D&D: a modest proposal
Well, I'm trying to put my money where my mouth is--I griped last week about D&D, and I'd like to find a fix for my complaints. In particular, I've found myself wondering if one way to streamline the D&D experience might be to create some sort of "D&D Lite"--a simplified version of the rules that would try to retain D&D's classic "gamey-ness" but would let some of the more complex rules fade into the background where they wouldn't disrupt gameplay. Other complex systems (GURPS springs to mind) have created "lite" versions of their rules, and seem to have done a good job of it. Has anyone thought to do so with the D&D rules, especially given their "open source" roots?
The more I think of this, the more intrigued I get about the idea. What would you do to simplify and streamline the D&D rules? Remember, the goal would not be to "perfect" or "fix" the D&D rules, but rather to take them and make them work faster and more efficiently. Ideally, a "lite" version would be largely (but probably not 100%) compatible with the full rules, so that someone who wanted to "upgrade" to the full ruleset wouldn't have much trouble doing so.
Here are a few thoughts I had along these lines about stuff that might be changed or simplified to create a "D&D Lite" ruleset. I haven't thought these all through, but simply post them as they have occurred to me. Comments, additions, or critiques? Why would or wouldn't these work?
The basic system. The core system behind D&D is quite simple: roll d20, add modifiers, beat a target number. There's not much to complain about here, complexity-wise: the key is to keep the number of modifiers being applied to any given roll to an absolute minimum. More on this in the following points.
Character creation. This is a tricky one to simplify without removing some of the classic D&Disms that players enjoy. Some possibilities:
- keep most of the basic D&D stats intact--i.e. the six main stats, hit points, armor class, etc. I think these are familiar enough and not difficult to grasp, conceptually.
- eliminate saving throws. Just roll the most relevant ability instead.
- reduce the available classes to the four "archetype" classes--fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.
- increase (by 2 or 3, say) the number of feats allowed to starting characters. Take many of the class-specific "specialty" abilities that belonged to the non-archetype character classes (which we removed in the previous step) and convert them into feats. For instance, most of the Paladin's special abilities (healing hands, detect evil, etc.) could be pretty easily converted into feats, which could then be chosen by anyone who wished to give their character a Paladin feel. Same goes with classes like the Monk and Druid. Someone who wanted to create a Monk-type character would create a Fighter and outfit him/her with whatever feats seem to support that vision for the character.
It might even be fun to take some of the abilities of the four archetype classes--turning undead, casting spells, etc.--and make them feats as well, although they might cost a bit more (maybe they count as 2 feats during character creation) than other feats (since they're pretty foundational abilities).
- reduce the number of skills by collapsing them into logical categories. Encourage players to create new skills for their characters, and to "specialize" in the existing skills as a way of personalizing their character. Only write on the character sheet those skills that a character actively possesses. If a character doesn't have a skill written down that is relevant to the activity they are attempting, they roll with their appropriate stat modifier.
- make "Melee Combat" and "Ranged Combat" normal skills. Do away with the whole Base Attack Bonus thing.
The idea behind these changes is to keep a certain flexibility and open-ness to character creation without having complicated rules and charts for a dozen different classes. Multi-classing between the four archetype classes would not be allowed (instead of multi-classing, you'd just buy the core feats from the class you want to switch into).
Magic and spells. D&D's magic system is quirky, but that's part of the appeal, so simplifying this will be tricky as well.
- Keep the current distinction between Arcane and Divine magic--they're classic D&D, and they make for a fun "opposite side of the same coin" feel. Also, keep the basic D&D spell level structure.
- Reduce the number of spells drastically (lists and descriptions of spell occupy probably a full third of the D&D Player's Handbook and account for a good chunk of its bulk).
- Make spells a bit more "generic." If both the Magic Missile and Flaming Arrow spells cause damage to enemies, do they really need to be separate spells? Combine them into a single "Hurt" spell; let the player come up with a fancy or goofy name for it and a personalized description for how the spell looks and works.
Let higher-level spellcasters improve the effects of spells they already know, instead of making them learn new spells. As spellcasters gain levels, let them choose specific ways to "improve" spells--by increasing damage, range, duration, radius of effect, or the like. This would both help in removing redundant spells and sits better with common sense--a high-level spellcaster should be able to cast Hurt a lot more powerfully than a low-level spellcaster, but the principle of the spell is the same.
- Eliminate the "save for half damage" type qualifier for spells. Either you resist the spell or you don't.
- Make an "Able to Cast Spells" feat available to all characters, but make it cost more than a normal feat (maybe double or triple the cost). Clerics and Wizards get this feat automatically.
- to resist a spell attack: roll higher than 10 + the caster's character level.
Combat and activity. This is the truly dense part of the D&D rules, in my opinion, and while the complexity can make for a great tactical wargaming experience, it can be slow. To simplify matters, what do you think about these ideas:
- basic action resolution mechanic stays the same: roll d20, add modifiers, beat a target number.
- no Attacks of Opportunity. As much as the wargamer in me loves to see this rule, it's confusing. The DM can allow "free" attacks if it makes sense in the context of the fight, but it shouldn't be written into the rules.
- What you can do in one round: each round, your character can attempt any one basic action, within reason ("reason" being whether it makes sense to the DM and players if the action could be done in a round). Examples of basic actions might be "load my crossbow," "drink a potion," or "attack the orc."
If your character moves during the round, he/she gets a -2 to their action attempt (if the action even calls for a dice roll). If your character runs during the round, they can move twice as far but can't do any actions.
Opposed action, such as a wrestling match or resisting a spell's effects? Roll your most appropriate skill or attribute against the other person's, highest roll wins.
That's it.
- common sense judgment calls, not written rules, for all other situations. Want to charge the orc? Fine, pick the most appropriate skill or attribute and roll. Want to slide-tackle it instead? Fine, pick the most appropriate skill and roll. The DM can pick the target number, using the enemy's armor class or appropriate skill if it makes sense. No need to scour the rulebook index to find out where the "Slide Tackle Rules" are located; just pick a reasonable number and roll.
Wow, in the process of writing these up, I have halfway convinced myself to actually make the creation of a "D&D Lite" a personal project. I haven't thought these through, as I mentioned, but I think some of them are semi-workable. What do you gamers think? Do these ideas succeed in simplifying D&D without sacrificing its... D&Dness? Are they steps in the right direction? Or are they not much easier than the rules they would be replacing? What would you do? Comments welcome!
Comments
Simplification Step #745: Reintroduce the "random harlot" table from the 1E DMG. This way, you won't have to spend all that time thinking up new harlots between games. :)
Seriously, though, I really like your ideas for a "3E-lite", particularly for personalizing spells and a greater range of feats. The inflexibility of 3E (not D20) is precisely what turns me off about the game.
I'd be interested to see what you come up with.
Of course, if you want real simplicity, you could always just play D&D instead of AD&D ("I am a 4th level dwarf!").
Jon
Posted by: Jon | October 6, 2003 1:45 PM
The simplest thing would be to bring back the only D&D I ever knew, the original basic version. Those of you who were going nuts with AD&D were way too far ahead of us slowpokes who only had the regular game, and had no one to play it with. It had simple rules for combat, not too many extra abilities (psionics????) and was reasonably straightforward on creation and advancement of characters. Sure it was simplistic, but so? I suspect that if I had ever managed to play it, it would have been just as fun.
Like Rail Baron.
KDC
Posted by: Kdieterc | October 6, 2003 5:23 PM
Jon, glad you like the D&D-Lite ideas. And I haven't tried Fudge, although I've been reading some pretty good things about it lately. I'll check it out--thanks for the recommendation.
Karl, you aren't alone in pining for the Good Old Days of gaming, and you aren't alone in not having had anyone to game with back in the day. There are several games out right now that aim specifically for that old-school, classic-D&D flavor, Hackmaster being the most prominent. And there are still plenty of people who play old 1st edition D&D. I spent a year or two just rolling up Middle Earth characters by myself before my friends and I started up a gaming group...
Posted by: jrau | October 6, 2003 10:45 PM
Good ideas--I don't suppose you've spent much time thinking about this. I liked the idea about simplified and personalized spells, like "The Hurt", "The Big Hurt" and "The Sack of Burning Oil Flasks".
Posted by: Mark | October 7, 2003 12:17 PM
The sad thing about 3e D&D (there's no such thing as 3e AD&D, just Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons) is that it attempted to streamline and simplify things by basing actions on the d20, only the tinkers got a-tinkering and now we've got d20 bloatage going on.
I complained about this in a roundabout way on an email newsletter for DM's Familiar, a Windows-based application to aid the DM in running games and keeping records. I may have insulted some readers when I complained that the 3.5 Edition now has rules for practically everything, including slipping on a turd. (OK, that's not true; I lie. But the 3.5 rules codify minutiae so tightly that turds will soon become a valid challenge for PCs to overcome--mark my words!).
In some ways, Andy, special abilities like Turn Undead *are* feats... only not for every one. If any PC could pick up a special ability like that, there would be way too much individualization going on in characters, and players would get honked off: "Well, I wouldn'ta picked that spellcasting feat if I knew that my armor would give me 50% spell failure! DM, it's YOUR fault! What kinda rules are these? I wanna change mid-game!" I foresee the DM really getting bogged down.
The major problem with 3.5's complexity is that players don't know the rules well enough to play their own characters. Some players still are using their 3.0 PHBs--which they've never cracked open in months. As it is, the player running a Paladin or Cleric is the one who's supposed to know how to Turn Undead: the game mechanics, what page in the PHB to find the details, etc. Likewise, players who run spellcasters are the ones who are supposed to know the effects of their spells. The DM knows the rules more (in general), but she prepares for an adventure by reading up on rules relevant to running the adventure, not how to run the player characters. As a DM, I have enough on my hands managing the plot, gauging what kind of encounter should come next in order to provide variety and pace, and running five NPC combatants and handling the mechanics of *their* spells--don't expect me to know what dice the player is supposed to roll.
Players sit there like you're a computer; you're a glorified on-line Help menu. Poo on them: if they don't know what to do, their PCs just might lose their action for that round. "You don't remember how to cast Fireball, so instead you wet your britches. Do you want to take a five foot step?"
On the other side of the DM's Screen, we DMs really have to have a laptop running in order to keep track of combat, refer to rules, etc. Gamers and Hasbro together have made it this way, for we are computer-literate consumers of their product; we've indicated in marketing surveys that we use (or would like to use) computers in-game. The d20 game engine is designed in such a way that Hasbro can extend the Dungeons & Dragons brand into the computer game market, to wit: The "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" PC game is creating a *huge* stir of interest--and buying--among the 20- and 30-somethings where I work. Computer gamers are so excited that the PC game incorporates *real* D&D rules into gameplay that they want to get their hands on the rulebooks. And... they want to get back into gaming.
The complexity of the 3.5 edition (it is an edition, not an "update") exists because DMs don't know how to make decisions in-game--they don't have that common sense understanding of the basic d20 rules ("d20 lite"). The players don't have it, either, so they can't help their DM by knowing what it is their characters are doing. It's a vicious circle that will stop when players learn the rules and DMs refuse to coddle them.
(BTW, I do a lot of playing, not just DMing. BTW,my complaint to that email list was, keep the software simple and let the DM make the decisions--not the software. I extended my complaint to the 3.5 rules.)
I used to chafe at the lowly Magic Missile spell--it's so blase; but it's now music to my ears when a player says, "I guess my sorcerer will cast another Magic Missile." Tasha's Hideous Laughter is just as sweet and much more potent in many cases, but they never picked up their PHB to look it up. They limit themselves because they didn't spend 20 minutes reading up on a few spells, but if it facilitates combat, I say "wise choice." When my NPC zaps their NPC with a case of the giggles, then they decide to read up on it!
Well, DMing is sweeter with the DM's Familiar program, and players use it at the game table as well. It's got customizable databases with all their spells, and it's actually easier to look things up in the program than in the books.
Well, this was long. I'll stop now. It's your fault, Andy. Dang I love d20 D&D!
Posted by: Heather | October 8, 2003 10:48 PM
I like the idea of 3e Lite, but mainly as a way to introduce players to the more complete rules. While I can appreciate Heather's disdain for the "slip on a turd saving throw" problem, I kind of like the complexity of the rules. But I know not everyone does, so the idea of 3e Lite is a great idea. The remainder of my post will attempt to be constructive, but will certainly be critical. Know that I'm less of a man for critiquing the changes than you for creating them. :-)
For beginners, I think the general concept of fitting a great majority of the rolls to a d20 is a wonderful change from the past. That goes a long way toward simplifying things for beginners (even though damage still uses other dice).
eliminate saving throws. I don't like this one. Saving throws in 3e are nearly the same as rolling one's most appropriate ability already. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. If you mean the DC stuff, I disagree; different situations call for different difficulty levels.
I hate the idea of collapsing things into the four archetypal, except that I love the idea of moving the class-specific skills into the feat structure. I don't think turning undead or spellasting even needs to "cost more"; give them prereqs and level requirements. The net effect is that you would probably end up with more prevalent high-level casting (since any ol' lug could get the feat), which would make low-level wizards even less powerful, relatively speaking. I don't think that's a good thing, but that's a detail that could be addressed with the structure of the feat.
Your change to skills (writing only acheived skills) is moot; in fact, it's a step backwards in terms of simplicity. The behavior you describe is already the case if a person doesn't have a skill (they roll their appropriate ability mod), but by not listing them on the character sheet, you make the PC have to memorize which skill goes with which ability. For instance, is Swim a STR or DEX skill? Tracking is WIS but Languages is INT? I think it's important for new players to have that information at hand; skills are more used even than spells (which are another sticky point for PCs). The idea of collapsing them into fewer categories and encouraging more PC creativity is okay, but some of us like having the creative part pre-thought a bit. :-)
Spells are a big 'un. I think I like the idea of collapsing numerous damage-inflicting spells into a Hurt spell. However, I question how useful that would be overall; aside from Heal*, Inflict*, and Hold*, what other generic categories are there? The distinction between Lightning Bolt and Fireball are critical, even though both do effectively the same thing. (Think fire- or electricity-resistant monsters.)
As for the number of spells, I find it pleasantly plentiful. I think the PHB could definitely be limited to a strict subset of the spells, keep it to the basics there. The rest of the spells, and then some, could be moved exclusively to the Spellcaster's Handbook (or whatever it's called). That allows basic entry into the wizard foray, and allow hardcore wizard players to get WAY into it. Again, I am one that loves the wealth of spells; even though I don't play wizards that often, I love having a bunch of distinct weapons and defenses to mess with.
All of that to say, the Lite edition MUST be compatible with the full version in terms of spellcasting. Just alter the overall number of spells, but allow people to get into the full list if they want.
Again, with the spellcasting feat, I think it would work better if it were like a Ranger's ability to cast spells. It doesn't kick in until N levels (i.e., it has a level prereq) and it's not ever as powerful as a "real" spellcaster's ability.
I go back and forth about eliminating the "save for half damage" thing. On one hand, a particularly adept character, knowing that "some spell" is being cast, can brace himself, possibly anticipate the spell, and try to dodge it, but only be successful to get grazed. Another part of me says that it's magic: you shouldn't be able to save *at all*. You can *resist* or you can fail to resist is all.
I *love* your ideas about combat. My only complaint would be that you are putting even more control into the hands of the DM, including more judgement calls and subjective elements. "The DM can /allow/ 'free attacks'" rather than having the PCs know what is involved in combat and taking advantage of it within the rules. Then again, the Lite version (which is what we're talking about, quit getting off-topic pcg!) might benefit greatly from having a little more vagueness and a little more control in the DM's discretion.
All in all, I think you're on a great track. It's definitely something that 3e could benefit from. :-)
Posted by: pcg | October 11, 2003 10:33 PM
Mark, the phrase "Sack of Burning Oil Flasks" never fails to bring a smile to my face.
Posted by: JasonV | October 13, 2003 3:40 PM
Thanks for all your comments, guys! I've put the "D&D Lite" project on my list of things to do and will post any updates here in the future. I appreciate the feedback.
Posted by: jrau | October 14, 2003 8:15 AM