I know your post is a few pages ago, and that is indeed what I meant. A complex section of rules, which aren't applied all the time, do not make the entire game complex.
I agree.
I know your post is a few pages ago, and that is indeed what I meant. A complex section of rules, which aren't applied all the time, do not make the entire game complex.
Classic Traveller:With the mathematical definition of complexity in mind, our base criterion is: How many parameters (powers, stats, number, existence of feats, etc.) do I need to consider when resolving an action?
<snip>
Mathematically, we might weight the complexity of each action by how often it occurs and use that as an overall measure. Although every game and table is different, I think it's reasonable to make very rough estimates and make it work. In many genres we could probably get by by saying that 2-3 exemplars are good enough to judge a system of. Perhaps:
- Attacking in enemy with the most common form of weapon in an attempt to kill them
- Sneaking past an opponent
- Persuading someone to do something
So a very rough idea of complexity might be to estimate the number of factors that you need to consider for each of the above, add them all up, and divide by three.
For the theoretical "coin-toss" game where every result is 50-50, the answer is zero. This game could be said to have zero complexity. For every actual game the answer is different based on what action is being done. So I think we need to at least have a rough idea of the distribution of types of action to say what the "average complexity" of an action resolution is.
Yes, if the GM simply says "no" after a tails, and "yes" after a heads.Is the factor "doubtful" actually complexity 1?
Allow me to clean this up a little bit, for the argument's purpose. The question(s) should be:With the mathematical definition of complexity in mind, our base criterion is: How many parameters (powers, stats, number, existence of feats, etc.) do I need to consider when resolving an action?
Is the factor "doubtful" actually complexity 1?
We typically don't think of metarules like Rule #1 and Rule #2 as being part of the rules or part of the proposition->resolution cycle, because they skip over the fortune mechanic. Still, a huge number of considerations often go into deciding whether to make a fortune check at all, and these metarules by virtue of not usually being formalized will differ between tables.
A good example would be to query people who play variants of D&D 3.X as to what the minimum DC that they commonly will make a skill test at. My impression is that the vast majority of tables do not test (regularly) actions that have a DC less than 10, whereas I suspect you'll find some tables that commonly make tests as low as DC 5 or DC 0. The first set of tables are probably resolving the DC's under 10 by fiat in some fashion.
Yes, if the GM simply says "no" after a tails, and "yes" after a heads.
Unless you are spending several minutes resolving whether or not the GM should just fiat the result, that is. Then they should be totally part of the discussion.
"A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 159, 200 (1819) (Marshall, J.).
The issue of complexity, when it comes to rules written (and interpreted) has been often debated and the issues are always the same regardless of whether it is the 19th century or the 21st.