What is the downside to simple systems?

[Dethklok]

Is there anything that a simple system can't handle? Put another way, what is the benefit to complication in an rpg?

To frame the discussion, think about a simple game with these qualities:

* Four attributes rated 1-6
* Every action is resolved through either 1d6 or a resisted d6 vs. d6 roll
* If it has classes, only four exist
* If it has nonhuman races, only three exist for players to choose from
* If it has skills, there are only 20
* Fewer than 20 weapons (both missile and melee)
* No damage roll; weapons deal 1 damage, or 2 points on a strong hit (whatever that means)
* No encumbrance; all characters can carry Strength x2 items (or some such)
* Rules are 30 pages, counting all equipment and monster lists, and all special rules like warp drive, sanity, or anything else.
* Character sheet must fit on one side of a single sheet of paper

What is the downside to a game like this one?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

The simpler a system, the more it relies upon the DM to adjudicate situations that may not be adequately covered, or supplemental rules to cover things that come up often in whatever genre you're playing. This results in a. more work for the DM at the table or b. a lot of extra rules-material that can differ from table to table.

The more complex a system, the more the minutia the DM has to internalize, and the larger amount of info the DM and players have to keep track of. This results in a. more work for the DM away from the table or b. less freedom for the players to operate outside the previously defined options.

Of course, it is up to each DM and group to decide how far along the simple / complex scale they want their rules to be, and sometimes it changes from game to game, as well.

 

[Bagpuss]

What is the downside to a game like this one?

Lack of choice and limited options.

Say your classes are Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Cleric for example?

What if I wanted to play a skilled fighter with a bit of magical ability in your simple four class system? I'm got a few options

1) Go to another more complex system that already supports that option.
2) Work with the GM to make this system more complex with a house rule.
3) Wait for someone* else to do 2 and use their rule.

*which could be the publisher with a rules supplement, or another fan of the game.

Either way I've introduced some additional level of complexity, and its the same with skills, weapons, races, etc.

Suspension of Disbelief

* No encumbrance; all characters can carry Strength x2 items (or some such)

So according to the rules a Strength 8 guy can carry, 16 elephants, or 16 toothpicks?

That's an absurd example, but at some point the GM is going to have to make a ruling, am I okay to carry this box of 20 matches or a quiver of 20 arrows are they one item each? How about 16 javelins that seems a little excessive to me? So basically you aren't providing a rule you are leaving it up the the GM to decide on a case by case basis, or introduce his/her own rule and additional complexity.

And the same thing with your damage system, I do the same damage with a sawn-off shotgun as he does with his potato gun? Really?

It can be dull

Sometimes special rules, are what makes the game special. Like the genre convention, reflected in the rules, that cyberware makes you less human in Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, or using Zener Cards for psychic powers in the original Conspiracy X. Sure you can play these games using more simple generic systems but they lose something in the translation.

Don't get me wrong I like a simple system, but there are some places I like to see a little complexity or difference in the systems. I don't believe in one system to rule them all.

 

[GMMichael]

The simpler a system, the more it relies upon the DM to adjudicate situations that may not be adequately covered, or supplemental rules to cover things that come up often in whatever genre you're playing.

And the more a GM makes judgment calls is the more players can worry about bias.

Lack of choice and limited options.

Say your classes are Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Cleric for example?

What if I wanted to play a skilled fighter with a bit of magical ability in your simple four class system? I'm got a few options

It can be dull

Sometimes special rules, are what makes the game special. Like the genre convention, reflected in the rules, that cyberware makes you less human in Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, or using Zener Cards for psychic powers in the original Conspiracy X. Sure you can play these games using more simple generic systems but they lose something in the translation.

Don't get me wrong I like a simple system, but there are some places I like to see a little complexity or difference in the systems. I don't believe in one system to rule them all.

Interesting interplay between these points.

- Rules that limit options can reduce the fun.
- Yet rules that provide interesting options can increase the fun.

Looks like careful rule-writing is a little more important in simple games, because some rules create more fun than others.

Here's another way to look at the OP:
Why does Chutes and Ladders need more rules?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jo5_r_ahWI

 

[Dethklok]

The simpler a system, the more it relies upon the DM to adjudicate situations that may not be adequately covered, or supplemental rules to cover things that come up often in whatever genre you're playing.

I don't think that's true. An rpg can be simpler than the above game and cover everything with a rule like all actions where the outcome is uncertain are resolved by a coin flip, where heads results in success and tails in failure. Climbing a cliff? Trying to take off your armor before you drown? Heads you succeed, tails you fail. I don't present this as a system that's much fun, but it definitely belies the notion that complexity is necessary for completeness.

The more complex a system, the more the minutia the DM has to internalize, and the larger amount of info the DM and players have to keep track of. This results in a. more work for the DM away from the table or b. less freedom for the players to operate outside the previously defined options.

In theory, this makes sense, but time and again I have watched the DM stop the game to flip through his rulebook. Loads of fun sitting there waiting to find out if your character is pushed back 5 feet or stays in the same space.

Lack of choice and limited options.

Say your classes are Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Cleric for example?

What if I wanted to play a skilled fighter with a bit of magical ability in your simple four class system? I'm got a few options

Having only fours classes wouldn't mean there are no multiclass options. Nor would it mean that you couldn't, as a fighter, lean to cast spells through the skill system - lots of games don't have any classes in them at all.

Suspension of Disbelief


So according to the rules a Strength 8 guy can carry, 16 elephants, or 16 toothpicks?

Put the 16 toothpicks in a box and it becomes one box of toothpicks. Or just write down "toothpicks" on your character sheet as one item.

That's an absurd example, but at some point the GM is going to have to make a ruling

Naw, it can be in the rules. For instance, Dragon Warriors allowed characters to carry 10 items, +/- 2 for each Strength bonus they had. (It was a 3-18 system, with 3-5 being -2, 5-8 being -1, and so on.) Dragon Warriors defined an item as an object roughly equal to a weapon in size and weight. I played that game dozens of times as a kid, and never once did a problem arise because daggers had the same weight as two handed swords; you could clearly see that a character carrying 14 things was weighed down when you looked at the character sheet. It never arose that someone wanted to fill up their inventory with daggers - they wore armor, carried shields and lanterns and things. The rule was simple, but it was quite plausible and never required a GM ruling.

And the same thing with your damage system, I do the same damage with a sawn-off shotgun as he does with his potato gun?

What? Do you know of any game large and detailed enough to include potato guns, sharpened pencils, or bales of hay in their weapon lists? Wouldn't you say that the sweeping absence of rules for attacking with non-weapons and psuedoweapons is an indication that such rules simply aren't needed?

It can be dull

Sometimes special rules, are what makes the game special. Like the genre convention, reflected in the rules, that cyberware makes you less human in Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, or using Zener Cards for psychic powers in the original Conspiracy X. Sure you can play these games using more simple generic systems but they lose something in the translation.

Remember my first post:

* Rules are 30 pages, counting all equipment and monster lists, and all special rules like warp drive, sanity, or anything else.

Simple rules do not need to be generic.

I don't believe in one system to rule them all.

So? Neither do I; the market could be saturated with simple games, each very different from the next, but none more complicated than, say, the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. The real question isn't whether one simple game could satisfy all needs, but rather, whether the hobby would have lost anything if complex games didn't exist.

I do see where you're coming from with the objections you're raising. What I think is really the case, however, isn't that the rules will restrict options or harm plausibility. Instead, I see what DMMike sees:

Looks like careful rule-writing is a little more important in simple games, because some rules create more fun than others.

This is the single reason that I see designers make complex games - they're easier to write. Because there is more pressure on the designers of a simple system to make simple rules that work. There's no fixing a bad rule with Band-Aids later into the books; that one rule has to be strong on its own.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I don't think that's true. An rpg can be simpler than the above game and cover everything with a rule like all actions where the outcome is uncertain are resolved by a coin flip, where heads results in success and tails in failure. Climbing a cliff? Trying to take off your armor before you drown? Heads you succeed, tails you fail. I don't present this as a system that's much fun, but it definitely belies the notion that complexity is necessary for completeness.

That system would require a great deal of input at the table from the DM, which is, as I said, one of the possible downsides to a simpler system.

 

[Argyle King]

What? Do you know of any game large and detailed enough to include potato guns, sharpened pencils, or bales of hay in their weapon lists? Wouldn't you say that the sweeping absence of rules for attacking with non-weapons and psuedoweapons is an indication that such rules simply aren't needed?

Actually, I could figure out the damage for all of those things rather easily with GURPS.

Also, using improvised weapons is something that comes up enough in game sessions with the group I game with that we often do need to know the answer to such things. One of my most memorable D&D characters used a rake as a weapon; actually managing to kill a dragon with it.

Long story short: My luck with the character was a bit wonky; I could roll for crap whenever I'd try to use an actual weapon or a power or a magical item. Out of frustration, I decided I was going to grab a nearby rake and use it as a weapon... figuring I couldn't do any worse, and that I might as well go out doing something a bit wahoo and fun since nothing else was going my way with the character. To the surprise of everyone at the table, I rolled three criticals in a row and defeated the enemy we were facing at the time with a rake. From that point on, I carried the rake around as a weapon; in spite of improvised weapon penalties and non-proficiency penalties, I kept rolling amazingly well every time I'd use the rake.

 

[Dethklok]

That system would require a great deal of input at the table from the DM

Be that as it may, the system would not rely "upon the DM to adjudicate situations that may not be adequately covered, or supplemental rules to cover things that come up often in whatever genre you're playing." All situations would be covered.

Actually, I could figure out the damage for all of those things rather easily with GURPS.

Of course - you could likewise figure out the damage for those things in a game where all weapons deal 1 damage. (I'd probably have them deal 0 damage normally, but deal 1 damage on a strong hit, "whatever that means.") And obviously it wasn't hard to stat up the rake in D&D. Games don't need rules for everything, just enough rules to cover character creation, the common actions, items, and hazards, and (in non-generic games) frame the action in a setting. Doing this provides a springboard for in-game rulings so that the gamemaster has some precedents to draw from.

Really, from what I'm taking away from this thread, there is no downside to a simple system, but there is such a thing as a system that is implausible, restrictive, or incomplete. It would be difficult for a coin flip system to be plausible, since two characters with different skill levels would both have the same chance for success. Likewise a simple system with too few attributes (like, maybe... three? I'm looking at you, DMMike) wouldn't be able to allow for characters who were, for example, brilliant but had poor senses. And of course a system that left out crucial aspects like equipment or wrestling would leave the gamemaster in a tough spot whenever people tried to buy things or pile on to a monster they were having trouble hurting with their weapons.

I will therefore posit that every game concept has an ideal level of complexity, which is enough only to achieve verisimilitude, provide players with enough options to satisfy them, and give the gamemaster a framework for smoothly handling circumstances that aren't directly covered. Of course, the ideal level of complexity would vary within the different areas of system, according depend on the level of detail required for the feel of the game, so that a game like Ars Magica requires a complex magic system, whereas Call of Cthulhu doesn't. Nevertheless, it appears to me that a well designed game system is only as complex as it needs to be to be plausible, complete, and provide players with enjoyable options.

 

[Bagpuss]

Having only fours classes wouldn't mean there are no multiclass options.

Ah so you are introducing more complexity to meet a need... like I said would happen.

Nor would it mean that you couldn't, as a fighter, lean to cast spells through the skill system - lots of games don't have any classes in them at all.

Indeed but in this example we were talking about a simple class based system.

Put the 16 toothpicks in a box and it becomes one box of toothpicks. Or just write down "toothpicks" on your character sheet as one item.

Ah right, I'll just write "javelins" on my character sheet as well for an unlimited supply then?

Naw, it can be in the rules. For instance, Dragon Warriors allowed characters to carry 10 items, +/- 2 for each Strength bonus they had. (It was a 3-18 system, with 3-5 being -2, 5-8 being -1, and so on.) Dragon Warriors defined an item as an object roughly equal to a weapon in size and weight.

A ballista is a weapon, as is an ICBM, so more of a guideline than a rule.

I played that game dozens of times as a kid, and never once did a problem arise because daggers had the same weight as two handed swords; you could clearly see that a character carrying 14 things was weighed down when you looked at the character sheet. It never arose that someone wanted to fill up their inventory with daggers - they wore armor, carried shields and lanterns and things. The rule was simple, but it was quite plausible and never required a GM ruling.

Well it depends who you play with if something becomes a problem or not, personally I would have a problem with a character carrying 14 swords for example (and something you might want to do in D&D with various damage reductions).

Certainly you can ignore encumbrance and just use common sense, which is what we have generally done in D&D, only bothering to check it is someone had exceptionally low Strength (I think I had a mage who, with robes, a staff and his spell book, meant he could carry virtually nothing else), or exceptionally high Strength. However occasionally you will get a player that will exploit a rule, simple or complex, or players and GM's will have different ideas of what common sense is.

What? Do you know of any game large and detailed enough to include potato guns, sharpened pencils, or bales of hay in their weapon lists? Wouldn't you say that the sweeping absence of rules for attacking with non-weapons and psuedoweapons is an indication that such rules simply aren't needed?

I'm providing extreme examples to illustrate the point and besides, shouldn't characters be able to pick up improvised weapons in this system? The disagreement will more likely occur somewhere nearer the middle, does a rapier do as much as greatsword, or a .22 do as much as a .50 cal?

Are you giving Dragon Warriors as an example simple encumbrance system? First there is no pattern to the Strength bonus that is straight forward to work out from Strength, then you actually double than bonus and subtract it from another number to get to the final value... that's a lot to remember or look up.

Remember my first post:

* Rules are 30 pages, counting all equipment and monster lists, and all special rules like warp drive, sanity, or anything else.

Simple rules do not need to be generic.

You have to admit that they tend to be though, or once they introduce these additional things they can become more complex.

So? Neither do I; the market could be saturated with simple games, each very different from the next, but none more complicated than, say, the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

*blinks* Sorry I thought we were talking about simple systems.

The real question isn't whether one simple game could satisfy all needs, but rather, whether the hobby would have lost anything if complex games didn't exist.

What do you consider a complex game because to me D&D Rules Cyclopaedia isn't what I would call a simple game. Even though it has limited options, it has a number of different systems at work in it. It's been a while since I've looked at my copy, but I think there are occasions were rolling high is good and others where rolling low. You have tables for character progression, different systems for how each class works, etc. etc.

I do see where you're coming from with the objections you're raising. What I think is really the case, however, isn't that the rules will restrict options or harm plausibility. Instead, I see what DMMike sees:


This is the single reason that I see designers make complex games - they're easier to write.

Really? You think balancing something like Hero or GURPS character generator is easier to write than something like FATE or Cortex?

Because there is more pressure on the designers of a simple system to make simple rules that work. There's no fixing a bad rule with Band-Aids later into the books; that one rule has to be strong on its own.

Could not agree less, simple systems often leave much to GM Fiat, or expecting group co-operation. They don't fix with Band-Aids in the book they tend to leave the players and GM to fix things to suit their home game.

 

[GMMichael]

Maybe there's a spectrum for the utility of simple rules here:

Covers all applications-------Leaves some app unaddressed-------Covers one simple outcome------Strictly limiting

The coin-flip rule: covers all applications. So long as any question raised can be answered with a yes or no. "What color is the Tarrasque I just summoned?" does not seem to be covered by the coin-flip rule.

Character carries 14 items: Leaves some applications unaddressed. "14 apples? Really, GM?"

Chutes and Ladders spinner: covers one simple outcome. How far does my PC (piece for character) move?

Chutes and Ladders movement: Strictly limiting. Your piece advances to the next square (and not anywhere else).

So we see that rules have varying amounts of quality. And players have certain demands. As long as your rules cover the players' demands, your system is in good shape. Note that a player demand might be, "I want to be subject to a black-and-white rule, not the GM's discretion."

If the system leaves gaps, it's up to the gamers to fill it. Make a house rule. Let the GM decide. Let the players decide. Let a weird die with plusses, minuses, and blank sides decide. In my homebrew, Modos, the core rules give characters three ability scores. This is half of the personal attributes of D&D, and even less than other systems. So when a player asks, "does a high Mental score mean that I'm smart, or wise, or well-learned," it's up to the player to decide. The player could decide that it means he has lots of E.S.P., so long as he follows the other rules of the system.