In praise of simple DMing.

[MrStabby]

I picked up a new game recently. D&D 5th edition, but the DM is the brother of one of my daughter's friends (I think of him as a kid but he is 19... so showing my age!)

This guy is running a basic campaign. It is remarkabe in how unpretentious it is. But its great.

No overarching plot. Few recurrent characters. Descriptions are basic. Monsters are straight out of the MM... basic, beginners stuff. And its awesome.

Its a simple monster of the week type set up - there is some monster terrorising a village and the party has to go and stop it. There are some clues and hints but mostly its a random walsk through the monster manual with a few supporting characters.

What i was surprised at is that it is such fun - I mean I wouldn't want to plau this all the time, but it is actually quite liberating. There is no note taking, no real worry about most consequences if you don't pick up a hint or if you say the wrong thing and offend somebody. There are no moral quandries and genarally speaking sticking sharp bits of metal in anything with more mouths than you have hit points is fine. There isn't much by way of PC character development - beyond getting better at killing stuff and a growing list of things that we killed... but its fun.

I kind of wished I had played a campaign like this before I started DMing. Not that I would try and emulate it, but just to know that honest, basic D&D without all the knobs and bells and whistles is still basically fun - and that I shouldn't stress about things being sophisticated enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I completely agree. There's a lot of value in just simple play. Especially when you see it through unjaded eyes (ie new players who are all excited about even simple things).

[Stonehead]

People (especially the kinds of people who post on forums) can get so caught up in the theory, play style arguments, and corporate products that we sometimes forget that the game is fun.

We spend so much time arguing about the minute details of the alignment system, or balance issues (just examples, don't derail the thread please) that we lose the reason why we spend so much time arguing about them. It's because the games themself are fun.

I wouldn't spend hours and hours of my life trying to optimize how to run a game that wasn't fun in the first place.

[JNAProductions]

Not sure I'd enjoy it-I like the Role Playing in an RPG as well as the game. I might have a blast-be a good chance to do wonkier mechanical builds over a more characterful thing.

That being said, I completely get the appeal. It's not necessarily for me, but I'm glad you and the munchkins are having a good time! D&D is meant to be fun-whether you have fun with deep characters and copious note taking, or hack and slash kick the door down action, just have fun!

[Yora]

Simple campaigns don't have to be all combat encounters. You can have plenty of non-combat interactions with the game world and its inhabitants. But it doesn't have to be big world-spanning epics with multiple nested layers of conspiracy.

In many more complex RPGs, especially D&D, you can add on nearly endless bells and whistles and loads and loads of elaborate song and dance that it becomes much too easy to lose sight of the essential basics.
Fancy extras can significantly elevate a campaign, but most importantly the fundamentals need to be solid. Elaborate complexity can not compensate for shortcomings in the basics. And a simpler campaign provides a clearer view of the game and focuses the attention to where it matters the most.

[Quixotic1]

Has anyone read the essay about the eight types of fun? LeBlanc, I believe. A video game designer.

The one that I feel gets left behind most often in ttrpgs is submission, literally just "games as a pastime". Beer and pretzel games, where you can relax and have a chill, low-key fun.

It's definitely one that I don't try to incorporate into my games much, but I definitely see the appeal.

And as I've grown as a GM, I've figured out how to pare things down a lot mechanically, even if the game is still fairly demanding film a narrative perspective.
I can't stand all the supplements and alternate abilities and classes and spells and items and monsters that continually get churned out for the latest edition of D&D and it's brood. At this point, I make my own monsters and spells and items and all that for my high fantasy games. I know how much crunch I need and where I need it. The rest is streamlined to produce a game that's easier to run and more satisfying to play. Or, that's my goal, anyway.

[MrStabby]

Not sure I'd enjoy it-I like the Role Playing in an RPG as well as the game. I might have a blast-be a good chance to do wonkier mechanical builds over a more characterful thing.

That being said, I completely get the appeal. It's not necessarily for me, but I'm glad you and the munchkins are having a good time! D&D is meant to be fun-whether you have fun with deep characters and copious note taking, or hack and slash kick the door down action, just have fun!


Has anyone read the essay about the eight types of fun? LeBlanc, I believe. A video game designer.

The one that I feel gets left behind most often in ttrpgs is submission, literally just "games as a pastime". Beer and pretzel games, where you can relax and have a chill, low-key fun.

It's definitely one that I don't try to incorporate into my games much, but I definitely see the appeal.

And as I've grown as a GM, I've figured out how to pare things down a lot mechanically, even if the game is still fairly demanding film a narrative perspective.
I can't stand all the supplements and alternate abilities and classes and spells and items and monsters that continually get churned out for the latest edition of D&D and it's brood. At this point, I make my own monsters and spells and items and all that for my high fantasy games. I know how much crunch I need and where I need it. The rest is streamlined to produce a game that's easier to run and more satisfying to play. Or, that's my goal, anyway.


I completely agree. There's a lot of value in just simple play. Especially when you see it through unjaded eyes (ie new players who are all excited about even simple things).

Yeah this type of game is not my style. If I were asked about my perfect game it would have all kinds of complexity and be immersive and involved and so on. But this perfect game with so many moving parts is so easy to get wrong - there are just more errors to make.

I was just honestly surprised at how something so far from my normal preference was actually just damn good fun. I think there was no weight of expectations and it was a very 'in the moment' kind of joy. The fun of fireball being cast, rather than the fun of knowing that you have the resources left to put up a stiff struggle in a tough encounter.

No miserly accounting for every resource, just revelling I actually using every class ability.

I think it helps that I am also part of some more involved games, so there is an an aspect of it being something different.

[Easy e]

Indeed. Many times, less is more.

There seems to be a cycle for many games that I have encountered.

1. Newbies who focus on the joy of just playing the game

2. Veterans who focus on trying to "get the most out of the game" The definition of being "the most" varies, and many people on forums fall into this category. Many people never leave this category.

3. Masters who focus on just having fun within the game

[PhoenixPhyre]

Simplicity can also come in multiple forms.

A simple (mechanically) game (say "Basic Rules D&D 5e", 4 classes, no feats, no multiclassing, 4 races, etc) can have complex narratives and non-combat stuff. A simple (thematically) game (say "kick down the dungeon door, loot the place") can have incredibly complex mechanical structures (ranging from "the full glory of 3.5e D&D" all the way up to really complex stuff).

For me, mechanical complexity is something to be reduced where possible/practical. It necessarily carries a cost, something to be accepted because (and when!) the benefits it brings outweigh the costs. I'm fine with small amounts of it. I'm also fine with thematic and non-mechanical complexity. I love having games with revelations of unexpected layers to reality and deep metaphysical quandries. But most of the time those can be expressed with relatively simple mechanics combined carefully.

Others may differ--this is purely a personal preference not some objective measurement of "goodness".

[Quertus]

I guess before I comment, I should poke at this:



Not sure I'd enjoy it-I like the Role Playing in an RPG as well as the game. I might have a blast-be a good chance to do wonkier mechanical builds over a more characterful thing.

Why do you think that this simple game isn’t conducive to roleplaying? (I’m trying to make sure my reading comprehension hasn’t failed me again).

Otherwise, I’ll generally echo the sentiment of, “not my favorite, but sounds fun”. I agree that you don’t need complex plots, custom content, or threat of failure for failing to read the GM’s minds in order to have fun roleplaying a character.

[thorr-kan]

It's a mode of play that can be very rewarding to play and to run. All the time? Nope. Is it everybody's cup of tea? Nope. But it *is* a cup of tea, and it's the right cup of tea part of the time.

I've been having a lot of fun running a similar 5E game for my niece and my sons. Both the boys (13 and 10) have also run similar games, with the 10-yr-old being, "I want this creature to fight some characters!" And partway through the night, just leveling up the characters because, "I want to try more powerful enemies!" It was VERY MUCH in-the-moment.

[Tanarii]

Lots of Modules work for this, especially WotC 3e modules, which are very linear and short (3-4 sessions each). Currently running 2 kids age 9 & 11 plus their dad through The Sunless Citadel (5e adaption), and they're having a blast. It has just enough mission (1 to get into the dungeon, 1 possible to pick up in dungeon), and if they choose some negotiation can be had with the kobolds, but it's mostly stabbing or blasting stuff and straight forward non-jaquayed exploration.

[kyoryu]

Try importing some old school rules about exploration with time, random monsters, and even xp for gp.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Try importing some old school rules about exploration with time, random monsters, and even xp for gp.

That seems rather antithetical to a beer-and-pretzels "kick in the door"/"monster of the week" game, which is what's being described. Those rules were anything but simple. Both to use and to understand/adjust to the table.

[Pex]

Not to my taste. Sounds more like a glorified series of one shots. I want a campaign. I want things my character does to affect the game world. NPCs should know who I am and care about what I have done. When playing the same character in these "simple games", do I ever gain a level? At what level must I make a new character because new players wouldn't be able to play such a level effectively, and/or the DM wants to go back to 1st level to get back to simple play. Would I get magic items that I could use for the rest of the games?

[Stonehead]

Not to my taste. Sounds more like a glorified series of one shots. I want a campaign. I want things my character does to affect the game world. NPCs should know who I am and care about what I have done. When playing the same character in these "simple games", do I ever gain a level? At what level must I make a new character because new players wouldn't be able to play such a level effectively, and/or the DM wants to go back to 1st level to get back to simple play. Would I get magic items that I could use for the rest of the games?

The original post does mention "getting better at killing stuff" as the main form of charactyer development, so I'd assume gaining levels and finding loot would be part of the experience. I see no reason why they wouldn't be.

Not trying to tell you what kinds of games to play, that's your business. I just think we should represent the "simple" games accurately, instead of making things up and making assumptions.

[Duff]

Simple campaigns don't have to be all combat encounters. You can have plenty of non-combat interactions with the game world and its inhabitants. But it doesn't have to be big world-spanning epics with multiple nested layers of conspiracy.


True enough. The "Horny Bard" encounter type.
The villagers who will give those hints

A bit of personality and they can also be simple fun

[Mordante]

Indeed. Many times, less is more.

There seems to be a cycle for many games that I have encountered.

1. Newbies who focus on the joy of just playing the game

2. Veterans who focus on trying to "get the most out of the game" The definition of being "the most" varies, and many people on forums fall into this category. Many people never leave this category.

3. Masters who focus on just having fun within the game

I do think that people who have been playing the game for a while are less and less interested in combat and more and more interested in social interaction. Last Sunday we had a game where almost no dice rolls were required. Maybe if you strictly follow the rule books not everything was according the rules. But the rules should not get in the way of roleplaying.

[King of Nowhere]

I was about to post disagreement, but then you specified "i would not want to play like this all the time". With that caveat, i can agree.
Personally, i tend to have that kind of campaign when the party is low level snd they are badically big pest exterminators, while overarching plotlines come when they have enough power to influence nations

[Tanarii]

I do think that people who have been playing the game for a while are less and less interested in combat and more and more interested in social interaction.
I've been gaming for 38 years. I'd rather do combat than social interaction the vast majority of the time. Otoh that's partly because I get to talk and think and make difficult decisions all day long, and partly because the majority of that time has been GMing, which involves lots of talking and thinking, the latter including prep work. When I get to play, simple fast paced soda and pizza games with lots of dice throwing hold a strong appeal.

[Mordante]

I've been gaming for 38 years. I'd rather do combat than social interaction the vast majority of the time. Otoh that's partly because I get to talk and think and make difficult decisions all day long, and partly because the majority of that time has been GMing, which involves lots of talking and thinking, the latter including prep work. When I get to play, simple fast paced soda and pizza games with lots of dice throwing hold a strong appeal.

It's always interesting to see how other people experience things. To me combat is stressful. Because when you have combat your really need to know all the numbers on your character. What spell does what, what is the area of effect, what is the safe, what is my ECL, how much damage does my weapon do, what feats do I have for combat, if a draw a weapon can I still move or is drawing a weapon a fast, standard or move action?

Social play requires a lot less game knowledge. The party is about level 6 they were talking to a high ranking military officer last time who confiscated their home trying to find out what is going on. The home is a house outside of the city walls, the city is under siege and their home is not a military HQ. So I let the players decide will they help defend the city, will they join the siege, remain neutral or do something else. For now they remain neutral.

[animorte]

Honestly, this is kind of what I like one-shots for. Simple fun. Between a drawn out, in-depth campaign, it’s nice to take a break from that world and pretend to be someone else doing something else for a while. We do it constantly in the real world. We have our very in-depth lives with a lot going on and unbelievable amounts of interaction potential, yet we dive into this game and many others to get a break from all the responsibility. We can even use this gaming to increase the possibilities of interaction.

[MrStabby]

Not to my taste. Sounds more like a glorified series of one shots. I want a campaign. I want things my character does to affect the game world. NPCs should know who I am and care about what I have done. When playing the same character in these "simple games", do I ever gain a level? At what level must I make a new character because new players wouldn't be able to play such a level effectively, and/or the DM wants to go back to 1st level to get back to simple play. Would I get magic items that I could use for the rest of the games?

If its been a while since you played this kind of game, I would urge you to give it a go. Your comment pretty much echoes my thoughts going in but it was still surprisingly fun. I really didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did. It might have helped I was coming off a stint of DMing so it was a nice break.



I do think that people who have been playing the game for a while are less and less interested in combat and more and more interested in social interaction. Last Sunday we had a game where almost no dice rolls were required. Maybe if you strictly follow the rule books not everything was according the rules. But the rules should not get in the way of roleplaying.

The thing that has grown on me more is the exploration pillar. The hint's the clues the discoveries on the path.. the world building that the characters take a role in by dicovery. I find this makes for an interesting world. Social is fine, but it sometimes feels a little undirected - I think I have never been that great at DMing the social side; its hard to prep a casual conversation. You can prep characters to interact with but it sometimes gets a bit tougher when the PCs do the unexpected and you populate the random cheese shop they walk into with people that they begin to converse with.



Honestly, this is kind of what I like one-shots for. Simple fun. Between a drawn out, in-depth campaign, it’s nice to take a break from that world and pretend to be someone else doing something else for a while. We do it constantly in the real world. We have our very in-depth lives with a lot going on and unbelievable amounts of interaction potential, yet we dive into this game and many others to get a break from all the responsibility. We can even use this gaming to increase the possibilities of interaction.

Yeah, one shots are fun sometimes. I do like combat intensive ones as I tend to play characters that are more likely to mechanically bore me in the longer run for those.

I do also like that there is some carry over between weeks and the consistancy of the party is also quite nice.


A nice side effect of the whole "monster of the week" thing is that we get to see a lot of the MM monsters that probably don't make it into a lot of campaigns. When was the last time you fought a cyclops or hydra or a grick alpha or an Oni? Some creatures are natrual antagonits of more involved campaigns with scheming and plots and development and foreshadowing and so on and some are more minion focussed where they are social and their society is likely to be a part of the campaign (be it drow or giants or mindflayers). Those more solitary monsters that are still too low level to be impressive and that fall in that middle ground are monsters that I don't experience in my games that often (though as a DM I still have fond memories of an ambush I ran with three hydras).

[Pex]

If its been a while since you played this kind of game, I would urge you to give it a go. Your comment pretty much echoes my thoughts going in but it was still surprisingly fun. I really didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did. It might have helped I was coming off a stint of DMing so it was a nice break.



I recently quit a game because it ended up being like this. It was not the only reason - DM was always unprepared, had no sense of balance and thought it funny. He would never let us level even though he said we would next game session. It was a series of combats that had no consequences to anything.

[gbaji]

I think they key is a good balance. You can have complex plots, social interactions, etc, but on some level, the core has to be there. And yeah, I do think that many players (and certainly GMs) can get so caught up in the "new shiny things", that they feel that everything in the game has to be unusual or special or whatever. I'm often amazed at the intricate character and world descriptions and almost always have a "Ok. But does all that complexity really make the game more fun?" question in response.

That "core" has to be fundamentals. The basics. You can absolutely get fancy, but at some level you need to have that established baseline of "You have HPs and weapons, it has sharp teeth and wants to eat you" worked out and working. And yeah, it's fun to just run a straight forward dungeon crawl from time to time. No major plotlines hanging on anything. No fate of the world involved. Just a group of adventurers wandering through some area with nasty things they have to defeat (and maybe some treasure to find).

I suspect that a lot of games fail in the early phases precisely because they don't establish this baseline first. Run those new PCs through a series of very short, minor encounters/adventures first. Have them be guards on a caravan, or helping to defend a small town from bandits, wild animals, wandering monsters, whatever. Maybe have them follow some "hit them over the head with them" clues to find additional adventures, with more rewards. Work them up to the "Ok, now we're in a major plot" stuff. Starting right off on day one with "Ok. You are on a world spanning adventure with the fate of the world in the balance" maybe isn't the best approach.

Even in the course of a larger and more detailed scenario set, I always try to run the PCs through some very basic stuff first. Heck. Just to get an idea of how capable they are of handing different things, what spells they really have, and how those work in a variety of encounter situations. It settles the players down, gets them used to their characters and capabilities, maybe even into a bit of a RP groove, and significantly reduces the stress of future, more complex, encounters and conflicts. It's not just the GM learning the players and characters, the players have a learning curve as well. Give them time to do this. Then slowly ramp things up in difficulty and complexity.

And yeah. Toss them a "simple" thing from time to time. Just to reinforce those "basics", and to give them a sense of where their characters are. If everything always scales up, and they never run into anything that isn't "level appropriate", then they can feel like they aren't actually advancing or gaining anything (even though they actually are). Throw something well below their power level at them occasionally. Some GMs might think that's a waste of time, but IMO it really isn't. Obviously, there isn't much fun in a Monty Haul style eternal steamroll adventure, but the flip side is true too. I've found that players actually get a lot of satisfaction if they're allowed to occasionally "show off" with their characters.

Again. The trick is balance. But yeah, putting in very basic stuff can be extremely fun.

[martixy]

If you're willing to sit through a long explanation for a simple point (entertainingly told), here's a video I recently watched by Matt Colville (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTp9SdpcvF8).

It even includes gbaji's balance.

TL;DW
Yes, sometimes we just want to have fun killing monsters, and that's fine (it's a game after all). And you can do both.

[Rynjin]

I guess before I comment, I should poke at this:




Why do you think that this simple game isn’t conducive to roleplaying? (I’m trying to make sure my reading comprehension hasn’t failed me again).

Otherwise, I’ll generally echo the sentiment of, “not my favorite, but sounds fun”. I agree that you don’t need complex plots, custom content, or threat of failure for failing to read the GM’s minds in order to have fun roleplaying a character.

Some of the best RP I've ever experienced in a game came from one I tossed together last minute and planned about 10 minutes in advance as a "your airship has crashed on a deserted island, find your way off" adventure. A lot of the time strong RP comes from players simply being presented with situations and then the GM stepping back to let them react to them.

Group finds a group of goblins in a cave by the stream? Maybe they can help the party. Group fights a baby red dragon? Maybe someone adopts it and tries to teach it morality. The other survivors are attacked by monsters while the party is away, and they release a dangerous criminal to fight them off: how does the party react? (The answer: harshly, but fairly to the criminal)

All real examples of things that happened in that game, and all naturally arisen as a result of presenting scenarios of varying complexity and just allowing people to make decisions.

[truemane]

Sometimes you want a porterhouse cooked a perfect blue rare. Sometimes you just want a Big Mac.

I always try to think about, and talk about, and explain, role-playing as a series of IF/THEN statements. IF this is the sort of game you like, THEN this system (rule, variant, scenario, structure, etc) will provide that to a greater or lesser degree. I have long thought that if we could all get used to replacing "that sucks" with "that doesn't work for me" we could have much more productive conversations about to get the hobby to provide us with what we're looking for.

The only table at which I'm a player in RL, the DM runs a hard-nosed, Oldest of Old Schools game with old fashioned string-of-pearls style adventures, regardless of ruleset (we're doing 5E now, but it's very much 5E by way of Gygax). It's the opposite of everything I usually. But I know what his games are. He provides a very consistent experience. And I really enjoy it for what it is.

There's a place for long, complex, overarching stories. And there's a place for low stakes Old Man at the Crossroads Please Save my Daughter (even though you know I'm secretly an Archmage or a polymorphed dragon) shennannigans. The trick, as always, is to try and communicate the experience you want to provide (and have!) so the players can buy into it.

[Catullus64]

I certainly enjoy this sort of gameplay, and I echo the sentiments of others here wishing that I had gone simpler when I first started DMing. That said over the years I've mostly found other game systems that are more tightly fixed upon this kind of play (like HEROQUEST), so I haven't played or run any pure beer-n-pretzels D&D in quite some time. The closest was when my usual group had a few weeks' hiatus from our regular game and tried out BECMI, which is much more narrowly focused on the dungeon experience than modern D&D.

[Telok]

Sometimes you want a porterhouse cooked a perfect blue rare. Sometimes you just want a Big Mac.

McGreaseBall's always gives me explody butt. Steak or I'll go make myself a salad. No emergency porcelain throne visits for me please.

[truemane]

McGreaseBall's always gives me explody butt. Steak or I'll go make myself a salad. No emergency porcelain throne visits for me please.
Well, I could have said "Sometimes you're in the mood for [subcategory A of a given set of experiences] and sometimes you're in the mood for [related but distinct subcategory B of the same set of experiences]."

But it's not as pithy. Feel free to adjust the nouns inside the brackets to taste.

[Kapow]

3. Masters who focus on just having fun within the game

"Masters who focus on having the most fun within the game"
I like this netter

[Telok]

Well, I could have said "Sometimes you're in the mood for [subcategory A of a given set of experiences] and sometimes you're in the mood for [related but distinct subcategory B of the same set of experiences]."

But it's not as pithy. Feel free to adjust the nouns inside the brackets to taste.

Well, there are subcategories of both food and rpg that I am always uninterested in. Pointless hack & slash combat and cheap greasy food being among them. Part of why the wargame minis scene never pulled at me even though I have probably a couple armies wirth of assorted minis I've done.

'Simple' to me means something like Paranoia, one of the one page games, or Mork Borg. Nothing to break, nothing to screw up, just lran into "what's funny" to run & fun it.

[Jay R]

I try to include some of this in each session, even when there is a major story arc. As I said in my "Rules for DS":


32. There should be encounters that have nothing to do with the main quest, or there is no world – just a party and a quest.

a. Yes, the quest is your focus. But set it in a complex world, much bigger than the quest.

[Tanarii]

Well, there are subcategories of both food and rpg that I am always uninterested in. Pointless hack & slash combat and cheap greasy food being among them.
Hack and slash was the steak.

[MrStabby]

Hack and slash was the steak.

Makes sense. THe onse single ingreedient corresponding to the one pillar of the game well represented.

The other, more complex composite, more finely processed output with many more ingredients on the other hand...

[Jophiel]

The golden age of my 5e time was when I was playing in a traditional world-building campaign on Thursdays and then playing or DMing Adventurer's League one-shots on Mondays. Was a perfect blend of "serious" 5e to stretch the roleplaying chops and then beer & pretzels dice-rollin' with a little RP to join the combats together each week.

[Paladin Hero]

Sometimes a good old-fashioned Hack and Slash can be fun.

[truemane]

Well, there are subcategories of both food and rpg that I am always uninterested in. Pointless hack & slash combat and cheap greasy food being among them. Part of why the wargame minis scene never pulled at me even though I have probably a couple armies wirth of assorted minis I've done.

'Simple' to me means something like Paranoia, one of the one page games, or Mork Borg. Nothing to break, nothing to screw up, just lran into "what's funny" to run & fun it.
Well, I could have also said. "Some percentage of the time, some percentage of people are interested in one subcategory of an experience, and (allowing for overlapping data sets) some other percentage of the time, some other percentage of people are interested in another subcategory of an experience (plus or minus X amount of oversimplification and Y amount of overlap)."

But the overall point is, I believe, reasonably clear: various people are able to draw various kinds of enjoyment from various configurations of an activity at various times. And the fact that you, specifically, will never draw enjoyment from a given configuration, doesn't invalidate either their enjoyment or that configuration.

Similarly, your definition of 'simple' may be useful (even accurate) but it is not definitive.