28, 2011 17:19:00	You've added more complexity in the form of choosing, tracking, and evaluating complexity levels than you can possibly save. not to mention attempting to get all the players to agree on a level, then building a campaign around that "Complexity Level" (a name which makes it sound even more complicated). and what if Wizards releases some new thing that's just perfect for your campaign or character, only it's too "simple" or "complex" for your game?
#4 lofgren Nov 28, 2011 17:33:46	I see where you're going and it's an interesting idea, but I think there will be too many complications with implementation. One of those things that, as an ideal, would be awesome but is far too impractical for human brains to actually create and maintain. I think two complexity levels should satisfy. Basically you want something for the occasional player who wants to be able to pick up and play with minimum refresher. A system for people who play every few weeks and don't spare much thought for the game in between. Then you want the labrynthian ruleset for folks who delve into every detail. There will definitely be people who want something in between, but trying to cater to them will only compromise both approaches, and no matter how you implement you'll end up with somebody who's looking for something a little bit more complicated or a little bit simpler. Anyway the last thing you want is to paralyze the folks who want a simple system with too many choices to make. Selecting from five different levels of complexity means that you have to play and be familiar with all five before you can even start a game with confidence that you have picked the right complexity. Whereas "Less" and "More" are something everybody can understand without too much elaboration.
#5 Preston_R Nov 28, 2011 18:05:39	What about encounters vs. home brew? Introduce people to the game via lvl 1-3 premade characters (this is what this character gets at lvl 1. Here's this character at lvl 2. Here's this character at lvl 3.) Have simple adventure meant for new DMs at those level ranges that teach how to run combat, skill challenges, etc, but don't require a great mastery of the system. Introduce gear as item cards. Magic Sword - Item name (instructions to the DM: Give this magic sword to either the pregen Fighter or Ranger character as a treasure reward) - this tells the DM who the treasure is good for. Player Instructions: Add 1 to all melee attack rolls made with this weapon. Add 1 to the total damage rolled for this weapon. If you roll a critical hit you roll 1d6 and add that to the damage total. These instructions tell the player exactly what the sword does for them. Bolded terms tell players about special game terms that they may need to look up. By making the characters simple, and the adventures simple, but then allowing the players to move on from there by customizing characters and adventures gives everyone a simple vs. complex D&D without having to make 2 seperate systems.
#6 lofgren Nov 28, 2011 18:55:18	It's not just about introducing players to the game, it's about a system that can be played with a low level of mastery. For example, by players who play less often or players who want a reduced emphasis on math or mechanical manipulation. If the goal is to teach new players the game then two different systems hurts more than it helps, at least in my opinion. Better to jump right in than to learn the same thing twice. If your concern is new players learning the game then two systems is not the solution you are looking for. That makes the game harder to learn, not easier. A simpler system could serve to introduce people to the game, but it would have to be a good game in and of itself because as a stepping stone it will only make things more complicated.
#7 bone_naga Nov 28, 2011 21:45:17	You've added more complexity in the form of choosing, tracking, and evaluating complexity levels than you can possibly save. not to mention attempting to get all the players to agree on a level, then building a campaign around that "Complexity Level" (a name which makes it sound even more complicated). and what if Wizards releases some new thing that's just perfect for your campaign or character, only it's too "simple" or "complex" for your game? Well that's really no different than the optional rules modules of past editions. In 2e there were a ton of optional rules just in the PHB and DMG, not to mention splat books. Yet somehow campaigns were built around those rules and the players managed to agree on which ones to use. As for something you want that doesn't fit within the complexity level, that could be fixed by using optional rules modules (as mentioned above). The optional rules would add levels of complexity, but it wouldn't be a strict "mechanic X goes with difficulty Y". So if you wanted classes, PPs, and EDs, but not feats or themes, you could easily do so (right now you sort of can, but the idea of these optional rules would be that they wouldn't have such drastic effects on the game as to unbalance things one way or another, themes fit that bill, but I'm not so sure about feats).
#8 warrl Nov 29, 2011 0:51:35	I have a simpler approach: 1) There is only one set of rules for building a character. 2) For each class/subclass/major option there are 1-3 prebuilt characters, deliberately designed by a competent character-creator to be reasonably good and as simple to play as that class allows - but fully in compliance with the rules. 3) A player can build a character from scratch, start with a prebuilt and modify it to taste, or take a prebuilt straight out of the book and play it. This way a new player can enter a campaign at any point and be handed a complete ready-to-play simple but functional character. The Character Builder could have the prebuilts set up in it so you just pick the campaign setting, the desired class and prebuild, and the starting level, and you can print the character sheet.
#9 lofgren Nov 29, 2011 9:59:22	That doesn't really reduce complexity, just prep time. And it does it at the expense of investment in character, since designing a character is as much a part of the game of playing it.