What is the downside to simple systems?

[Dethklok]

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

No, I'm merely pointing out that such complexity could be there to begin with. Can you fit multiclasses in a 30 page rpg? It isn't hard.

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

When did this happen? Maybe you should read the first post again.

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

I think so, yes. Probably there is more than one spectrum, though, since rules can also vary in plausibility and in the amount of options they give.

Come to think of it, though, they can also vary in how thematic or fun they are - and how easy they are to implement or learn. I remember attributes like Palladium's, where the word "Physical" and "Mental" came first in almost all of them, lent themselves to confusion. And it would be extremely easy to come up with a simple rule that said damage for some weapon was equal to 2 to the power of 1d6-1; it's theoretically quite easy, but a real bummer for anyone who doesn't know that 2^5 = 32.

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."

It's interesting that you talk about players having demands. I know rules are also often seen as "help for the GM."

Really I would say that a designer can't focus too much on demands, because these will often be unique. Rather, I think a good system inspires certain kinds of play, the way (Classic) Paranoia inspired zany Machiavellianism, Ars Magica inspired meticulous spell crafting, and Rifts tended to inspire powergaming. It's only general systems that need to be able to handle everyone's demands - and to do that, some games - I'm thinking especially of FUDGE, here - become so general that they become little more than a vague set of suggestions on how to design your own game!

 

[Dethklok]

Couldn't find this when I made my last post, but here it is; it seems like an interesting point for discussion:

The rules shall make things easier for the DM.

The rules shall balance character options, within reason.

 

[Argyle King]

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.


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.

With the rake, we didn't need to stat anything because D&D (4th Edition at the time) had pretty simple rules for improvised weapons; the vast majority of them did the same amount of damage. For a rake, it just so happened that the default damage value for an improvised two-handed weapon seemed about right. In other circumstances, the damage seemed somewhat implausible. That being said, we barely noticed since there were other elements of the system which stuck out more.

I think I agree with some of your premise. However, for me personally, there are some downsides to overly simple systems. One of them is boredom. There's a certain level of complexity that I need if I plan on playing a game long term. Otherwise, I find that I quickly start to tune out. There are some very simple games such as Parcheesi that I grew up with and love, but I don't plan to sit down and play a 'campaign' of Parcheesi every weekend. I'd quickly grow tired of it.

 

[Meatboy]

For me one of the biggest drawbacks of a simple system is the need to be specific. I think its hard to make a system where you can play fantasy, scify or horror and be simple.
Earlier a 4 class system was used as an example, if under such a system one wanted to play a ninja how would that be accomplished? Are they multi classed? If so how is that accomplished?
Basically the broader a simple system is the larger it needs to be.

 

[GMMichael]

Couldn't find this when I made my last post, but here it is; it seems like an interesting point for discussion:

Mearls' first point goes back to another point from the beginning of the thread: what is not regulated, must be adjudicated. Since rules regulate, they reduce the amount of adjudication that the DM must do.

Also, I took Mearls' second point to heart when creating my RPG. If all characters have the same options, then those options are perfectly balanced.
[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION]: if I were your GM, that rake would have broken if it ever did more than one damage. Just sayin'.
[MENTION=40857]Meatboy[/MENTION]: I've always had the philosophy that the core D&D classes, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard, should be more than enough to multiclass into anything a player could want. Now a little bending here and there goes a long way, but the simple option of multiclassing really should have been the end of any classes beyond the 9 or so that they already included in the PHB.

 

[Meatboy]

...I've always had the philosophy that the core D&D classes, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard, should be more than enough to multiclass into anything a player could want. Now a little bending here and there goes a long way, but the simple option of multiclassing really should have been the end of any classes beyond the 9 or so that they already included in the PHB.

Me too. Between multiclassing and enough feats anyway. I think you can get almost any flavour of PC, for a fantasy campaign at least.

 

[Argyle King]

I think the core D&D classes cover a lot of things, but there are also a lot of simple things they have difficulty covering that a system without classes can do very easily.

For example, in some editions of D&D it can be difficult to create a mage who is able to wear armor in D&D. That's not to say it's impossible; it certainly isn't, and I am aware of several prestige classes and feat chains that allow some ability to do just that, but there are still quite a few hoops to jump through for a simple concept. I think the least restrictive when it comes to that specific concept was 4th Edition; you just had to be proficient with the armor.

What about something as simple as just being a knight? You can certainly have a mount, wear armor, and use a lance, so I wouldn't say it's difficult to be a knight in D&D using D&D classes. However, whether or not the concept works well in play is a different story. In many modern editions of D&D and games which are related to them, mounts quite frankly suck. The shining knight riding his valiant steed into battle is one of the oldest fantasy archetypes, yet there are some difficulties that D&D has in trying to pull it off in a satisfactory manner. Other games which handle levels differently and/or handle mounts differently tend to do far better.

There is a lot of ground that D&D covers, but there are also some very simple things that it struggles with.

 

[Meatboy]

I think the core D&D classes cover a lot of things, but there are also a lot of simple things they have difficulty covering that a system without classes can do very easily.

For example, in some editions of D&D it can be difficult to create a mage who is able to wear armor in D&D. That's not to say it's impossible; it certainly isn't, and I am aware of several prestige classes and feat chains that allow some ability to do just that, but there are still quite a few hoops to jump through for a simple concept. I think the least restrictive when it comes to that specific concept was 4th Edition; you just had to be proficient with the armor.

What about something as simple as just being a knight? You can certainly have a mount, wear armor, and use a lance, so I wouldn't say it's difficult to be a knight in D&D using D&D classes. However, whether or not the concept works well in play is a different story. In many modern editions of D&D and games which are related to them, mounts quite frankly suck. The shining knight riding his valiant steed into battle is one of the oldest fantasy archetypes, yet there are some difficulties that D&D has in trying to pull it off in a satisfactory manner. Other games which handle levels differently and/or handle mounts differently tend to do far better.

There is a lot of ground that D&D covers, but there are also some very simple things that it struggles with.

For the two things you mentioned, the armored mage and the mounted knight, I think that those ideas are absent by choice not because of some failing in the system.

Mages by default are not generally seen as armored types and in fact lack of access to arms and armor is a key balance point in DnD. It should be hard for casters circumvent these draw backs either in terms of levels or feats or by having to buy certain kinds of equipment.

The Mounted warrior on the other hand I see as having been omitted due to the fact that traditionally DnD games take place in places where you can't bring your horse. You know dungeons, castle, underground lairs etc. As you said its not that you can't do it but it is kind of subpar. Though I do remember a friend of mine had a paladin that was the mounted knight type and I am pretty sure he hit an ogre hard enough to make it explode.

 

[Mike Eagling]

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

Perhaps not more rules. It does need fewer chutes and more snakes, however, IMHO

 

[Mike Eagling]

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.

I agree.

I'm reminded here of the Fighting Fantasy system, originally developed for the gamebooks but also issued as a standalone RPG system in its own right. It was essentially a cut down version of Tunnels and Trolls (which is/was itself a simple game). Characters had a Luck attribute that was used as a catch-all for anything that didn't fall under the aegis of another rule. It operated as a saving throw mechanism and, IIRC, Luck could even be spent in the manner of fate points to avoid calamities.

I don't have the book to hand at the moment but it was the size of a standard paperback and couldn't have been more than a hundred pages long--and that included two adventures. The actual rules were certainly no longer than 30 pages, probably much less, so complexity is certainly not required for completeness.