Why the hate for complexity?

Umbran · Mar 21, 2019

Ratskinner said:
Seems contradictory to me...I mean "emergence" is usually defined as something like "complex behavior exhibiting from multiple actors following simple rules". Going the other direction doesn't make much sense to me.

Emergent behavior emerges. It is the the whole having behavior not found in any of the particular parts. The thing that emerges is not necessarily complicated or simple - so long as it is unexpected from just looking at the individual parts.

Ratskinner · Mar 21, 2019

Umbran said:
Emergent behavior emerges. It is the the whole having behavior not found in any of the particular parts. The thing that emerges is not necessarily complicated or simple - so long as it is unexpected from just looking at the individual parts.

Depends on who you ask (see long discussion in Wikipedia article on emergent phenomenon). I tend to fall into the camp of thinking along the lines of "a thousand things doing something is inherently more complex than one of them doing something." Although, thinking about it too much rapidly devolves into the "What does complex mean?" discussion, IME.

Either way. I don't see how any sort of "simple" gameplay experience in a TTRPG could emerge or derive from "complex" rules. Although certainly computer rpgs can pull it off for their human players, TTRPG rules are being "run" within the minds of the human participants, who can't avoid any complexity.

Umbran · Mar 21, 2019

Ratskinner said:
I tend to fall into the camp of thinking along the lines of "a thousand things doing something is inherently more complex than one of them doing something." Although, thinking about it too much rapidly devolves into the "What does complex mean?" discussion, IME.

I think uphread I did get into the difference between complicated and complex. A mechanical watch has dozens of very specifically formed moving parts - it is complicated. What it does is tell the time, which is not complex. Three bodies moving under their mutual gravitational attraction is super-easy to specify. It is not a complicated system. Their resulting orbits, however area complex and unpredictable. In this way, we can talk separately about how the thing is constructed, and how it behaves in the end.

Note: a single thing doing something *cannot* be emergent behavior. Emergent behavior is what you get when *multiple* things interact, and the result is behavior not found in any individual part.

As an example: you can build a little robot that has two behaviors - it walks in a little loop, and it tries to stay near other robots. Put a hundred of them together, and the group starts moving in a straight line (composed of a hundred little loops). This emergent behavior is very simple - it is just movement in a straight line.

Either way. I don't see how any sort of "simple" gameplay experience in a TTRPG could emerge or derive from "complex" rules.

Grappling is complicated. So, none of us initiate grapples. Complicated rules. Simple resulting behavior.

Deset Gled · Mar 21, 2019

Umbran said:
Well, if you take it that way, we fundamentally cannot measure the complexity of a game except for a particular table, and then only after the entire campaign is completed, and we know what rules did get used, both official and house-rules. At that point, there's not much more to say, because this isn't practical or constructive.

Moreoever, I don't buy it. It seems perfectly fair to me to take the rules as written, and use them as a guideline. If the game, as written and intended is complex, and we have to start eliminating parts for convenience so that individuals don't experience them... well, that pretty much tells us those parts were not useful complexity, and when we consider the game, we should consider that as a bit of a flaw, no? It really isn't a great critique of the design to say, "Well, it isn't that complicated in practice, because we throw out large chunks of it!"

We are taking the experience of gaming many times and many tables. After we know what rules got used, both official and house rules, we are attempting the measure the complexity of the games. Is this not practical and constructive?

Anyone who has played D+D, or Pathfinder, or SW, has always made a decision to exclude material due to complexity. Every mass published RPG has thousands of pages of material beyond the core mechanics. It's simply not possible to use every book for every game. "Throwing out large chunks of it" is literally the only way to play any professionally made RPG.

It sounds like you want a very academic discussion of complexity using a specific set of game texts. I don't think that's possible, simply because that's not how RPGs are played. Discussion of complexity is only valid if we include real life experience.

GMMichael · Mar 21, 2019

Deset Gled said:
It's simply not possible to use every book for every game. "Throwing out large chunks of it" is literally the only way to play any professionally made RPG. . . Discussion of complexity is only valid if we include real life experience.

The real life experience is too subjective to be worth discussing. That is, unless you have a Hasbro-backed marketing machine that can take 10,000 data sets and crunch them into some usable numbers. (Side note: ENWorld does have a lot of members...)

Due to Rule Zero, any game can be a simple one. So if you start throwing out large chunks, you're reducing oranges to apples, and apples to apple-cores. Then the question of the thread becomes "Why the hate for Granny Smith apples?" when all we're looking at is a bunch of chewed-up apples.

BUT...if you're right, and all we're looking at is the real life experience, not the book contents, then the answer to the question is:

Complex games generally weigh more and cost more, making simple games look more appealing by comparison.

dragoner · Mar 21, 2019

DMMike said:
BUT...if you're right, and all we're looking at is the real life experience, not the book contents, then the answer to the question is:

Complex games generally weigh more and cost more, making simple games look more appealing by comparison.

Time is probably the reason, more time for rules mastery, more time in play if the complexity is on the playing side (combat, tasks, etc.) vs setting building rules.

Deset Gled · Mar 21, 2019

DMMike said:
BUT...if you're right, and all we're looking at is the real life experience, not the book contents

Why is it a binary thing? Can't we consider both the mechanics of the game and user experience? Can't we consider even more options, like modularity? And tabletop tools? And customer support? And writing quality? Aren't those all factors in complexity?

gepetto · Mar 21, 2019

I definitely prefer rules lighter the older I get. Part of it is not wanting to learn or teach a huge book full of complex rules. And part of is that I just want to play through an adventure with my friends. I dont want to look up rules, talk about rules at the table or even really think about rules.

So to me its not just rules light, its also rules intuitive. So that a player can tell me what they want their character to do in narrative rather game terms and I can quickly figure out exactly what they should roll. And we can all agree on it, because the rules are simple and intuitive. For example I like NWoD regular mortals as a rules engine. Its very simple, attribute+skill+equipment+possible enviromental mods=dice pool. I never have any trouble quickly figuring exactly what those modifiers are without cracking a book and we almost never disagree, if a player does all they have to do is give me a good reason why and if its logical thats fine too I'll usually go with it.

Speed and ease of play with the rules are what matter to me.

GMMichael · Mar 21, 2019

Deset Gled said:
Why is it a binary thing? Can't we consider both the mechanics of the game and user experience? Can't we consider even more options, like modularity? And tabletop tools? And customer support? And writing quality? Aren't those all factors in complexity?

Well, no. Because the OP asked:

Derren said:
Maybe I am wrong but I have the impression that for some time now (a decade at least) there has been an ever increasing dislike for complexity and calls for ever simpler "rules light" systems.

I don't think that there have been calls for fewer tabletop tools, less customer support, or lower writing quality.

While I'm at the mic, maybe the perceived decade-or-more calls for simplicity are tied to the advent of humorless TV comedies, three-word-limit advertising slogans, over-produced and under-artistic music, and substandard public teacher salaries?

The Crimson Binome · Mar 21, 2019

Deset Gled said:
Why is it a binary thing? Can't we consider both the mechanics of the game and user experience? Can't we consider even more options, like modularity? And tabletop tools? And customer support? And writing quality? Aren't those all factors in complexity?

In a recent(ish) review of Mekton Zeta, the one big complaint was the lack of software to help design mecha. It wouldn't change the number of decision points at all, but it would definitely make it easier to manage those decisions. I feel like writing quality is probably in the same category. Good writing doesn't make a game less complex, but it can make the existing complexity much easier to deal with.

That doesn't really support the premise of this thread, though, or explain the observed trend toward reduced complexity (if it exists). Tools and writing quality have both improved dramatically in recent decades, which should make complex games more appealing rather than less.