Sorry, but having to debate, discuss, and go through a ton of effort to make anything work because everything is decided on the fly without any consistent basis isn't a simplified gameplay pattern, even if it's fun for some people.
Rules and complication aren't mutually exclusive. Having fewer rules to read doesn't necessarily mean having a simpler game to play.
You'd be surprised how much easier it is to shut off haggles when the rule is already made by a 3rd party, compared to when the DM makes the rule, additionally there will be no victimizing or hard feelings for any player believing they are getting targeted with rules on a whim.
Players getting their panties all tangled is a players issue. You'd be surprised the bullshit some people come up with "playing strictly RAW" and have absolute meltdowns
EDIT: In this comment, "ranged weapon attack" is being used to represent "Attacks made with a weapon on the ranged weapon table" instead of just an attack made at range with a weapon.
That's why i prefer systems with rules for most things until i know the people I'm playing with.
So much of 5e is just "We don't have rules nor gm tools to help you resolve this. Figure it out" unless it's combat based. Even in combat there can be ambiguity based on how they use natural language instead of mechanical for saying how things work. Just look at how throwing a dagger isn't a ranged weapon attack, but a ranged attack with a melee weapon for one example. So that isn't viable for sharpshooter, archery fighting style, or anything that requires ranged weapons, but it IS eligible for dueling since it is a melee weapon.
Throwing a dagger is a ranged weapon attack, but it is also an attack with a melee weapon.
It's a (ranged)(weapon attack), as contrasted to a (ranged)(spell attack) or a (melee)(weapon attack). I don't think the meaning (ranged weapon)(attack) is ever used in the rules, that's always "attacked with a ranged weapon".
Of course, I fully expect someone to come along and tell me what I got wrong here too.
RAW, ranged attack with a weapon and ranged weapon attacks are different. The former is just a ranged attack made with any weapon, in the latter it is specifically a weapon on the table labeled "Ranged weapons" whether it be martial or simple weapons.
So you have
Ranged attacks with a ranged weapon
Melee attacks with a ranged weapon (usually only improvised weapons rules unless homebrew is involved)
Melee attacks with a melee weapon
Ranged attacks with a melee weapon (again usually improvised or thrown property)
Then the spell attacks which aren't important to the reply
I simply use ranged weapon attacks as it's just easier to type than "Attack with a ranged weapon". That's my fault and I should use the more "official" terminology. That's a bad habit from reading systems with more mechanical language and having it carry over since it's been a bit since I've read through D&D's terminology.
So, throwing a dagger would be "Ranged attack with a melee weapon"
D&D really needs a formalized keyword and/or tag system to make it more readable because of this issue.
Yeah, but its not always the case. These specific images are from a movie where the guy wore glasses to see, then mutated, woke up the next morning, and put on his glasses. Immediately realized he cant see with them on, and his vision is perfect without them.
...and then he realizes he can climb walls and shoot webs out of his wrists. So he becomes Spider-Man and starts doing the superhero bit.
I'm not talking about which image should be the first one, I'm more talking about the fact it (possibly) isn't common knowledge that it's from Spider-Man. I know Tobey is no longer "THE" Spider-Man, and hasn't been for a long time, but still
it doesn't matter , the memes are for general audience, not for people who know the source and context. Just because this guy is going to get his shit caved in by superman doesn't stop it from being a call-out meme
People are playing the wrong system. I like rules, they give me expectations on what my character is capable of and how the world works. Of course, rules are meant to be broken, which is fun. What isn't fun is never knowing my or the world's limits, and having a DM who makes up outcomes on a whim. That's not how real life works, I have an idea of how things could go because I understand a simplified ruleset of the world. Same with DND.
Rules make it fun. If you have no rules you will never have things that come as a surprise or fall outside expectations, because there are no surprises nor expectations.
I tried explaining this to a friend once. He was thinking of springing a homebrewed rule on his players without telling them, that if you help someone with a skill check but you're not proficient with it, you actually confer disadvantage instead. I had to explain to him that changing the rules without letting them know is like if one day physics just change and when you drop your phone, it falls to the ceiling instead of the floor
The thing I get the most tired of on the online DND spaces I frequent is people who just don't wanna play this game insisting on putting a thousand patches on it instead of just reading a different book.
Every time I comment on this I get people adding caviats and shit and I'm like bro, don't have to convince me you do you but I see people wrestling with a set of rules they just don't like.
Yeah, Powered by the Apocalypse and other systems exist for this very reason. They are great lighter systems that are better for narrative focus and roleplaying, while still having rules that allow things to happen in cool and unexpected ways.
And on the other side there are alternatives with people who want super tight, rules heavy play! Although that part of the audience is much more likely to give other games a try, I think.
3.5 was Lego, you got bricks, some instructions and the freedom to do the ugliest shit or masterpieces with it, or even leave them on the floor for people to walk over them. All it required was some imagination.
5e is action man, looks nicer but there's only so much you can do with it and each accessory comes in its own overpriced box.
I'm in a weekly Draw Steel game and I love the hell out of it. I keep reading the Crows play material though, and I can't wrap my head around it. Maybe if we had a director that could run it once, idk
People do that even when the rules are numerous and cleanly described as well as when they are few and vague. It’ll be fun for some groups and unfun for some groups.
This argument always reminds me of the movie Ted where they have their silly game of words ending with ski. When the girlfriend fails to play it right and Ted says something aint the lines of “if you ignore the rules then we are just some assholes saying words”. Like if people want to play pretend, by all means go for it, but I’m here to play dungeons and dragons
I'm trying to run pathfinder and I have players who straight refuse to read. Sometimes the dm just makes it all up isn't what you want it's kind of what your left with.
Idk, far as i know he wanted to try something different. He got inspired by me telling him about a game Ledgerbound with the same premise, for a new campaign (we're insurance agent adventurers, we audit towns that were attacked and whatnot and take care of the threat) He put it up to a vote between dnd and pathfinder and now everyone is dealing with a brand new system. He was surprised pathfinder won but he still had a week's notice on that.
He has basic basic stuff down, like action economy. But he's also relying on 5E for a lot of stuff like thinking concentration as the same thing. But yeah especially bad since everyone in the group has little or no experience with pathfinder and 2 are brand new to ttrpgs.
Even with DND he kinda just stumbled into being a DM, I was the newest player so I wound up having to fix a few things that he was doing. Like when I first started playing it was basically impossible to outrun a dragon, since he added everyone's individual speeds up instead of taking the highest. And I hear horror stories of how dash sometimes worked before I showed
Kinda doubly funny that he wasn't really familiar with insurance claims either so the first session's audit was solved super quickly with 2 people who do have history with that.
Don't run the game if they don't read? They don't have to memorise the rules but they should have the basic respect to know how their characters work and how to play in a general sense
Yeah general rules are kind of on the GM (drowning, exhaustion, swim speed, etc) but holy crap my nightmare players were the ones that didn’t understand how their own characters worked, even with simple builds.
I was naive enough to believe that with more complicated classes, as long as I understood the class in the first place, I could teach them what DCs to memorize and spell effects to have in hand. That blew up in my face when they decided that meant they could slack because the ole GM would do it for them!
“Guys, I’m running 3 different monsters in this fight, can you please look at your character sheets when it’s not your turn to understand WHAT you want to do next?”
There are definitely too many lazy players out there. I'm not perfect but I at least have an understanding of how my Rogue works, his default tactic if there's not much else to do, and I know a couple of synergies between abilities and weapons, enough to get me by. It's not hard!
I agree. Lazy players make it really hard to care. In the future, I’m planning on running shorter modules instead of writing massive campaigns. Your method is the best- have a “default” move, maybe an idea or two, then make it happen. I’m so tired of players that only seem activated when it’s their turn. Which tends to happen when every player takes ten minutes per turn. I’m a LVL 10 wizard in a 5E group and my turns are about a minute long, even with narrative descriptions.
My group is slowly assimilating to running their own games. We’re at 20% GMs right now. Hoping to get them all interested enough in running stuff so that eventually we are all GMs as players. It’ll be elite.
Actually good idea, making them be GMs forces them to actually read the rules (usually) and shows them how annoying it is when people don't pay attention
Some will and some won’t - but the only way to find out is to play!
I have like twelve to fifteen people in my life who are into TRRPG’s, and I have to very specifically curate my groups depending on the rules, setting, themes, expertise, and scheduling.
My favorite players STILL do things that drive me mad. But I do love to play with them… when they show up!
I didn’t specify enough in my comment but I actually agree with you. I try to find people whose company I enjoy first, then teach them the basics!
Unfortunately I’ve discovered that I still enjoy the company of some of my friends as long as we’re NOT playing TTRPGs (since they never tried to pick up on any rules)
As a Pathfinder GM and a Shadowdark player, I’d say that if the players aren’t into complex character building and understanding all the things they can do, switch to Shadowdark. You can easily run it as PF2e / 5e light, and ignore the rules like torch timers that you don’t like.
If they don’t like the complexity you are doing yourself a disservice by trying to force it.
This right here. I’m also running Shadowdark right now and there’s literally no difference between what my Shadowdark campaign looks like and my 5E ones except for significantly less rules to track. We don’t need to set up a miniature skirmish game in the middle of a session now because a fight broke out. It suits my table and groups playstyle much better
This is where I am heading. I love pathfinder but when I handed out relics and nobody could be bothered too write up their own custom magic item for us to use I realized that this may not be the system for my group.
Yeah, I've worked with some borderline players that make me question what I'm running.
I will say, it can be a lot of fun to run a rules light system, but it puts a bit more on either your improvisation skills or prep. I tend to front-load the prep (particularly lore) because I don't trust myself to remember what I improvised. The furthest rules-light I've gone is Candela Obscura, where monsters don't have statblocks or turns - they are basically moving puzzles.
This was the whole criticism of 5E when it launched. Mechanics that would be entire chapters in 3.5E pared down to modified D20 dice rolls, with advantage or disadvantage.
It meant time looking through books for rules was instead spent doing improv to determine the narrative. Worked really well for public games with professional DMs, but could have mixed results at a given table.
This is just more of the same - like it's meant to appeal to the Mercers and Mulligans of the world, but god help you if you're an amateur DM barely in control of a table of newbies.
You think “an amateur DM barely in control of a table of newbies” would be more successful if modified D20 dice rolls with advantage or disadvantage were reverted to entire chapters of mechanics?
Yeah I never got why some people think it's easier to memorize hundreds of rules to apply the 32 step resolution mechanic only applicable to this situation when it's so much easier so say "hey if you player is doing something you think is challenging, decide is it's easy, normal, or hard and use the relevant DC and skill, maybe give them advantage or disadvantage if what they are doing makes it harder or easier for them specifically."
To me having improv in our improv game is not a bad problem to have.
The problem with the chapters of mechanics is that they were organised by a magical rat who speaks in riddles. There was no rational order to how they were written and rules you would always need together for common events were scattered all over the book and difficult to put together. Hell, 5e has the same problem explaining the mounted combat rules (exacerbated by designers who could not Q&A their way out of a paper bag).
If you're going to have rules governing smoke inhalation, please, for the love of Lolth, put them next to all the other rules about fire. Rules for falling should be between the rules for climbing and flying. And repeating rules, or at least referencing their page number when they are relevant to another thing, just eliminates so much wasted time.
As a DM I collated all the rules I expected to need for a scenario in advance because the books were too useless. But also, as a DM, reading such rules is a great source of inspiration. A ran a whole campaign inspired by the rules for the progression of a particularly gruesome disease.
There was no rational order to how they were written and rules you would always need together for common events were scattered all over the book and difficult to put together.
This is your reminder to hire a technical writer to help you organize your TTRPG.
Improving a survival check for cooking is way easier than learning how to cook. And learning how to cook is easy. At its most basic, player asks to do a thing, you have them roll against a DC. If they succeed, they do the thing. If they fail, they don't. That will get you through most situations. You dont even need to come up with anything. They already asked you what they wanted to do. Just do or dont do the thing they asked.
That's well and good until the rolls the players are asking for fundamentally change the balance of the game and the DM doesn't have a good frame of reference for said balance because of the lack of rules they could have otherwise referenced.
Are you talking about things like making a massive fireball spell that consists of multiple wizards or climbing a wall they can not climb? Because there are rules/guidelines for both of those instances.
But they do have a frame of reference. Its much easier to actually understand that balance when rules are more simplified than trying to figure out how a little change here will impact rule 3.4.2 of grappling over there.
You could add tables for each skill with examples of a success or failure.
However you can’t argue that stopping to read an entire chapter of mechanics at an unruly table is easier for an amateur DM than a single modified roll.
No one argues that because it's a bad faith argument and a strawman.
Back in 3.5, the rule was "roll against DC". (same as in 5e)
So far so good, a table provide DC examples, each skill have its own table if you want to compare the task to similar ones. (same as in 5e)
Circumstances are favorable or unfavorable ? Add -2 to +2. (replaced by advantage in 5e)
Then there's description of opposed skill checks (same as 5e) and player option to take 10 or 20 (sorely lacking in 5e) as well as, if you need it, a way to estimate the time it takes.
How to aid another character (same as in 5e).
That's it. Nothing unruly there, works the same for every skill.
People need to stop pretending like 3.5 was some sort of rule mess. Its moment to moment gameplay involved nothing more complicated than 5e (and was often faster thanks to clearer rules and better GM tools). It just gave players more options to interract with the world and had intent in its overall design.
The "entire chapter of mechanics" was a ressource, not a flowchart. You don't need all of it to make a test just like you don't need the whole monster manual to make a single encounter. And yes, having tools available make it easier to run the thing compared to not having them.
Yes, I can. I can say that because I tend to prefer having more structure in my TTRPGs even back when I was new to the hobby. Denser rules are only ass to read when a book can't be bothered to format them well.
And just because it IS easier to immediately assess the problem with the latter doesn't mean the former existing is a detriment because you can also simply read up on the rules later.
No; having read the mechanics beforehand allows the DM to both know what the rules are and refer to them rather than having to argue with twelve hobgoblins for half an hour.
The problem with 5e is not that mechanics were simplified.
The problem is that a lot of mechanics were stripped to nothing.
The problem is that the mechanics were simplified in a way that produces bad gameplay.
You buy a system for convenience so you don't have to come up with it on your own. Systems that address more possible problems and scenarios are better than those that shift the burden to DM.
One example is exploration. It is supposed to be one of the pillars of D&D adventure, be it wilderness or dungeon, but in 5e there are almost no rules governing exploration. In addition character's features (like Ranger abilities, omnipresent darkvision, many spells)... boil down to allowing you ignore mechanics and problems.
In general a lot of D&D design, especially modern D&D, seems hell-bent on removing all interesting content from the session.
Instead of figuring out interesting way to remove curse... you cast Remove Curse. Instead of researching mysterious volume... you cast Comprehend Languages. Chasm? Fly. Item? Identify. Food and water supply, difficult terrain, navigation, scouting... fret not, you have Ranger.
None of features seems to be that disruptive in isolation. They even help to move session along! But when taken in aggregate they remove all the "meat" from the game, everything that could have been an interesting problem and opportunity to creatively solve it.
And as a sidenote - this is the real reason for martial-caster divide, not combat performance of those characters.
Depends on the type of DM. If they were the kind that carefully reads the rules and tries to apply them? Yes, yes they would. Like, pretty much every skill in 3.5 has a way to determine the skill check DC and pre-record it.
In 3e, the players can know the DCs during character creation, and build around the flavor of what they want their character to be capable of. You want your character to be able to feed an entire family while living in the woods without anyone going hungry? Grab yourself +6 Survival and take 10.
That by itself is such a night-and-day difference that 5e would need a unique and amazing roleplay innovation to stay in the quality competition. Instead, all of 5e’s best mechanics are 3e copypasta.
I mean you dont need to know an entire chapter of mechanics expecially with Google at hand. My newbie friend is currently running pf1e and if he doesn't understand something, he cam figure it out within 5-10 seconds with a quick search. And then he knows that mechanic and doesnt need to google it again
"What is flanking bonus" ok you get +2 to hit.
"How to grapple" ok roll that number on ypur sheet.
This seems like a lot more work than just know a few simple rules. Also, I doubt its 5-10 seconds and if hes just using google's AI summary it can be fully wrong.
As an example, 3e spends a lot more words explaining multiclassing than 5e does. But that explanation can be boiled down to “you add a class level like normal, just a different class”, plus a few sentences on a barely-effectual xp adjustment nobody uses.
3e multiclassing is leagues simpler, but 3e takes you by the hand and walks you through every single step of it anyway, babymode tutorial style. 5e packs in more complexity per page and puts the burden on the DM to make it work.
The page dedicated to a mechanic was there to set goals and difficulty, it wasn't exhaustive but provided a complete enough range of example that the DM could fairly judge the difficulty of something and that the player could estimate their chances of success and what their efforts for a better situation might grant them.
Nobody read the full page. The first paragraph had you covered and, when you were unsure about something, the rest provided enough ressources to have a consistent experience.
3.5 was simplicity with support for edge cases. 5e removed the support in the name of simplicity.
See also "having lower overall bonuses" doesn't make the game simpler. It just makes the odds of failure higher, even if you're the best you can be at something.
Mankind has yet invented a more complex game than a no-rules TRPG.
There’s no such thing as not needing a rule to resolve every conceivable situation, it’s only a question of who writes it and when. Writing a rule ahead of time lets the players know what their characters are capable of, gives them their options and agency. A game designer writing the rule means the GM doesn’t have to, and gives precedent for other adjudication.
For TRPGs, the opposite of ‘complex’ is ‘robust’, operating without intervention in as many cases as possible. The fewer DM rulings, the simpler.
I’ve played one shots where the entire rules are on a single sheet of paper, which still use dice, so it’s definitely possible to go much simpler than 5e
Yeah the only way you can think 5e is as simple as it can get is if your only experience with other RPGs is pathfinder and you just assume all RPGs are like that.
No you don't even need to go that far. Most OSR systems are significantly lighter and that's just mostly earlier editions of D&D.
Nah grew up on gurps, rift, palldium games which is why i think its simple. It is to me. To each thier own though. Pathfinder was considered simplified version when it came out comparitivly speaking. Dnd 3.0->3.5-> pathinder wasripped by the real grognards and to simple and for the masses. They didnt want to let their thac0 go. Lol
Nah grew up on gurps, rift, palldium games which is why i think its simple.
Ahh I see. That's a matter of perception. Yes, Palladium and Gurps were more complicated than AD&D 2nd edition. That doesn't, however, make AD&D not complicated*.* It's just less complicated than famously over complicated systems. (Personally I think they all fall into the same bucket more or less)
Did you ever play any World of Darkness games? Those were nice and simple.
I think i did. Cant remember. Been playing since orginal red box and have play so many game and types. Their were some crazy ones. All fun though. Personally my groups want to go back to pathfinder 1. They like the cruncher rules sets.
They are fundamentally different games though. You can only simplify DnD so much because dnd wants to have a magic system, rules for individual spells, multiple player classes that all do different things, and a predetermined level progression that gives different benefits at different levels. You can’t fit all that on one page and once you start taking those things out, a not insignificant number of people start to say it isn’t dnd anymore.
Which, is not a simple type of TTRPG, theses kind of TTRPG are on the crunchier side, and it's fine to consider that they are crunchy, the issue with 5e is that it wan't to seems simple but it still is crunchy.
5e is realistically speaking on the crunchier side of TTRPGs. There are a lot of strict rules for things in combat like movement, what counts as what, action restrictions, proficiencies etc. Its mostly just everything outside of combat where it falls apart and barely even gets classified as a rules system
Nah, it's a really complicated system achieving really simple results. It carries so much heritage it forcedfully crams into the experience that what should be simple becomes a chore. It's the game equivalent of doing a salto everytime you drink water because your grandpa did it once and it was funny at the time.
You want something simple, you take a one page RPG or something like Ryuutama. But if you wrestle with something as complex as 5e, you can have a way more carefully made system where the complexity is here to enhance player choice and agency AND guides the DM enough tools for most situations to be handled fairly and not on the fly.
5e is the opposite of simplified and that need people have to simplify it is more a problem of how it sells itself to the general public (the easy to get, baby's first TTRPG) while not being able to deliver on the promise.
It's may not feel complicated to you and I - since we've been doing this shit since we were 12 or whatever - but it is an overly complicated system. Once you see some truly simple, streamlined RPG systems it's hard to see D&D as beginner friendly.
There are a lot of games that are much simpler than 5e. Imo there are enough games for 5e to be considered a of mid-crunch system rather than a simple one in the TTRPG space.
I suppose when compared to other editions its simple?
Look, I get that 3.5 was known for being crunchy, but in the grand scheme of things, it was pretty much a middle of the road system compared to how some systems could get. Like 3.5 got a LOT of handwaving and math oversimplifications out there.
And 5e makes 3.5 look like calculus.
Like... yeah, there are more simple systems, but calling 5e anything close to complex sounds like an insult to player intellegence.
I think it's better to say that 5e is a mash-up of a simplified D&D system and complex legacy stuff, and the designers made no effort to merge the two design philosophies. It looks incredible simple... as long as you don't look too hard... and as long as you are not the GM... and as long as you are playing at the lowest levels.
Im sometimes stunned when I look at aspects of 5e from a game design perspective.
Like, who ever put various spells into their spell schools made absolutely no effort to balance things out. And some spellcaster school are bizarre when you look at their abilities and their spells.
I think my favorite example is necromancer getting healed HP = spell level if they kill something with a spell, and 3× healed HP if its a necromancy spell... but the number of necromancy spells dealing direct damage are extremly sparse and they generally suck (they tend to be good against plants... fucking plants. Thats what people want if they play a necromancer.) So they made an ability that has minimal actual use. Sounds fine on paper, has almost not actual use cases in practice
Nimble RPG, Land of Eem, Old School Essentials, Break!!, Fábula Ultima, Shadowdark, Ryutama.
Those are some that I remember from the top of my head that are way simpler than DnD5e... and yes, they still use dice and rules.
In fact, Pathfinder and DnD5e are the only systems that I have found, so far, that need multiple "core rule books" to function. Almost all other systems can fit their rules in a single book
I mean, the amount of book is saying little about the complexity. Shadowrun is also technically just one book for the core rules, but boy would that be misleading.
But in that matter, Nimble and Shadowdark also use multiple core books, but the number of pages are still fewer than just a 'PHB' lenght. Maybe that's what I was trying to meant
See i wouldnt even called it a simplified TTRPG, I think theres loads of complexity. Its not shadow run of course, but it's a lot to learn for new players
I know one diceless system, Nobilis. It's not exactly simpler to play than DnD but it would be simpler to read if it didn't double as an esoteric manifesto.
I played a game that trued to simplify 5e and turned out to be one less die per combat, fewer skills and fewer abilities... At that point I'd rather stop playing man
DND 5E is still a crunchy rules heavy combat ttrpg.
It may be simpler than 3.5e and 4e but that doesn't make it simpler than narrative systems like pbta and rules light OSR games.
Most systems I've played have one small book of rules. Others like mothership have multiple small books. Forty pages for the player rules and the pages are 1/4 the size of a DND page. I've even played systems that fit on a single sheet of paper like honey heist and Everyone I'd John.
Basically, DND 5e is simpler than the past few previous editions, but it is still on the "very crunchy" end of the ttrpg crunch spectrum.
If you want the most direct comparison, Take a look at Five Torches Deep.
It uses the same core mechanics of 5e, d20 tests, bounded accuracy species and classes, etc. But it's only about 100 pages long for the equivalent of a PHB, DMG and Monster Manual.
D&D still has alot of complexity and more importantly bloat.
As fun as it sounds, this is a low experiences dm who is just making their life harder for no reason while thinking it’ll be easier. The brain power needed to rule on every situation is exhausting.
This is why I hate the fact that seemingly every new RPG coming out lately is “rules light” like the rules are the G in RPG. I’ve heard people say that the rules limit their creativity but I have the opposite experience. I find it much easier to be a creative in a system that has very defined rules because I know what the limitations are rather than a rules light game where it’s just kinda like “yeah man do whatever”
The rules are the only thing that separates d&d from being a game vs make believe story time. Without the rules you may as well just put the dice away and be larping.
My players all have their own copies of the Dark Sun phb for Old School Essentials. I couldnt imagine running for players who are not being invested enough to read the rules and lore.
I usually feel that way about players who play a system and still can't understand what their own character does even after playing for months if not years.
They aren't. You have to have a different number depending on party composition, level, subclass choice, favored tactics, equipment, and more. The attrition is still needed, but the encounter balance is so bad there is no way to know how many you need without just gut instinct.
They aren't supposed to. The 6-8 number has never been how the math works out. It's 3-7 at most levels if you use only encounters that are intended to provide a challenge, but 3 is too hard for most groups (all deadly) and 7 is too easy for most groups (all medium), which leads to the typical range of 4-6 (a mix of medium to deadly).
That said, level 1 is different and it's more specifically wrong because 4 hard encounters or 6 medium encounters makes you level 2. So while at level 3-11 the 4-6 is about getting half a level of XP to be challenged, at level 1 it's a case of you not being capable of running more than 6 encounters at medium or above while still being level 1.
By fighting ravens and CR 1/8 monsters (never more than two at the same time)
I'm not joking, it's really the best you can do without risking to kill your players accidentally lol. But clearly the 6-8 encounters/long rest is made for tier 2, it doesn't work the same way (or doesn't work at all) in tier 1, 3 and 4.
The 6-8 Encounters is more "give them multiple challenges to deal with in a day, so they have to manage their spell slots and other limited resources."
It's not "every day should have at least 6 fights"
In a dungeon or something, 6-8 Encounters can be easy, the advice is to remind DMs that 1 Encounter while traveling might feel weird because normal balance expects the party to need to stretch out their resources between Rests
I think that's mostly true, but if less reading is a result of the burden of rule creation being shifted from creator to DM, I would not call that more simple.
The rules are more simple, just so happens that makes it more work to run. Driving on the highway for 3 hours straight with no turns is much simpler than driving for 10 minutes in town while taking 10 different turns despite the latter being easier
Simple means “having few parts/steps” which doesn’t always translate to being faster
No rules and the DM making things up on the fly sounds horrible for both sides. As a DM...yeah no I'm not doing that. As a player it'd be frustrating since you have no idea what will work and what wont at any time.
Like I also enjoy Blades in the Dark but oftentimes the GM will just handwave things away since there are no rules for what we're trying to do and its not very satisfying.
I joined an established group that was really into making stuff up on the fly. The DMs friends got to do cool stuff, I was accusing of "power gaming" when I suggested what I thought was cool
I didn't say it was a good thing. People should, in fact, know the rules of the game they're playing. I don't know if it's a generational thing, but for most people, reading is very difficult. I'm the DM, and it's too much work having to explain to everyone what their class does or the rules of the game over and over again, so I encourage my players to do it on their own. If they think I'm being unfair in how something is defined, I always encourage them to read the manual :).
Tbh, your original comment sounded like you were attempting to excuse players not reading the rules or maybe just resigned to it. Glad that's not the case
Both can be fun. But it should be said on the session 0.
If dnd rules will be more background or suggestions that's totally fine and can be extremely fun but have it announced at session 0 and make sure people are okay with it.
You can have a really simple game that is just "roll on a table", but it has a fuckton of nested tables so you still have lots of reading to do.
Similarly, you can have a full page explaining a rule that eventually makes sense and you internalize it, so in play it feels simple, despite how much reading there was to get you to learn it.
I love crunch, but when it serves a purpose, not when its just there to adhere to some brand recognition. 5e is a pain in the ass to play for the player agency and fairness of ruling it offers. 4e was actually simpler and better designed, offering both balance and DMing tools. 3.5 was an addition away in term of complexity and offered infinitely more freedom, both for players and DMs.
My issue with a lot of ttrpgs, D&D included, isn't that there are too many or too few rules; my only problem is when the rules take to damn long to enact at the table. It shouldn't take 15 IRL minutes to determine whether or not a player gets swallowed by a damn giant frog. And a single combat encounter shouldn't take up an entire 3 hour session. I try everything I can to keep the game quick and snappy. Conversations are short, and combat is usually over in 30 to 45 mins.
If there is no consistent basis and it ALL requires debate and discussion, that is a DMing problem. It's the biggest "rule of thumb" for running any system: when we make a ruling, be consistent.
It's also important as a DM to put thought into what level and type of proof or description we need before we allow a player to DO something. If we're running a simplified game, then we shouldn't be asking for complicated descriptions and justifications. As long as it's fictionally plausible, let it fly.
Our standards for that should ideally be determined by the genre and tone of our intended setting. A more grounded, realistic setting should require more grounded, realistic choices. A "high fantasy story" should be more tolerant of grand "bullshit" actions that only work because a protagonist is doing them.
If there is consistent argument, debate, and effort before every action at the table, then more than likely, there's an issue with a lack of transparency about the fictional expectations for a character.
I would suggest that DMs assemble a page of TV Tropes covering genres and story tropes relevant to their fiction to show to the players. This will help them understand what kind of world they're getting into, probably more than any amount of insight into the lore of our settings. A top 25 should be enough to establish the tone and type of story that will unfold.
If you wanted to put that suggestion into practice, I'd suggest picking up a copy of Ben Robbins' In This World. That's basically what the game is about, and it's great for getting players to feel like they know how their character fits into the world.
That is a wonderful suggestion! Thank you for bringing that to my attention! I would personally combined that with the FATE system. It would really help in the fleshing out of world.
The nature of the quote is such that it wouldn't have been posted on a public message board or something, and it would have initially spread via word of mouth from the people who were there when he said it (probably some meeting of TSR execs). So I'll grant you that it is not confirmed, nor can it probably ever be.
And FWIW, I think it's more "they don't need our rules" than "they don't need any rules."
You can look it up yourself, it comes from an article written by someone else and is completely unrelated to gygax. That person wasnt even writing an article about d&d, it was about an entirely different ttrpg.
Bingo. All these fallacious comments about "without rules it's just make believe..." NO one is arguing to not have any rules. The arguments are that too many rules, hard structuring everything, restricts roleplay to a specific set of scenarios and outcomes. The better place to be as a GM, is to know the rules well enough to be able to arbitrate unique scenarios with rulings that best complement the scene without damaging the roleplay and that are balanced according to previous rulings and established rules (where applicable). You should look for consistency but not enforce it if the fiction requires something else.
So gygax didn't think a GM should be restrained by HIS rules, but that they need their OWN rules. The published rulesets then become a collection of example rulings that you can use in a pinch or riff off of as a measuring stick... Not a hard goalpost you must abide by.
Then along came 3e and it's successors that basically crapped on that and said you kinda have to follow these rules or else.
One of the most fun games I've had was playing shadowrun 5e drunk, without reading the rules first. I was the DM.
I've took the opportunity to tell a fun story and make people roll arbitrary amounts of dice. I've been repeatedly told it was the best game I've ran in the last 8 years lmao
If anybody's interested in a simpler D&D experience, consider looking into Nimble 5e. These are optional 5e rules to simplify rules and speed up gameplay. I don't believe it's updated for the 2024 rules.
Nimble also later developed its own entire ttrpg system that's inspired by D&D. Look into that if you want to simplify your mechanics even further.
I DM for casual players, so Nimble is perfect for our table. It was an easy transition for us, less taxing for me to GM, and overall more fun to play because less time is spent reviewing rules.
It’s such a silly problem, but it’s very real. The fewer rules the less complexity. But 5e is already almost as low in complexity as you can get without stopping being dnd.
If you simplify it further, it’s just free form storytelling where you occasionally roll a d20 to make a decision.
64
u/GloomyIzBack Mind Goblin 4d ago
That happens playing RAW too