Complexity in games Options

[sk8bcn]

I didn't want another SR5 thread to derail so I created this one:

Not bothering with the link, but to finish the statement: Complexity in games kills games.

Why?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/question.gif)

Actually, most current developpers are just doing the contrary. It is the new trend in gameplays (that and trying to link the universe flavour in the gamesystem) -(well and retrocloning but whatsoever)-.

Like: spending Fortune Points (Warhammer 2), dividing dices between offense or defense, choosing a combat stance, whatsoever.

Things that actually gets you out of the standart roll procedure.


In what sense was SR3 somewhat a failure? The strategical approach of SR3 (allocating dice pools) is IMO dilluted into a procedure way too complex to make it fun (for non-rule specialists).

With dodging allocation with variable TN depending on fire mode + soak allocation + 2x simple actions a turn + cover modifier impact + recoil + roll to keep on your feet if hit + decrese immediate iniative if hit allongside with further permanent decrease...

And yet, I haven't talked about magic, drones....


there was too much. Not enough intuitive for fun.

"GM:-I'm gonna explain it to you. You've been shot by a 9M ares Predator. You allocated 2reserve dices in soaking but with a 4/2 armor, you'd better had dodged. You've taken a light wound so you lose -1 intiative decreasing your iniative from 11 to 10 (and losing an initiative pass). yes you already had a light wound and both are not cumulative in subsequent rounds, but you're still affected by the decrease on this one. Now roll to stay on your feets."

Here the rules complexity made it impossible for an average player to have fun with the game complexity

(rule complexity=hardness to remember et apply them.
game complexity=level offered by the game to have a strategical approach).


I'm all for game complexity. But the rule complexity should remain low enough to make them fun to use.

Over 75% of my SR3 PC are lost because of this and fail to see the better strategical choices given to them.
That's just

[StealthSigma]

I'm all for game complexity. But the rule complexity should remain low enough to make them fun to use.

Complexity and complicated are two different things.

The problem you are having is with complicated rules which require a level of understanding and expert status to be able to use. You want to avoid this because it keeps people from being able to play the game. Complexity in the rules is fine as long as the rules themselves aren't complicated.

[_Pax._]

Also, some groups or individuals can enjoy complicated rules.

The problem is, they're a very, VERY small minority.

[Tashiro]

Actually, I'll give an example.
My wife does not like learning rulesets. She doesn't have the mind to study and understand mechanics, she doesn't have a mind for tactics. She likes to play characters, explore the setting, and roleplay. The games we play include Pathfinder, Shadowrun 4E (she was introduced to it with 1E), she's getting ready to try Anima, and she's done Exalted. This doesn't include the games I've designed myself.

In Exalted, almost every session, I had to remind her how to use her Charms. If there was combat, I had to remind her how to set up her dice pools, roll initiative, and use her combos. I had to make a flowchart for her to follow for spending motes and adjusting dice pools. For Pathfinder, every time she levels, I have to level her character for her, she doesn't know a single thing about any of the moving parts involved there. I'm probably going to need to do something similar for Anima - so I prepared ahead of time and made notes on her sheet for how to spend her DP when she levels.

Shadowrun, there's less of that. Thanks to the Chummer program, she can handle improving her character, but I have to remind her time and again how to do her Technomancy stuff. She sees the dice pools right in front of her, but she hoards her karma because she doesn't focus on her character's improvement unless it's necessary. She hates huge equipment lists, she hates having to keep track of the modifiers that equipment may give.

When I design a game, I try to strip a lot of that way. The way I test character creation is I hand her the rules, a blank character sheet, and say 'make a character'. The first time I did this she protested, thinking it would take her hours and hours (normal for her). She got it done in less than 5 minutes. I consider this a success - if she can understand how to make a character, put everything in the right spot, and understand the rules without any help from me, then I'm doing my job right.

The rules themselves, should only be just as complicated as is necessary to do the job. The less moving parts, I feel, the better. It makes it easier for players like her to understand what is available to them, it makes it easier for the game master to understand what the characters are capable of, and it makes making NPCs easier when necessary. (Case in Point: Try making 10 NPCs for Exalted, while following all the rules involved in character creation and keeping track of expenditures. That'll keep you busy for a few hours or days, and heaven forbid needing to do it on the fly in the middle of a session due to unexpected player activity).

Personally, I don't believe in 'fudging' NPCs, I like to know what they're capable of, and being able to jot down numbers on the fly. Some games, that's impossible - you have to 'fake it' because of the complexity in the mechanics involved with how things interconnect. Fortunately, Shadowrun's not bad for that.

The complexity should be in the play. A few simple options on the character sheet providing you opportunities to do interesting things in play. For example: Technomancers. If the rules for technomancers were simple, but provided you with a variety of options which all used the same ruleset, that would be better.

In fact, in Shadowrun, I'd love to see more parallels. If hacking rules followed the same rules as normal non-matrix stuff (stealth, combat, etc), it would make hacking play easier. If building a Technomancer and building a Mage followed the same rules, if their actions followed the same principles, if spirits and sprites follow the same rules and principles, it makes learning the game simpler. The flavour might be different, but the mechanics would be the same. This would lower the complexity significantly, making it easier for people who have trouble keeping rules in their head.

I think games, really ,should be more inclusive, and less exclusive. The bar for getting into any given RPG should be set low. Sure, as the game books come out, the bar raises, but it should never be really that high to begin with.

The same problem shows up in video games, really. The first game is relatively easy - but as you get into sequels, or the genre evolves, it becomes more and more complex, and someone walking into it blind winds up completely lost. Compare, say, Street Fighter 2 to something like Street Fighter 4. Or the first racing games to the Need for Speed games these days. (Or Civilization 1 to Civilization 4, or SimCity 1 to SimCity 2000, or....)

[_Pax._]

Shadowrun, there's less of that. Thanks to the Chummer program, [...]

Full stop.

The existence of a computer program to handle all the complex fiddly-bits behind the scenes, does not mean the rules themselves have little or no complexity.

And, you know what? HeroLab, though not free like Chummer, can handle more than just Shadowrun. Pathfinder is one of them. And the level-up process in HeroLab's' Pathfinder module, is very VERY automated and hand-hold-y.

The rules themselves, should only be just as complicated as is necessary to do the job. The less moving parts, I feel, the better.

Systems like that, bore me. I don't play them. I don't buy them. I don't like them.

It's good they exist (in fact, I heartily recommend you track down a copy of "Minimus", as it's about as rules-light as you can get, and still need a pencil), because clearly some people prefer them.

But they shouldn't be everything out there, because some people - myself included - LIKE some "elegant complexity" in our game rules.

I think games, really ,should be more inclusive, and less exclusive.

The answer to someone not liking Rocky Road icecream, is not to say "okay from here on out, Vanilla is the only thing available". The answer is to say, "well, how about neapolitan then? Or some orange sherbet?"

[Tashiro]

Systems like that, bore me. I don't play them. I don't buy them. I don't like them.

But they shouldn't be everything out there, because some people - myself included - LIKE some "elegant complexity" in our game rules.

The answer to someone not liking Rocky Road icecream, is not to say "okay from here on out, Vanilla is the only thing available". The answer is to say, "well, how about neapolitan then? Or some orange sherbet?"

You prefer games which use more mechanics than are necessary to do the job? I'm for 'elegant complexity' as long as it is elegant, and as long as it isn't just rules for the sake of adding complexity. For example, you shouldn't have to keep track of seven or eight modifiers just to perform a single action - and it's even better if all skills use the same system to get the job done - whether it's social combat, non-combat, or combat. Declaration. Modifier. Roll. Resolution. Done.

Also, I'd not equate game complexity and style to food. Gaming is a social experience, and by making some games too complex, you're effectively barring people from enjoying the experience. They may love the setting, but hate the mechanics, and if the mechanics are too much, you're effectively saying 'you're not allowed to play'. The only reason my wife even bothers with Pathfinder (she dislikes d20 strongly), is because she loves my worldbuilding, and because I do all the work on her character sheets for her. If she had to do her own character sheets, and keep track of everything? She'd not be playing Pathfinder at all.

[sk8bcn]

You prefer games which use more mechanics than are necessary to do the job? I'm for 'elegant complexity' as long as it is elegant, and as long as it isn't just rules for the sake of adding complexity. For example, you shouldn't have to keep track of seven or eight modifiers just to perform a single action - and it's even better if all skills use the same system to get the job done - whether it's social combat, non-combat, or combat. Declaration. Modifier. Roll. Resolution. Done.

Also, I'd not equate game complexity and style to food. Gaming is a social experience, and by making some games too complex, you're effectively barring people from enjoying the experience. They may love the setting, but hate the mechanics, and if the mechanics are too much, you're effectively saying 'you're not allowed to play'. The only reason my wife even bothers with Pathfinder (she dislikes d20 strongly), is because she loves my worldbuilding, and because I do all the work on her character sheets for her. If she had to do her own character sheets, and keep track of everything? She'd not be playing Pathfinder at all.

You say that because you like your wife to enjoy your game.

Let's say we play, mmm, say Earthdawn.

And you come to me and tell me. "I traded ED-system for Basic Ruleplaying system (the one for Legend, Runequest, Cthulhu...). It's pretty simple to handle"

I'd answer: "Thank you for caring about my fun. Guess I gotta find another gamemaster".


fact is, not every game fullfills everyone's desire. There's no rule of thumb. Some will love highly complex rules (Rolemaster), some easy rules (Chtulhu-SaWo), some will love that every game follows the same basis (d20), some will love narrativism (Wushu). Some love a bit of everything.


I, personnally, like when the rules and the setting share a flavor. For exemple, I like Cthulhu to be engined by Basic system but hate that for Hawkmoon, Elric...

To me Shadowrun is a cyberpunk game, where you play pros, not heroes, in a complex world full of gear and magic abilities. I like the system with game complexity. I want it gritty. Be smart, push your character to the max else you could fail. That's the flavor I want for this game.

I wouldn't ask that much for a DD campaign. Everyone can be heores there.


But to answer what you said: not every system should fullfill the desire of players that doesn't like to think about a gamesystem. (nor should every system be complex)

[Epicedion]

You prefer games which use more mechanics than are necessary to do the job? I'm for 'elegant complexity' as long as it is elegant, and as long as it isn't just rules for the sake of adding complexity. For example, you shouldn't have to keep track of seven or eight modifiers just to perform a single action - and it's even better if all skills use the same system to get the job done - whether it's social combat, non-combat, or combat. Declaration. Modifier. Roll. Resolution. Done.

Also, I'd not equate game complexity and style to food. Gaming is a social experience, and by making some games too complex, you're effectively barring people from enjoying the experience. They may love the setting, but hate the mechanics, and if the mechanics are too much, you're effectively saying 'you're not allowed to play'. The only reason my wife even bothers with Pathfinder (she dislikes d20 strongly), is because she loves my worldbuilding, and because I do all the work on her character sheets for her. If she had to do her own character sheets, and keep track of everything? She'd not be playing Pathfinder at all.

What is "too complex" in an objective sense?

[thorya]

Full stop.

The existence of a computer program to handle all the complex fiddly-bits behind the scenes, does not mean the rules themselves have little or no complexity.

And, you know what? HeroLab, though not free like Chummer, can handle more than just Shadowrun. Pathfinder is one of them. And the level-up process in HeroLab's' Pathfinder module, is very VERY automated and hand-hold-y.



Systems like that, bore me. I don't play them. I don't buy them. I don't like them.

It's good they exist (in fact, I heartily recommend you track down a copy of "Minimus", as it's about as rules-light as you can get, and still need a pencil), because clearly some people prefer them.

But they shouldn't be everything out there, because some people - myself included - LIKE some "elegant complexity" in our game rules.


The answer to someone not liking Rocky Road icecream, is not to say "okay from here on out, Vanilla is the only thing available". The answer is to say, "well, how about neapolitan then? Or some orange sherbet?"

To quote a phrase you seem fond of, "Why don't you try another system then? Shadowrun's not for everyone." I hear star fleet battles has a nice heavy set of rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I don't care how complex the rules are, I just want them to be consistent, not contradict the fluff, and not be too insanely far from reality.

[nezumi]

Wow, I love this thread. Thank you, sk8bcn.

I think the point people are perhaps forgetting is the word 'games'. Some people like Go Fish. Some people like Bridge. If I'm playing bridge (and having fun) I don't think anyone would say 'those rules are too complex; you should play Go Fish instead'. Yet for some reason we think this is okay to do with RPGs.

I enjoy 'get out of the way' mechanics systems, and one of my favorite gaming memories was Old School Hack, which used dice basically as a joke. The game was hilarious, and the 'mechanics' supported that. Same-so, I enjoy Fiasco, and it's especially good as a 'hey, we've got a few hours, let's play a game that requires no prep'. And I recognize that some people will always enjoy mechanically simpler games; SR3 will never be a winner in the twelve-and-under crowd, or for 90% of people new to RPGs.

But I *also* enjoy having to stop and think for a little bit (which is different from 'remember'). I enjoy simulationist games, where I need to worry about time of day and the weather report. I enjoy having mathematical puzzles. I enjoy games that force me to think. Thoughtless games bore me (which is why I can't stand D&D, which has repetitious, thoughtless combat and, by the *core book*, stories and challenges).

And I think everyone who plays games enjoys puzzles (otherwise the game is already solved and those plot lines go like 'the king calls you to the castle to collect your reward. 100 XP everyone, see you next week;.) I don't think the question is, 'do you like puzzles' when you're playing, but rather, what type, and how difficult?

SR3 offers math puzzles of an enjoyable difficulty. It offers logic and planning puzzles of an enjoyable difficulty. I don't get those from any other game. The complexity in SR3 is just enough to be FUN, and ultimately, being fun is the purpose of that game. I may be a minority in enjoying those sorts of games, but the funny thing is, that minority is still quite a few people, we still have money, and the competition in the field is, well, none.

And of course, the mechanics extend beyond this. As sk8bcn pointed out, the mechanics support the flavor of the game. CoC mechanics support a feeling of being a common man who risks quick, painful death. BESM supports goofy cartoonish play, with simple, get-out-of-the-way mechanics. SR3 mechanics support a world which requires you to think smarter and faster than the guy shooting at you. If you replaced the Shadowrun mechanics with say a quick coin flip, the gameplay and the feeling of the game would be radically different (even though that mechanical system is FAR more streamlined).

[Halinn]

What is "too complex" in an objective sense?

This: http://boardgamegeek.com/game/4815

[Epicedion]

This: http://boardgamegeek.com/game/4815

That's pretty complex.

[Tashiro]

Verily, that is complex. 1200 hours per play? o.O

[_Pax._]

You prefer games which use more mechanics than are necessary to do the job?

The difference lays in where you and I would draw the line that marks "more than necessary".

For example, you shouldn't have to keep track of seven or eight modifiers just to perform a single action [...]

On the other hand, you should not necessarily be denied the opportunity to apply modifiers from seven or eight (or more) circumstances that might affect the outcome of that action.

Also, I'd not equate game complexity and style to food. Gaming is a social experience, [...]

So is food.

And not all people have to like teh same food; a given item of food doesn't have to be enjoyed by everyone.

Games are the same way.

[...] and by making some games too complex, you're effectively barring people from enjoying the experience.

And my poitn was, by making "all" games not complex enough ... guess what, you've just barred me from enjoying the experience.

I don't like diceless roleplay, for example. Oh, I can appreciate the structure of the rules for themselves - hence why I pointed you at Minimus - but that doesn't mean I want to actually play such a game.

They may love the setting, but hate the mechanics, and if the mechanics are too much, you're effectively saying 'you're not allowed to play'.

They may love the setting, but hate the lack of mechanics, and if the mechanics are too little, you're effectively saying "you're not allowed to play.'

See what I did there?

The only reason my wife even bothers with Pathfinder (she dislikes d20 strongly), is because she loves my worldbuilding, and because I do all the work on her character sheets for her. If she had to do her own character sheets, and keep track of everything? She'd not be playing Pathfinder at all.

You know, I think where you're stuck is that you think every game should be for every player.

Which simply isn't true.

I don't like neapolitan ice-cream, nor do I like any kind of sorbet at all. That doesn't mean I think other people should be denied the opportunity to enjoy them, however.

...

I am very much inclined to dungeon-crawl-y sorts of games. It's what I like to play, and it's what I really like to GM.

My g/f, bless her heart, is more like your wife. She's not into the combat, the tactics, the numbers, etc.

But unlike you, I haven't fallen into the self-delusion that the fault lays with the games themselves. No, it's just she likes Napolitan, and I don't. I like to snack on pickled pepperoncini, and she can't even stand the SMELL of them.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[All4BigGuns]

Basically, what it boils down to for me is that certain games have a certain level of complexity, and any more (or less for some) and it wouldn't feel like the same game for me. For instance if someone were to try to inject Palladium level complexity into SR4 or a Unisystem game, I'd have a WTF moment, raise an eyebrow and run for the hills. On the other end, if someone tried to make Rifts as simplistic as the Buffy RPG (a Unisystem game), I'd have the same reaction.

And yes, I do put SR4A in the same "bracket" of complexity as Unisystem. The former may be more complex than the latter, but not enough, IMO, to move into another "bracket".

[_Pax._]

To quote a phrase you seem fond of, "Why don't you try another system then? Shadowrun's not for everyone." I hear star fleet battles has a nice heavy set of rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Lets be clear - I'm not arguing that SR5 needs to be more complex than SR4.

I'm just pointing out, that forcing simplicity into a rules-set just for the sake of simplicity itself, is no less unhealthy for those rules, than forcing complexity into them for the sake of complexity itself.

[DnDer]

Simplicity in a game system allows buy-in. The more people you can get to buy into your game... Well... That's just good business.

A game that's arcane and complex enough to keep out all but the die-hard grognards is generally one doomed to the Graveyard of Past Editions, isn't it?

Personal anecdote: There's a reason why I own 4e and not Pathfinder. I'm only one gamer... But having come from SR2 and forward, I've kind of been digging the SR4a system more than 2 or 3, and how it's streamlined the process for a lot of things.

Did I miss the point? I probably missed the point.

[Lionhearted]

Personal anecdote: There's a reason why I own 4e and not Pathfinder.

4e of what system? You worry me omae.

[Epicedion]

Simplicity in a game system allows buy-in. The more people you can get to buy into your game... Well... That's just good business.

A game that's arcane and complex enough to keep out all but the die-hard grognards is generally one doomed to the Graveyard of Past Editions, isn't it?

Personal anecdote: There's a reason why I own 4e and not Pathfinder. I'm only one gamer... But having come from SR2 and forward, I've kind of been digging the SR4a system more than 2 or 3, and how it's streamlined the process for a lot of things.

Did I miss the point? I probably missed the point.

This is where I'm at a loss. I'm baffled at the idea that SR4 and fer chrissake D&D 4 are somehow simpler than previous editions. SR4 is practically identical to SR3, except instead of a variable target number there's a variable dice pool, and thresholds and opposed tests are utilized more frequently to compensate.

D&D 4 is such a morass of dozens of overlapping situational modifiers and hundreds of unique class abilities that I don't see how it can be compared as "simple" next to the previous editions which rely on the principle of "I SHOOT IT WITH MY SWORD AGAIN" as opposed to "I activate my daily power Triumph of the Swordy Blasts that follows these two paragraphs of effects.. section 1 subsection A..."

[Lionhearted]

Now I can't really make any factual statements on 3rd ed since I haven't played it since I was 14. But rather then simpler I would say streamlined, all the types of combat follow the same paradigm, all the skills (especially weapon skills) are resolved similarly.
Removal of variable TNs and Skill pools makes the learning curve shorter.
It's probably not much simpler but I had an easier time getting into all of the rules with 4th (and yes I tried 4th at that age aswell) then I did with 3rd.

Also D&D 4E is considered simpler because it sacrificed complexity outside of combat.

[DnDer]

This is where I'm at a loss. I'm baffled at the idea that SR4 and fer chrissake D&D 4 are somehow simpler than previous editions. SR4 is practically identical to SR3, except instead of a variable target number there's a variable dice pool, and thresholds and opposed tests are utilized more frequently to compensate.

D&D 4 is such a morass of dozens of overlapping situational modifiers and hundreds of unique class abilities that I don't see how it can be compared as "simple" next to the previous editions which rely on the principle of "I SHOOT IT WITH MY SWORD AGAIN" as opposed to "I activate my daily power Triumph of the Swordy Blasts that follows these two paragraphs of effects.. section 1 subsection A..."

Replace "simple" then with "streamlined."

As someone mentioned regarding video games, in hyperbole: "System complexity good. UI complexity bad." Both D&D4e and SR4a, for me, have better user interfaces over their complexities than do the 3rd edition incarnations of both.

That is what I meant by simpler, and should have been more clear on the point.

[Tashiro]

Basically, what it boils down to for me is that certain games have a certain level of complexity, and any more (or less for some) and it wouldn't feel like the same game for me. For instance if someone were to try to inject Palladium level complexity into SR4 or a Unisystem game, I'd have a WTF moment, raise an eyebrow and run for the hills. On the other end, if someone tried to make Rifts as simplistic as the Buffy RPG (a Unisystem game), I'd have the same reaction. And yes, I do put SR4A in the same "bracket" of complexity as Unisystem. The former may be more complex than the latter, but not enough, IMO, to move into another "bracket".

I have a different reaction. If someone ports a setting piece from one game engine to another, I'll weigh it on its own merits. I've done Cyberpunk-Shadowrun conversions, and Shadowrun-Rifts conversions, without suffering from a disconnect in the process. Hell, I've converted Vampire to Call of Cthulhu, which seemed to work out pretty well. It just requires me to re-evaluate the flavour that comes from the familiar in an unfamiliar setting and game engine.

[Tashiro]

Lets be clear - I'm not arguing that SR5 needs to be more complex than SR4. I'm just pointing out, that forcing simplicity into a rules-set just for the sake of simplicity itself, is no less unhealthy for those rules, than forcing complexity into them for the sake of complexity itself.

I'm not saying 'for the sake of simplicity itself', I'm saying 'don't make a game more complex than it has to be'. For Shadowrun, I expect to see mechanics for cyberware, matrix, spell casting, etc. Just don't start making it so there's too much to keep track of. If you can get by with a mechanic which already exists, then don't make a new mechanic.

[StealthSigma]

This is where I'm at a loss. I'm baffled at the idea that SR4 and fer chrissake D&D 4 are somehow simpler than previous editions. SR4 is practically identical to SR3, except instead of a variable target number there's a variable dice pool, and thresholds and opposed tests are utilized more frequently to compensate.

D&D 4 is such a morass of dozens of overlapping situational modifiers and hundreds of unique class abilities that I don't see how it can be compared as "simple" next to the previous editions which rely on the principle of "I SHOOT IT WITH MY SWORD AGAIN" as opposed to "I activate my daily power Triumph of the Swordy Blasts that follows these two paragraphs of effects.. section 1 subsection A..."

The rules for D&D are simple. The system as a whole is complex thanks to all the options available.

[Epicedion]

The rules for D&D are simple. The system as a whole is complex thanks to all the options available.

That's something. I think there's a difference between non-session complexity (creating a character, purchasing character improvements) and session complexity (adjudicating rules while playing).

Build Point character generation in SR4 is awful and complex, for example, but that doesn't have much bearing on playing the game since you don't spend a large proportion of your time on that step.

A system is required to be complex enough that if someone says "I do X" the game has some mechanism for handling it, whether that mechanism is spelled out explicitly ("roll this and add that to see if you succeed") or something that's just handled through simple analysis ("just roll me an X skill roll with Y modifiers against a difficulty Z and we'll go from there"). Overly complex systems spell out too much, which is where I have the problem with D&D 4 -- every potential action is covered by a specific rule or a power, or at least enough are that it makes creative application of the rules hard to pull off (you can't pick up and chuck sand into the orc's eyes to temporarily blind him, because there's an encounter power on the Rogue tree that does just that, and you can't just let people replicate powers because they're like powers man and that would be unbalancing).