Community

here are some interesting questions that might help WotC understand how to improve the game for DMs:

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. 

interesting poll. I have to wonder who wouldn't say no to "Would you enjoy an easier experience as a DM?" as it's currently phrased.

I put no to that question because I want a certain amount of optional depth that allows me to use my understanding of the system to more effect in encounters, like monsters with classes.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, kadim wrote:

interesting poll. I have to wonder who wouldn't say no to "Would you enjoy an easier experience as a DM?" as it's currently phrased.

I put no to that question because I want a certain amount of optional depth that allows me to use my understanding of the system to more effect in encounters, like monsters with classes.

See what Im saying? 

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.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Xguild wrote:

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. 

Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:

"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"

Same number of choices two different complexities...

An extra question covering what editions we've DMed for would be a good control question here.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, kadim wrote:

interesting poll. I have to wonder who wouldn't say no to "Would you enjoy an easier experience as a DM?" as it's currently phrased.

I put no to that question because I want a certain amount of optional depth that allows me to use my understanding of the system to more effect in encounters, like monsters with classes.

That has nothing to do with how easy it is. It can have many options and be easy or few options and complex:

1d6 or 1d4+2 or 1d8-1 or 1d10+1 or 1d12

1d6+3/2^2 or 1d8-1+3/2^2

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:40AM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Xguild wrote:

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. 

Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:

"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"

Same number of choices two different complexities...

Its not really what Im talking about.  Im talking about options. For example in the monster manual you have an ORC and he has an XP budget.  But what if I customize that Orc, what if I give him a Long Sword instead of a short sword and give him chain mail instead of Hide armor and I decide that he can also use cantrip spells.  How does that effect my XP budget?  It would require a more complex system for managing the budget and accounting for changes to the simple system.    One is simpler (less options) the other is more complex (more options).  In this poll people might choose simpler because, yeah sure, of course we want it simple, but if they discover it means less options as a sacrafice I think they would vote differently. 

I mean really these are all kind of loaded questions now that I re-read them, the questions hand you the obvious answer. 

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:40AM, lokiare wrote:

Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:

"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"

Same number of choices two different complexities...

sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Everyone wants rules to be simple; they don't necessarily want rules that force complexity into the game. Really it's more a question of flexibility... but again, who wants rules to be less flexible?

I'm not even sure what you're asking by those two questions, now that I really pick it apart. Really, the question is do you want optional depth or should the system just account for depth as well as breadth automatically - but then I also think that question probably directs the person being questioned to an answer.

heh Oh well, I'm sure it'll spark some conversations if nothing else.

edit: sentences that don't make any sense don't make any sense.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:44AM, Xguild wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:40AM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Xguild wrote:

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. 

Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:

"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"

Same number of choices two different complexities...

Its not really what Im talking about.  Im talking about options. For example in the monster manual you have an ORC and he has an XP budget.  But what if I customize that Orc, what if I give him a Long Sword instead of a short sword and give him chain mail instead of Hide armor and I decide that he can also use cantrip spells.  How does that effect my XP budget?  It would require a more complex system for managing the budget and accounting for changes to the simple system.    One is simpler (less options) the other is more complex (more options).  In this poll people might choose simpler because, yeah sure, of course we want it simple, but if they discover it means less options as a sacrafice I think they would vote differently. 

The question isn't about number of options, its about complexity. Maybe I'll add some questions about options.

Who in the world thinks that 4E is complex to DM for? Is it just people who have only DMed for 4E and have nothing else to compare to? Admittedly it is a relative question.

EDIT: Or are people confusing "4E is too complex for me to DM" for "I don't like 4E period".

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:46AM, kadim wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:40AM, lokiare wrote:

Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:

"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"

Same number of choices two different complexities...

sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Everyone wants rules to be simple; they don't necessarily want rules that don't allow for complexity where people want it. Really it's more a question of flexibility... but again, who wants rules to be less flexible?

I'm not even sure what you're asking by those two questions, now that I really pick it apart. Really, the question is do you want optional depth or should the system just account for depth as well as breadth automatically - but then I also think that question probably directs the person being questioned to an answer.

heh Oh well, I'm sure it'll spark some conversations if nothing else.

Ok this is getting wierd now, I feel like we shared brains in those last two posts. 

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:47AM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

Who in the world thinks that 4E is complex to DM for? Is it just people who have only DMed for 4E and have nothing else to compare to? Admittedly it is a relative question.

It's a different type of complexity than 3E, where it's just a mountain of rules and the challenge is adventure-building around a bunch of plotbreaker spells. 

4E can feel like a complicated system because there's a lot of "stuff" going on. Status effects that you have to remember, interrupt powers,  marks, etc.  I've had people unable to run 4E because there was just too much stuff going on to keep track of.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:47AM, Xguild wrote:

Ok this is getting wierd now, I feel like we shared brains in those last two posts.  

Welcome to the next level, replicant. :D

The question isn't about number of options, its about complexity. Maybe I'll add some questions about options.

Yeah I get that Lokiare, what Im saying is that its kind of a loaded question.  Its kind of like me saying, Do you like your popcorn fresh, or do you like stale?  I can't imagine a poll like that would create much variety in answers.  If however you said, would you prefer to buy popcorn for 2.99 when its fresh from the popper, or pocorn that has been sitting out for a few minutes for only .99 cents which one would you take... than you might get variety because its not a black and white thing anymore.


Again, everyone will pick simpler because, why would anyone pick complex over simple... I mean its a default answer.  The question really has not context unless you explain the benefits and drawbacks of simple vs. complex which I believe there really are clear ones as one represents less options the other represents more options.        

Added a new question. I might break the edition question into different questions so you can answer "I've never DMed for this edition", "I would dislike DMing for this edition due to the complexity.", and "I would like to DM for this edition due to the complexity"

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:52AM, Xguild wrote:

The question isn't about number of options, its about complexity. Maybe I'll add some questions about options.

Yeah I get that Lokiare, what Im saying is that its kind of a loaded question.  Its kind of like me saying, Do you like your popcorn fresh, or do you like stale?  I can't imagine a poll like that would create much variety in answers.  If however you said, would you prefer to buy popcorn for 2.99 when its fresh from the popper, or pocorn that has been sitting out for a few minutes for only .99 cents which one would you take... than you might get variety because its not a black and white thing anymore.


Again, everyone will pick simpler because, why would anyone pick complex over simple... I mean its a default answer.  The question really has not context unless you explain the benefits and drawbacks of simple vs. complex which I believe there really are clear ones as one represents less options the other represents more options.        

unfortunately I've already shown how you can have fewer options and more complexity and more options and lesser complexity. So the two aren't necessarily tied together...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:46AM, lokiare wrote:

The question isn't about number of options, its about complexity. Maybe I'll add some questions about options.

If there is a direct relationship between options and complexity, how are you separating the two? basically every time you add an option, you require an exception or addtion to the system to allow for that option to function in the context of the larger system.

That's really an academic question though, really the issue is the way it's phrased leads the people being polled. Everyone wants simple things. Everyone wants flexible things and everyone wants things to make jobs easier.

What would be a more interesting question would be one that isn't zero-sum, like "how much complexity is necessary to express most challenges?"

lol, you really should work for the government Lokiare you have a knack for loaded question to get poll results. 


How about a more impartial question like.


Would you prefer to have a simpler DM experiance if it ment less options, or would you prefer a more complex DM experiance that offers more options?     

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:54AM, kadim wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:46AM, lokiare wrote:

The question isn't about number of options, its about complexity. Maybe I'll add some questions about options.

If there is a direct relationship between options and complexity, how are you separating the two? basically every time you add an option, you require an exception or addtion to the system to allow for that option to function in the context of the larger system.

That's really an academic question though, really the issue is the way it's phrased leads the people being polled. Everyone wants simple things. Everyone wants flexible things and everyone wants things to make jobs easier.

What would be a more interesting question would be one that isn't zero-sum, like "how much complexity is necessary to express most challenges?"

That's not the point of the poll though. It is to see if complexity is desirable, not how much complexity is required to do one thing in the game...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:56AM, Xguild wrote:

lol, you really should work for the government Lokiare you have a knack for loaded question to get poll results. 


How about a more impartial question like.


Would you prefer to have a simpler DM experiance if it ment less options, or would you prefer a more complex DM experiance that offers more options?     

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. That's the part you don't seem to understand. They can actually make a simpler game with lots of options, they can also make a complex game with fewer options...

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. That's the part you don't seem to understand. They can actually make a simpler game with lots of options, they can also make a complex game with fewer options...

Lokiare , I think everyone understands that, I think the point here is that there is no logical reason for anyone to choose complexity over simplicity.  Your basically saying, would you like something good, or something bad?

I can get a much more accurate measure of whether it's desirable by figuring out how much most folks consider necessary. People get annoyed with things that are too complicated pretty damn quickly and if stuff doesn't allow for what they want they get equally frustrated. By asking them to respond to a range of options with qualifying words like "not very, some, very, exhaustive" you can get a sense for the relative level of complexity that's desirable. By extension, you then can say whether or not a complicated system is more or less desirable.

The basic issue you're getting at is more complicated than what a yes or no question can tell you.

The best question about complexity is "what edition did you find more complicated to DM" because each had their places where they required more or less system mastery on the part of the DM. We can use the results there to get a feel for what people find desirable - but only after some analysis of where the complexity rested in each edition.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:00AM, Xguild wrote:

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. That's the part you don't seem to understand. They can actually make a simpler game with lots of options, they can also make a complex game with fewer options...

Lokiare , I think everyone understands that, I think the point here is that there is no logical reason for anyone to choose complexity over simplicity.  Your basically saying, would you like something good, or something bad?

Some people like complexity for complexities sake. In the 5MWD threads people keep telling us that they want the DM to have more work and a more complex system. I'm simply polling to get some frame of reference on that topic to see if people really like DMing to be complex. I thought the answer was obvious too, but apparently it still needs to be asked...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:02AM, kadim wrote:

I can get a much more accurate measure of whether it's desirable by figuring out how much most folks consider necessary. People get annoyed with things that are too complicated pretty damn quickly and if stuff doesn't allow for what they want they get equally frustrated. By asking them to respond to a range of options with qualifying words like "not very, some, very, exhaustive" you can get a sense for the relative level of complexity that's desirable. By extension, you then can say whether or not a complicated system is more or less desirable.

The basic issue you're getting at is more complicated than what a yes or no question can tell you.

The best question about complexity is "what edition did you find more complicated to DM" because each had their places where they required more or less system mastery on the part of the DM. We can use the results there to get a feel for what people find desirable - but only after some analysis of where the complexity rested in each edition.

I'll add the question but how exactly would you phrase that?

Some people like complexity for complexities sake. In the 5MWD threads people keep telling us that they want the DM to have more work and a more complex system. I'm simply polling to get some frame of reference on that topic to see if people really like DMing to be complex. I thought the answer was obvious too, but apparently it still needs to be asked...

I have read that entire forum post series and I don't see anyone saying the system is to simple, lets make it more complex because complexity is good.  People are offering more complex solutions to be more specific and get a desired effect (the elimination of the 5MWD) but that's a by product of trying to take a system problem created for simplicities sake and solving it, which leads to more complexity which some people find ok as long as the problem is solved.  Which leads me back to the point that simpler always means less options because by the very virtue of trying to keep it simple you have to cut down options and vice versus by adding options you are making the system more complicated.  One cannot be removed from the other, which is what I think you and I disagree on, you appear to believe that you can have lots of options and maintain a simple system.  I challenge you to provide evidence in gaming or otherwise where this is true because I honestly can't think of a single thing that has become simpler to use, yet is less complicated.  I mean I can barely operate my bloody cell phone today, it has more options than I know what to do with, its more complex... but has more options.. as an example.  

Besides I mean just look at this question Lokiare


"Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?"


Would you like SIMPLER or more complex rules to make your experiance as a DM EASIER?      How would making the system more complex also make it easier?  Your practically voting for them in this question in particular.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Xguild wrote:

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. 

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.     

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:08AM, Xguild wrote:

Some people like complexity for complexities sake. In the 5MWD threads people keep telling us that they want the DM to have more work and a more complex system. I'm simply polling to get some frame of reference on that topic to see if people really like DMing to be complex. I thought the answer was obvious too, but apparently it still needs to be asked...

I have read that entire forum post series and I don't see anyone saying the system is to simple, lets make it more complex because complexity is good.  People are offering more complex solutions to be more specific and get a desired effect (the elimination of the 5MWD) but that's a by product of trying to take a system problem created for simplicities sake and solving it, which leads to more complexity which some people find ok as long as the problem is solved.  Which leads me back to the point that simpler always means less options because by the very virtue of trying to keep it simple you have to cut down options and vice versus by adding options you are making the system more complicated.  One cannot be removed from the other, which is what I think you and I disagree on, you appear to believe that you can have lots of options and maintain a simple system.  I challenge you to provide evidence in gaming or otherwise where this is true because I honestly can't think of a single thing that has become simpler to use, yet is less complicated.  I mean I can barely operate my bloody cell phone today, it has more options than I know what to do with, its more complex... but has more options.. as an example.  

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).

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.  

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:16AM, Xguild wrote:

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.     

How exactly can I rephrase the question without conflating more options with complexity which isn't always true, and less options with simplicity which also isn't always true?

How exactly can I rephrase the question without conflating more options with complexity which isn't always true, and less options with simplicity which also isn't always true?

Well we can reverse it, though I think you'll probobly start to see it as a loaded question (because it would be) but remove the words simplicity and complexity and just ask directly.


Would you prefer a gamer with more options or a game with less options?

It would be pointless though since it does the same thing.  Its a loaded question.  In a perfect world we would like simplicity with limitless options.  Its simply not possible. 

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:50AM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:47AM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

Who in the world thinks that 4E is complex to DM for? Is it just people who have only DMed for 4E and have nothing else to compare to? Admittedly it is a relative question.

It's a different type of complexity than 3E, where it's just a mountain of rules and the challenge is adventure-building around a bunch of plotbreaker spells. 

4E can feel like a complicated system because there's a lot of "stuff" going on. Status effects that you have to remember, interrupt powers,  marks, etc.  I've had people unable to run 4E because there was just too much stuff going on to keep track of.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />

+1

All the "set in stone" rules made 4E more complex to DM; AD&D was simpler to DM because you could just adjudicate everything on the fly. Although I know the 4E fans like the "set in stone" rules better. They may even feel that is simpler; I don't see it that way, but...to each his own.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:20AM, Xguild wrote:

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.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Xguild wrote:

How exactly can I rephrase the question without conflating more options with complexity which isn't always true, and less options with simplicity which also isn't always true?

Well we can reverse it, though I think you'll probobly start to see it as a loaded question (because it would be) but remove the words simplicity and complexity and just ask directly.


Would you prefer a gamer with more options or a game with less options?

It would be pointless though since it does the same thing.  Its a loaded question.  In a perfect world we would like simplicity with limitless options.  Its simply not possible. 

I added that question to the poll already. So you have both questions...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:13AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Xguild wrote:

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...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:16AM, Xguild wrote:

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.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:04AM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:02AM, kadim wrote:

I can get a much more accurate measure of whether it's desirable by figuring out how much most folks consider necessary. People get annoyed with things that are too complicated pretty damn quickly and if stuff doesn't allow for what they want they get equally frustrated. By asking them to respond to a range of options with qualifying words like "not very, some, very, exhaustive" you can get a sense for the relative level of complexity that's desirable. By extension, you then can say whether or not a complicated system is more or less desirable.

The basic issue you're getting at is more complicated than what a yes or no question can tell you.

The best question about complexity is "what edition did you find more complicated to DM" because each had their places where they required more or less system mastery on the part of the DM. We can use the results there to get a feel for what people find desirable - but only after some analysis of where the complexity rested in each edition.

I'll add the question but how exactly would you phrase that?

I was referring to the question you all ready asked. The one I'd include would be:

How much complexity is necessary to mechanically express challenges in game?

1- very little complexity - things should be resolved with a broadly applicable rules and a single die roll

2- moderate complexity - things should have situational mechanics such as terrain modifiers and might require multiple die rolls to resolve

3- high degrees of complexity - things should almost always have situational mechanics, tables for specific circumstances are sometimes necessary.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:34AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:16AM, Xguild wrote:

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.

I did the same...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:39AM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

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.

And I still agree 100% with the point here.

If WotC want me to DM for Next?

Make the DMing experience like the 4th Ed one.

Clear and specific rules, separate from "fluff".

Clear and clean monster descriptions.

Support for non-combat encounters. 

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:31AM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:13AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Xguild wrote:

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 easier to better.

EDIT: Edited for spelling. 

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:20AM, Xguild wrote:

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.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:28AM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:20AM, Xguild wrote:

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.     
     


  

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:44AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:31AM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:13AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Xguild wrote:

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 easier to 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?

Nov 20, 2012 -- 3:10AM, Xguild wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:28AM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:20AM, Xguild wrote:

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...

Wait that was a rhetorical question wasn't it?

Nov 20, 2012 -- 3:10AM, Xguild wrote:

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.

No surprise 2nd ed and 4th ed rate well for DMing lol. I like 3.XYZ but DMing is easier in 2nd and 4th.

That's what they seem to like about it: the options are specifically laid out and finite (no DM adjudication required) but tactically complex.

Yeah sure, but that's not the question.  The question is Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?   I can't imagine there is a lot of people who a glutton for punishment here... Having a simpler system with more options is an automatic win, you get best of both worlds.  My point is that I don't think this is possible, but if you poll me and say BUT IF WE COULD DO IT would I want it.. answer is yes of course.  If you read the forums some people answered no to this question and pointed out this very concept right out of the gate... aka NO I don't want simpler because that suggests less options and I don't want that.   But you have to read into the question to derive that which most people arent going to do, they are going to answer the question that was asked.. do you want it simpler or more complex ... simpler of course..


I think a more appropriate poll would be to get a bit more specific and realistic, I mean I love Lokiare's attitude and ideas, I think they are great and he has proven that on these forums over and over again, I just think most of them exist in a fantasy world not in the real world.  It would be absolutly fantastic to a have a simple system that carries its weight and has many deep options for players and GM's to go through, but the reality is that the two don't coexist in any game I can think of and never in 4 decades of role-playing have they coexisted.  Its always one or the other or somekind of middle ground.  


I think the poll about editions is more telling.  Both 2nd and 4th edition have a lot of fans from the GM angle and 3rd edition is seen as overly complex.  Of all the systems, 3rd edition has the most options, by a very WIDE margin, in fact I would say 3rd edition has more options than all other editions put together 5 times over.  Really you could say the options were limitless... and simultanously the system was very complex.         

Nov 20, 2012 -- 4:51AM, Xguild wrote:

That's what they seem to like about it: the options are specifically laid out and finite (no DM adjudication required) but tactically complex.

Yeah sure, but that's not the question.  The question is Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?   I can't imagine there is a lot of people who a glutton for punishment here... Having a simpler system with more options is an automatic win, you get best of both worlds.  My point is that I don't think this is possible, but if you poll me and say BUT IF WE COULD DO IT would I want it.. answer is yes of course.  If you read the forums some people answered no to this question and pointed out this very concept right out of the gate... aka NO I don't want simpler because that suggests less options and I don't want that.   But you have to read into the question to derive that which most people arent going to do, they are going to answer the question that was asked.. do you want it simpler or more complex ... simpler of course..


I think a more appropriate poll would be to get a bit more specific and realistic, I mean I love Lokiare's attitude and ideas, I think they are great and he has proven that on these forums over and over again, I just think most of them exist in a fantasy world not in the real world.  It would be absolutly fantastic to a have a simple system that carries its weight and has many deep options for players and GM's to go through, but the reality is that the two don't coexist in any game I can think of and never in 4 decades of role-playing have they coexisted.  Its always one or the other or somekind of middle ground.  


I think the poll about editions is more telling.  Both 2nd and 4th edition have a lot of fans from the GM angle and 3rd edition is seen as overly complex.  Of all the systems, 3rd edition has the most options, by a very WIDE margin, in fact I would say 3rd edition has more options than all other editions put together 5 times over.  Really you could say the options were limitless... and simultanously the system was very complex.         

Really? because 4E had feats, skills, a pretty decent number of classes as well as spells, but they also had backgrounds and powers for non-caster classes. I would say based on its run it had close to as many options as 3.xE had. 3.xE only had more because it was around longer. It gets redundant anyway after X number of options any system becomes unworkable or people just ignore options...

Really? because 4E had feats, skills, a pretty decent number of classes as well as spells, but they also had backgrounds and powers for non-caster classes. I would say based on its run it had close to as many options as 3.xE had. 3.xE only had more because it was around longer. It gets redundant anyway after X number of options any system becomes unworkable or people just ignore options...

You can call it redudent or choose to ignore them, but you can't deny that they where there.  I have about 35 books each with dozens of feats, classes, spells and more options that include completetly alternate background systems, power systems, magic systems.  My 3rd edition collection is larger than all other collections of books I have combined and I would say I have about 2-3% of the books actually available for 3rd edition.

       

4th ed apparently reached about 80% of 3rd eds content in just over two years ago. Assuming feats=feats, spells= powers and PrCs= paraon paths/epic destinies.

 So 3.5 had a bit more crunch but alot more options due to the difference in multiclassing and class construction. A varient class in 3.5/PF requires a page or 2 compared with 4th ed varients requiring around 14 pages.

 More bloat does not mean better IMHO. Both editions sucked for bloat.

Which editions do you dislike DMing because of the complexity of the system?

Forces an answer...  I didn't dislike any of them due to complexity; none of them were hard to understand.  However, being forced to choose might skew the interpretation of the poll.   

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:25AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

All the "set in stone" rules made 4E more complex to DM

What 4E rules are more "set in stone" than any other rules in any other edition of D&D? I adjust stuff on the fly all of the time when I DM 4E, exactly as much as I did when I DMed 3.5.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:52AM, Xguild wrote:

Yeah I get that Lokiare, what Im saying is that its kind of a loaded question.  Its kind of like me saying, Do you like your popcorn fresh, or do you like stale?  I can't imagine a poll like that would create much variety in answers.  If however you said, would you prefer to buy popcorn for 2.99 when its fresh from the popper, or pocorn that has been sitting out for a few minutes for only .99 cents which one would you take... than you might get variety because its not a black and white thing anymore.


Again, everyone will pick simpler because, why would anyone pick complex over simple... I mean its a default answer.  The question really has not context unless you explain the benefits and drawbacks of simple vs. complex which I believe there really are clear ones as one represents less options the other represents more options.        

The questions as written will skew the results. What if someone does or does not like DM'ing but for some reason other than complexity? The game, like life, isn't so black-and-white.

So, in my case, and completely ignoring the skewed poll, to answer the question posed in the subject title - well, I really enjoy DM'ing regardless so to make me like it more, they could pay me I guess? That'd be cool. Or give me a pony. That would also be neat. Or a kitten or something. Or bacon. Yeah, bacon works.

That´s a nice poll. I' m curious how you did it! Great job trying to gather some data for WoTC.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:23PM, strider1276 wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:52AM, Xguild wrote:

Yeah I get that Lokiare, what Im saying is that its kind of a loaded question.  Its kind of like me saying, Do you like your popcorn fresh, or do you like stale?  I can't imagine a poll like that would create much variety in answers.  If however you said, would you prefer to buy popcorn for 2.99 when its fresh from the popper, or pocorn that has been sitting out for a few minutes for only .99 cents which one would you take... than you might get variety because its not a black and white thing anymore.


Again, everyone will pick simpler because, why would anyone pick complex over simple... I mean its a default answer.  The question really has not context unless you explain the benefits and drawbacks of simple vs. complex which I believe there really are clear ones as one represents less options the other represents more options.        

The questions as written will skew the results. What if someone does or does not like DM'ing but for some reason other than complexity? The game, like life, isn't so black-and-white.

So, in my case, and completely ignoring the skewed poll, to answer the question posed in the subject title - well, I really enjoy DM'ing regardless so to make me like it more, they could pay me I guess? That'd be cool. Or give me a pony. That would also be neat. Or a kitten or something. Or bacon. Yeah, bacon works.

The point of the poll is to find out how complexity affects how people DM. So if it doesn't affect you at all, just ignore the entire poll...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

That´s a nice poll. I' m curious how you did it! Great job trying to gather some data for WoTC.

You have to create each question separately. Hit Home at the top of the page, then blog, then "my polls". Create a new poll, then copy the embed stuff to note pad. Make as many polls as you want, then create a new post in the forums hit the "html" button and paste in the polls, I put in HTML br tags between each one...

Infinite complexity can be rendered wholly irrelevent by simply taking the game digital.

go digital go digital go digital go digital

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:18PM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

That´s a nice poll. I' m curious how you did it! Great job trying to gather some data for WoTC.

You have to create each question separately. Hit Home at the top of the page, then blog, then "my polls". Create a new poll, then copy the embed stuff to note pad. Make as many polls as you want, then create a new post in the forums hit the "html" button and paste in the polls, I put in HTML br tags between each one...

thanks!

Nov 20, 2012 -- 12:14PM, abanathie wrote:

Which editions do you dislike DMing because of the complexity of the system?

Forces an answer...  I didn't dislike any of them due to complexity; none of them were hard to understand.  However, being forced to choose might skew the interpretation of the poll.   

Personaly I have another problem with that question.
It does not take in acount if people played a edition, as it is now it only works for people who have been a Dm in al 4 editions.

the percentages for 1st and 2nd edition might be lower just becouse the percentage of people here who where Dm in those editions is lower.

More digital support.
Ease of encounter creation.
Ease of NPC/Monster creation (No more 3.5 dreg).
MORE ADVENTURES!

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, lokiare wrote:

The point of the poll is to find out how complexity affects how people DM. So if it doesn't affect you at all, just ignore the entire poll...

That would be the part where I said I was ignoring the poll, yes. Now where's my pony, money, and/or bacon? 

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38AM, kadim wrote:

I have to wonder who wouldn't say no to "Would you enjoy an easier experience as a DM?" as it's currently phrased.

I guess that'd be me??

Other than generally disliking 4e, I REALLY disliked DMing 4th.  I was mechanicly bored.
So no, I guess I don't want an easier time of DMing.....

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, lokiare wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:23PM, strider1276 wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:52AM, Xguild wrote:

Yeah I get that Lokiare, what Im saying is that its kind of a loaded question.  Its kind of like me saying, Do you like your popcorn fresh, or do you like stale?  I can't imagine a poll like that would create much variety in answers.  If however you said, would you prefer to buy popcorn for 2.99 when its fresh from the popper, or pocorn that has been sitting out for a few minutes for only .99 cents which one would you take... than you might get variety because its not a black and white thing anymore.


Again, everyone will pick simpler because, why would anyone pick complex over simple... I mean its a default answer.  The question really has not context unless you explain the benefits and drawbacks of simple vs. complex which I believe there really are clear ones as one represents less options the other represents more options.        

The questions as written will skew the results. What if someone does or does not like DM'ing but for some reason other than complexity? The game, like life, isn't so black-and-white.

So, in my case, and completely ignoring the skewed poll, to answer the question posed in the subject title - well, I really enjoy DM'ing regardless so to make me like it more, they could pay me I guess? That'd be cool. Or give me a pony. That would also be neat. Or a kitten or something. Or bacon. Yeah, bacon works.

The point of the poll is to find out how complexity affects how people DM. So if it doesn't affect you at all, just ignore the entire poll...

By ignoring the number, you're setting your own poll up to to be skewed...  However, ignoring...