I want less rules that are "set in stone" and more rules that I can use, or not use, at my discretion
Sure I get that. You want simple rules at the core and optional rules you can choose or choose not to use. In either case however by the virtue of choosing to use additional rules will make your game more complex.
In either case none of these questions actually ask that. They simply state would you like to have an easier time GMng (good option) or a harder time running your game (bad option). Its a silly question, I can't imagine people are out to punish themselves into having a harder time GMing by choosing option B.
I don't want simple at core and complex options, I want simple at core and simple additional options.
The additional options don't have to be complex options, therefore they don't have to make DMing them more complex.
As for the poll, I voted for simple to DM; then I voted for more options to DM.
Worth noting that I have never played 1E or 2E, much less DMed them, so my not checking them at the end has nothing to do with their complexity.
What WotC can do to make me continue liking to DM is to follow up the fantastic encounter balance system that they introduced in 4E and the clear monster stat blocks that they introduced in 4E. I will gladly continue playing in 3E and Pathfinder games, but I refuse to DM them. After DMing for 4E, with the effortless elegant simplicity that it introduced for encounter design, I just can't go back. I cannot and will not go back to DMing a system where the suggested encounter table make no sense or where each monster stat block requires me to keep tabs in thirty different pages so I know everything that the monster is capable of.
I have played, and DM'd, for every edition of D&D.
Good Poll Lokiare, looking forward to seeing the results.
One thing I would have changed though is the word complexity in the question "Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?" . Simply put its kind of a loaded question, of course we want it simpler. But the question really should be do you want more options or less options, as less options would make it simpler, more options will make it more complex. When you just ask about complexity, its natural to not want that, after all, why would you want something more complicated. But if you reckognize that the trade off for simplicity is less options (which is always the case) the results I think would be different as I think many people would be willing to live with complexity, if it ment more options and additonal flexibility.
But other than that, looks good.
On the contrary, I want simpler rules and more options (rules to choose from). So they are not mutually exclusive choices; or, rather, simplicity does not always mean less options.
I want less rules that are "set in stone" and more rules that I can use, or not use, at my discretion.
@Lokaire, I tried to vote but nothing happened when I pressed the Vote buttons.
You would have to contact customer support for WotC forums. These polls are using their software...
Yeah, no offense to you of course; but, I'd rather have an unnecessary root canal. Thanks though...Oh wait, I just voted (in another window) and it worked.
By the way, maybe you should replace the final word, in the two questions being argued over, from easierto better.
So you've never played chess right? 6 pieces that have 1-2 ways they can move (few options), but an extremely complex game (complexity).
Sure I have, now add more options to chess and make it a simpler game.
I think I read the term options difrent then some of you. Maybe i was already in the modular mindset.
I read more options as for example there being difrent ways to boost the power of a monster, and you can chose the option that works best/ is the most easy for you.
as some people might take easyer to certain systems then others.
Sorry if I'm sounding like an overly critical douche but I didn't answer any of the "edition complexity" questions asked because they force me to say i'd not DM anything else due to complexity. Fact is, I DM all versions of D&D and would not choose to DM 4th simply because of my limited exposure. Complexity has little to do with why I pick AD&D over 3e, usually it's just what we feel like at a given time.
I'd have to weigh in and say that 3e offers more complexity to me than 2e does though.
So you've never played chess right? 6 pieces that have 1-2 ways they can move (few options), but an extremely complex game (complexity).
Sure I have, now add more options to chess and make it a simpler game.
Why would I do that? Its a game with few options that is very complex. Its an example that you asked for. I'm not about to go messing with a game I haven't mastered.
However the complexity doesn't automatically come from more or less options. Its entirely based on how the options interact. Once you realize that you will see your disconnect.
If the Wizard can choose between using Polymorph to completely change all their stats, abilities, and features into any beast of their level or less, then its pretty simple with more choices (around 8 or 9 I think). Everything is just like the beast they change into.
If the Wizard can choose between using Polymorph to change only their physical stats and traits into a Giant Ape, a Basilisk, or a Pegasus, then its pretty complex because it interacts with many other things about the character. Can they continue to cast spells? In the case of the Ape it might be a possibility, in the others not. Do they add their weapon attack bonus to their attacks? Maybe, that's mostly up to how the DM interprets weapon attack bonuses. See less choices don't necessarily mean simpler and more choices don't necessarily mean more complex.
Its all about how the options interact.
Well arguably chess is a simple game with simple options, its made more complicated if you want to play it well, but I do see your point to a degree, though I still don't think its possible within the confines of a more complex system like role-playing where you are effectively "adding" moves to use the chess example each time you add an option to the game.
I still mixing math, aka simplifying math = simpler system and what I'm talking about which is optional extensions of the game. For example if you add Castle Building Rules to a role-playing game, when those rules are used it makes the GM's job more complex, but offers a new option. This is what Im talking about. Not the mathmatics involved, they can be kept simple and the castle building system can be made simple, but by virtue of adding a new component as a whole its more complex.
I get what your saying though... keep it simple with lots of options. My response would be ... good luck with that. I don't see it happening, its like saying wouldn't it be great if we could eliminate taxes and have a free health care system! YAY.. Im all in for that... but how do you actually do it? I think its a pipe dream but sure I want that to, I think everyone wants that, I don't think you need to POLL people to find out if they want the system to be simple and have lots of options. That I can answer with 100% certainty for you.
Good Poll Lokiare, looking forward to seeing the results.
One thing I would have changed though is the word complexity in the question "Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?" . Simply put its kind of a loaded question, of course we want it simpler. But the question really should be do you want more options or less options, as less options would make it simpler, more options will make it more complex. When you just ask about complexity, its natural to not want that, after all, why would you want something more complicated. But if you reckognize that the trade off for simplicity is less options (which is always the case) the results I think would be different as I think many people would be willing to live with complexity, if it ment more options and additonal flexibility.
But other than that, looks good.
On the contrary, I want simpler rules and more options (rules to choose from). So they are not mutually exclusive choices; or, rather, simplicity does not always mean less options.
I want less rules that are "set in stone" and more rules that I can use, or not use, at my discretion.
@Lokaire, I tried to vote but nothing happened when I pressed the Vote buttons.
You would have to contact customer support for WotC forums. These polls are using their software...
Yeah, no offense to you of course; but, I'd rather have an unnecessary root canal. Thanks though...Oh wait, I just voted (in another window) and it worked.
By the way, maybe you should replace the final word, in the two questions being argued over, from easierto better.
EDIT: Edited for spelling.
What you don't like having to send an email to a special address in order to be able to fix your access to the help form? Who woulda thought?
So you've never played chess right? 6 pieces that have 1-2 ways they can move (few options), but an extremely complex game (complexity).
Sure I have, now add more options to chess and make it a simpler game.
Why would I do that? Its a game with few options that is very complex. Its an example that you asked for. I'm not about to go messing with a game I haven't mastered.
However the complexity doesn't automatically come from more or less options. Its entirely based on how the options interact. Once you realize that you will see your disconnect.
If the Wizard can choose between using Polymorph to completely change all their stats, abilities, and features into any beast of their level or less, then its pretty simple with more choices (around 8 or 9 I think). Everything is just like the beast they change into.
If the Wizard can choose between using Polymorph to change only their physical stats and traits into a Giant Ape, a Basilisk, or a Pegasus, then its pretty complex because it interacts with many other things about the character. Can they continue to cast spells? In the case of the Ape it might be a possibility, in the others not. Do they add their weapon attack bonus to their attacks? Maybe, that's mostly up to how the DM interprets weapon attack bonuses. See less choices don't necessarily mean simpler and more choices don't necessarily mean more complex.
Its all about how the options interact.
Well arguably chess is a simple game with simple options, its made more complicated if you want to play it well, but I do see your point to a degree, though I still don't think its possible within the confines of a more complex system like role-playing where you are effectively "adding" moves to use the chess example each time you add an option to the game.
I still mixing math, aka simplifying math = simpler system and what I'm talking about which is optional extensions of the game. For example if you add Castle Building Rules to a role-playing game, when those rules are used it makes the GM's job more complex, but offers a new option. This is what Im talking about. Not the mathmatics involved, they can be kept simple and the castle building system can be made simple, but by virtue of adding a new component as a whole its more complex.
I get what your saying though... keep it simple with lots of options. My response would be ... good luck with that. I don't see it happening, its like saying wouldn't it be great if we could eliminate taxes and have a free health care system! YAY.. Im all in for that... but how do you actually do it? I think its a pipe dream but sure I want that to, I think everyone wants that, I don't think you need to POLL people to find out if they want the system to be simple and have lots of options. That I can answer with 100% certainty for you.
Actually that's simple. Require a number of unpaid hours from medical personnel. You can pay for higher quality services and products, or you can get the free medical stuff with lower quality stuff. Take money from fines of corporations (assuming they begin to fine corporations based on percents rather than specific numbers that amount to pocket change) that break laws and rules and pay for any remaining medical costs. Reward doctors for not having repeat visits with their patients, by having less unpaid hours. Reduce government spending on wasteful programs and you would have plenty of money for medical care...
Well arguably chess is a simple game with simple options, its made more complicated if you want to play it well, but I do see your point to a degree, though I still don't think its possible within the confines of a more complex system like role-playing where you are effectively "adding" moves to use the chess example each time you add an option to the game.
I still mixing math, aka simplifying math = simpler system and what I'm talking about which is optional extensions of the game. For example if you add Castle Building Rules to a role-playing game, when those rules are used it makes the GM's job more complex, but offers a new option. This is what Im talking about. Not the mathmatics involved, they can be kept simple and the castle building system can be made simple, but by virtue of adding a new component as a whole its more complex.
I get what your saying though... keep it simple with lots of options. My response would be ... good luck with that. I don't see it happening, its like saying wouldn't it be great if we could eliminate taxes and have a free health care system! YAY.. Im all in for that... but how do you actually do it? I think its a pipe dream but sure I want that to, I think everyone wants that, I don't think you need to POLL people to find out if they want the system to be simple and have lots of options. That I can answer with 100% certainty for you.
Actually, you can't. There are people who want the complexity of tactical, grid-based combat, with "set in stone" rules that limit options.
That's what they seem to like about it: the options are specifically laid out and finite (no DM adjudication required) but tactically complex.
