I know people say, "not compared to game x, or edition x"; but what about as a standalone game? 

For a first time rpg player; I say yes, it is complicated.  For a casual rpg gamer; I say yes, it is complicated.  For someone who has played rpgs for a good while, but has never played any WOTC editions of D&D; it's still a little complicated.  Dang at all the options to consider.  Choices to make.  Etc.

Simple, equals Lion & Dragon.  Simple, equals Tiny Dungeon.  Simple, equals White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game.

Anything more complicated, is a complicated game.  Roll for initiative!!!

Quote from: Man at Arms on September 21, 2024, 01:44:32 AMSimple, equals Lion & Dragon.  Simple, equals Tiny Dungeon.  Simple, equals White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game.

Anything more complicated, is a complicated game.  Roll for initiative!!!

Everything is relative. Sure, D&D 5E is more complicated than many other RPGs. On the other hand, Lion & Dragon is complicated compared to many systems. Take the rules on parrying, for example:

Quote10. Parrying (Defensive Combat)
...
Characters doing so can engage in «partial» or «total» defense. When engaged in partial defense, characters will suffer a –4 penalty to attack rolls during that round, and cannot move more than their base movement per round (normal unencumbered base movement is 30'). If engaged in full defense, characters will not be able to attack that round and cannot move more than 5' that round (nor can they use any magical object or perform any magic that requires anything other than a free action to activate).

A character engaging in defense, if successfully attacked in melee, may make a parrying roll of 1d20, plus their attack bonus with the type of weapon they are using, if they are parrying with a weapon. If they are using a shield, they add their basic melee attack bonus +2.

If engaged in total defense, the character gets an additional +4 bonus to parrying rolls.

To successfully parry, the character's parrying roll must surpass the value of the attack roll.

If the character successfully parries, he must do a 'blocking' roll, of a d4, or a d8 if parrying with a shield; this roll is modified by the defender's STR bonus. If the shield being used has a magical bonus, that is also added. Finally, Fighters and Clerics get a further bonus equal to their level.

The attacker rolls his damage normally. If the attacker's damage roll surpasses the value of the blocking roll, the attacker does full damage. If the blocking roll is higher than the attacker's damage roll, then the damage was absorbed by the parry.

• Characters doing Partial Defense can only attempt to do one parrying roll per round, except for fighters who can parry a number of attacks equal to their level, but have a cumulative –2 penalty to parrying rolls for each attack after the first that they attempt to parry in the round (so a fighter trying to block the third melee attack in a round gets a –4 penalty to parrying rolls).
• Characters engaged in Total Defense can attempt to parry all attacks against them in the round, but suffer a cumulative –1 penalty to every parrying roll in the round after the first.
• Characters cannot attempt to parry surprise attacks. They can attempt to parry 'free attacks' if they were already engaged in defensive combat at the time of the attack, and are aware of the incoming attack.
• Characters cannot attempt to parry ranged attacks, except for fighters with shields, who may attempt to do so at a –8 penalty.

I'm not saying that the parrying rules are bad. I think it's good to have parrying in a medieval authentic RPG. Still, they're clearly much more involved than TinyD6, say.

There is a difference between complexity of rules and complexity of accounting.  D&D 5E is a mostly simple rules buried under moderate to slightly heavy accounting.  Which is why it becomes a worse game the more supplements you add.

Exception based designs are almost always more complex.

In order of complexity of D&D core rules it goes:

Most Complex
Third Edition
Fifth Edition
Fourth Edition
First Edition AD&D
Second Edition AD&D
OD&D
Basic D&D

With some supplements it goes
Third Edition
Second Edition AD&D (Complete Books + Skills and Powers)
Fifth Edition
Fourth Edition
First Edition (Unearthed Arcanna, Battle System, assorted Dragon articles)
OD&D (Chainmail Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldrich Wizardry, assorted Dragon articles)
Basic

I've often wondered if a simpler and cleaner game would have done better than fifth edition.  I think some of the complexity is part of the appeal.  The videogame style character progression is famiiar to modern gamers while just making stuff up yourself is not.

Quote from: Man at Arms on September 21, 2024, 01:44:32 AMI know people say, "not compared to game x, or edition x"; but what about as a standalone game? 

For a first time rpg player; I say yes, it is complicated.  For a casual rpg gamer; I say yes, it is complicated.  For someone who has played rpgs for a good while, but has never played any WOTC editions of D&D; it's still a little complicated.  Dang at all the options to consider.  Choices to make.  Etc.

Simple, equals Lion & Dragon.  Simple, equals Tiny Dungeon.  Simple, equals White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game.

Anything more complicated, is a complicated game.  Roll for initiative!!!

The situation gets even more complicated (pun intended) when you account for industry trends changing the baseline rules presented as well as expectations.   Right now, rules light seems incredibly popular and I think that has contributed to the increased size of the OSR niche (still a niche though) relative to what it was before for those who want to return to a simpler dnd style.   Additionally, games that were developed two decades ago as rules light alternatives to the dnd 3.x/d20 style prevalent back then are more just rules "medium" nowadays (Savage Worlds comes to mind as an example) compared to the crop of rules light games you mentioned in your post.

As someone who has read and play tested several systems, I feel that 5e is about a 3 of 10 in complexity.  What makes it seem complex is two-fold; layers of pointless options and absolute shit technical writing and editing.  5e could be presented in a booklet of about 30 pages if properly presented.  It isn't a complexity issue, it's a presentation issue.

I have two handouts I give new players.  The first is a step-by-step guide to creating a PC straight from the book on a paper PC sheet.  The second is a consolidated combat rules covering initiative, turn structure, actions and bonus action, all modifiers, all advantage/disadvantage conditions, and most special situations that apply to combat.  Both of these take up a single sheet.   

The way I would say it is that 5th edition has a simple core system, which is then complicated by the options for character customization etc. This is broadly true of most versions of D&D and games derived from it. You could contrast that with something like the Rolemaster/MERP family of games, which have considerably more complicated core systems, but then the character options don't add a lot of complexity on top of that.

Personally I prefer the latter approach (though I just prefer a simpler game in general.) But I suspect the way D&D does it is commercially more effective. It gives a low barrier to entry with a lot of complexity that can be added on once people are invested in the game (and of course facilitates selling supplement books with more character options).

This is a thread with a lot of good posts, and I doubt I can really offer anything better.
I'd describe 5e as a complex system.  The 5e table I play at, I often offer help with the rules because I know them well, and there's routinely confusion and look-ups.  I'd argue it's simpler than third (which this table played for years), but it seems mostly like a wash.  I will say that it doesn't really offer any multilayer build stuff, which is, I'd argue, what really makes a complex RPG really complex.  Like if your guy has a class feature and two feats which all combine to make a good (but lets assume fair and balanced) effect, that's a piece of complexity that will show up at your table out of the blue, and the closest 5e has to that stuff is mostly in the player's handbook- and even then, 5.5 seems to be smoothing that stuff out. 

But the rules, the execution of combat?  It looks to me like a bunch of players will be looking that stuff up forever, even though it's not super burdensome. 

I'd say that most OSR is less complex than 5e as well.

2014 version is medium-low complexity, emphasis on the low.

2024 version is medium complexity, it's a stealth reversion to 4E in many ways to prepare it as a VTT compatible/Baldur's Gate 4 rule engine.

I'd agree with David Johansen's D&D taxonomy of difficulty. And I also like M2A0 separation of 2014 D&D 5e and 2024 D&D 5e (I'd even peg 5e free Basic as perhaps the upper lower-class of 5e D&D ). And yes, there really is a difference between teachable comprehension and in-play bookkeeping -- that latter made 4e a chore more me.

As with anything the more options you turn or leave on the more complex the result is. In fact, since a lot of that optional stuff is rarely playtested to death as it should be for a more competitive and smooth experience, I'd say it's better to keep most things off and only gradually add options in. In that I must applaud 5e in doing like 2e in explicitly letting tables know what is optional, so that a table talk can occur.

I also think such optional tags are a helpful reminder that one needs to curate one's experience. It's a game of pretend with some rules that people thought would be fun (thank you Mike Mernard); it's not Holy Writ. Learning to select what races, classes, archetypes/kits, backgrounds, spells, gear, etc. is how you more meaningfully engage with the ideas to get closer to what you and your buddies wanna play. It's not so much Rule 0 as discernment, selectively focusing on certain things for the sake of the fiction.

I think it's overly complex but if you play over a vtt the complexity pretty much disappears. My players still forget their little features though.

There are a lot of features to remember in the races, and by 3rd Tier there are enough class and archetype features that it is a lot, I agree. But that's not so much an rules operation/resolution complexity as a bookkeeping complexity, as mentioned above. However given I'm older and seen quite a bit of 80s and 90s RPGs -- an age before the total dominance of video games -- I'm used to a lot of far crunchier systems with which to compare. If you are younger and only compare within a more recent band of material, I could see it being high crunchy, but that's in my view more from lack of exposure.

One thing that's never helped D&D of any variety is when they try to have their character sheets double as worksheets for character building (5e isn't so bad, but 4E and especially 3/3.5e were rather egregious in this category). This adds significantly to the complexity by littering the sheet new players are expected to use in play with a bunch of numbers and calculations that will never actually be used in play (often the same size on the page as the actually relevant stats) which also bloats the sheet into sheets because it takes half the first page just to record your attributes/attribute modifiers, AC, and saves. And the rest for the score of skills (whether you have them or not) where it includes spots for the attribute modifier, your skill ranks, your racial bonus, synergy and other bonuses and then a spot for the actual modifier (the only one of those numbers you'll ever use in play).

Meanwhile, the monster statbocks were being continually refined to include only the relevant numbers in the most ergonomic way possible for the edition.

There's a reason I've always modelled my homemade sheets after each edition's monster statblock. It's a LOT easier to keep track of all those fiddly bits you get as you level up if you actually organize them like they'd appear in a monster's statblock and all on the same page. This goes double for classes/subclasses where the features stack together (ex. path of mercy monks have their level 6 and 11 features improve their level 3 features which in turn only really modify flurry of blows... those don't need to be listed separately when gained, just tack the effect onto the base version on the sheet and it adds a single sentence to the existing ability instead of an entire paragraph that is disconnected from the base effect and therefore easily forgotten.

The typical non-caster in 5e can fit onto a half-sheet* of paper, even at level 20. Casters with fixed spell lists (ex. bard, sorcerer, warlock) I can fit onto a single full-sheet at level 20. Only full casters with swappable daily spell lists  (ie. wizards, clerics and druids) ever go beyond one sheet and that's only for the spell list... the non-spell list portion, including cantrips is typically just part of half a page.

The bookkeeping at the table complexity of 5e is mostly a function of it's horribly designed character sheets and can be greatly reduced by organizing the same data yourself in any word processor.

* by way of explanation, I arrange my sheets in two-column landscape to minimise table space. Folded along the column this makes a sheet just 5.5 x 8.5 inches. Attributes, skills, tool proficiencies, saves  AC, hit points, hit dice and movement take up just 6-8 lines. The remaining 36-38 lines are more than enough to fit a character's actions and traits into along with a short spell list (bards typically overflow the first page around level 7-9, wizards can get by with the second half-page for their spell book until around level 10-12 depending on spell complexity and how many useful spells the DM throws in for them to add as treasure).

A Champion Fighter who takes ASIs instead of feats will only exceed half of half a sheet if they end up with fairly complex magic items.

Shades of gray.

5e is not especially complex compared to other editions such as 1e, 3e, 4e or even 2e.

5.5 / 2024 is a lot more complex.

But yes, they are all complex when compared to B/X or Knave.

TBH, I find B/X too complex for my tastes. I'd rather have a 9th-level fighter attack with +9 and a 9th-level MU just have 9 spells, etc. And I used to play GURPS!

EDIT: "I know people say, "not compared to game x, or edition x"; but what about as a standalone game? "

This doesn't make any sense, games are only complicated compared to other games... and you end the OP by comparing it to Tiny Dungeon, L&D, etc.

Quote from: RNGm on September 21, 2024, 10:19:52 AMThe situation gets even more complicated (pun intended) when you account for industry trends changing the baseline rules presented as well as expectations.   Right now, rules light seems incredibly popular and I think that has contributed to the increased size of the OSR niche (still a niche though) relative to what it was before for those who want to return to a simpler dnd style.   Additionally, games that were developed two decades ago as rules light alternatives to the dnd 3.x/d20 style prevalent back then are more just rules "medium" nowadays (Savage Worlds comes to mind as an example) compared to the crop of rules light games you mentioned in your post

Yeah, I'd say rules-light has been a rising trend in RPGs for the last decade or so, even outside of the OSR, and that's definitely shifted the Overton window as to what is considered a light or simple RPG. I can't think of a major 80s or 90s RPG which would be considered "rules light" by today's standards. Fighting Fantasy, maybe?

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 21, 2024, 10:40:25 PMThere are a lot of features to remember in the races, and by 3rd Tier there are enough class and archetype features that it is a lot, I agree. But that's not so much an rules operation/resolution complexity as a bookkeeping complexity, as mentioned above. However given I'm older and seen quite a bit of 80s and 90s RPGs -- an age before the total dominance of video games -- I'm used to a lot of far crunchier systems with which to compare. If you are younger and only compare within a more recent band of material, I could see it being high crunchy, but that's in my view more from lack of exposure.

I think it's more a difference of where the complexity is, rather than purely how much. IME older players, especially ones that came into RPGs from a background in wargaming, will tolerate a lot of complexity if it's in the name of world simulation, which younger players tend to regard as pointless. Whereas younger players appreciate more complexity in character building, which a lot of older players despise.

You could potentially blame that on video games, at least in so far as video gamers have different expectations than tabletop gamers. There are plenty of videogames built entirely on detailed world simulation, but those aren't usually classed as RPGs. They're classed as simulators or management games, while an RPG in videogame parlance is defined by its character progression systems.