What is the downside to simple systems?

[Bagpuss]

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

Perhaps you should, and my 1st post. You said "if it has classes...." And I picked up on the classed based system for part of my replay, so clearly at that point that part of the discussion was about simple class based systems.

 

[Dethklok]

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.

Bagpuss mentioned this as well. But at what point does a game become overly simple as you put it? You mentioned Parcheesi, but is Chess overly simple? The rules to chess fit onto a single page of paper, but it is a pastime to which many have devoted entire lives. If chess can captivate minds for years on end, what would stop a 30 page game from doing that? Or a 60-page game in three 20-page installments? Or a 100 page game in two 50-page installments? And if that 100 page game isn't enough, will a 5000 page game be enough?

On the other end of the scale, 1-page rpg is probably overly simple for a capaign; same for a 5 page system, but I'm not convinced a 30 page game can't do it. In fact, I know a 30 page rpg can do it because I'm running a campaign right now that's had the twelve year old from across the street knocking on my door twice a day to ask when we're playing again; I just counted, and the game is 24 pages, including artwork, maps, and a list of ambient songs on YouTube (which we haven't been using, come to think of it). The game could maybe see some expansion, with longer descriptions for the monsters, more information on gods and such, and a first adventure thrown in for good measure; you could bring it up to 50 pages. But if you took it to 200 pages my instinct tells me you would kill this game stone dead.

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.

DMMike already gave one answer. I think another answer is often better, though - disallow it. It's been at least ten years since I've run a game where a ninja would be appropriate. If your game is about Asia, superheroes, or a time-traveling motiff, then ninjas should be core, or at least possible. If you're doing a high fantasy free for all or a comedy slapstick, then they can make an appearance. If you're doing Hyborean age, Low fantasy Medieval, Ancient Egyptian, or Star Trek, then ninjas just don't belong.

Perhaps you should, and my 1st post. You said "if it has classes...." And I picked up on the classed based system for part of my replay, so clearly at that point that part of the discussion was about simple class based systems.

"If it has classes, only four exist" doesn't mean it's "class based" and can't have skills. I'm not going to waste time defending a strawman.

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.

Hey, Fighting Fantasy! It had a (very) simple system that worked, but I doubt if most people remember it. You need a certain breadth of experience to even be aware of those games. But that is exactly the kind of game that inspired me to post this thread. Rage, Precognition, Grace; First book Dragon Warriors (with Knights and Barbarians only); Chulhu Dark; Teenagers from Outer Space; Heroquest. Some of these games do of course blur the lines regarding what is and isn't an rpg. But in terms of sitting down to a weekly game with friends, they fit the bill quite nicely.

 

[Meatboy]

DMMike already gave one answer. I think another answer is often better, though - disallow it. It's been at least ten years since I've run a game where a ninja would be appropriate. If your game is about Asia, superheroes, or a time-traveling motiff, then ninjas should be core, or at least possible. If you're doing a high fantasy free for all or a comedy slapstick, then they can make an appearance. If you're doing Hyborean age, Low fantasy Medieval, Ancient Egyptian, or Star Trek, then ninjas just don't belong.

This actually promotes my idea that simple rpgs need to specificity if they are to remain simple. You can have a game that covers anyone of those scenarios/themes you stated, but it can usually only do one of them. Basic DnD is a good example of this, Its not too big and only has enough rules to play the game it was intended to be. It can't be a space opera game or a gritty modern pulp game its not meant to be that.
If however the game needs to be able to cover a huge variety of settings and themes it will usually end up looking like GURPS, and I don't think anyone could mistake GURPS for being simple.
The rub might be if you wanted to make a system that was simple AND covered a huge variety of settings and themes. If this were the case everything would need to be extremely vague or mutable so that it could cover all the eventuallities. The problem then being that the GM would most certainly need to start house ruling or interpreting things on the fly to get the game he needs. (something which up thread you seemed to be against if the system was well designed.)

 

[GMMichael]

DMMike already gave one answer. I think another answer is often better, though - disallow it. It's been at least ten years since I've run a game where a ninja would be appropriate. If your game is about Asia, superheroes, or a time-traveling motiff, then ninjas should be core, or at least possible. If you're doing a high fantasy free for all or a comedy slapstick, then they can make an appearance. If you're doing Hyborean age, Low fantasy Medieval, Ancient Egyptian, or Star Trek, then ninjas just don't belong.

Disallow is fair enough - but I suspect that RPG players aren't the type to take "no" for an answer.

If however the game needs to be able to cover a huge variety of settings and themes it will usually end up looking like GURPS, and I don't think anyone could mistake GURPS for being simple.
The rub might be if you wanted to make a system that was simple AND covered a huge variety of settings and themes. If this were the case everything would need to be extremely vague or mutable so that it could cover all the eventuallities. The problem then being that the GM would most certainly need to start house ruling or interpreting things on the fly to get the game he needs. (something which up thread you seemed to be against if the system was well designed.)

Which is what I'm trying to do here: http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/main-page
But I acknowledge that additional rules can be beneficial, so the rules are all numbered to facilitate adding, deleting, and modifying them as needed.

Point being, I guess, good rules create opportunities, bad rules restrict them?

 

[Mike Eagling]

This actually promotes my idea that simple rpgs need to specificity if they are to remain simple. You can have a game that covers anyone of those scenarios/themes you stated, but it can usually only do one of them. Basic DnD is a good example of this, Its not too big and only has enough rules to play the game it was intended to be. It can't be a space opera game or a gritty modern pulp game its not meant to be that.
If however the game needs to be able to cover a huge variety of settings and themes it will usually end up looking like GURPS, and I don't think anyone could mistake GURPS for being simple.
The rub might be if you wanted to make a system that was simple AND covered a huge variety of settings and themes. If this were the case everything would need to be extremely vague or mutable so that it could cover all the eventuallities. The problem then being that the GM would most certainly need to start house ruling or interpreting things on the fly to get the game he needs. (something which up thread you seemed to be against if the system was well designed.)

Yes and no. GURPS does a pretty good job of being a universal system to about the same level of detail as, say, some version of Dungeons & Dragons.

The Fighting Fantasy system I referred to earlier, whilst written primarily for the fantasy genre, was applied to horror, science-fiction, post-apocalypse, and probably a whole bunch of other genres too. Some of those introduced additional mechanics: the House of Horror book added fear/sanity; Starship Traveller (essentially Star Trek Voyager only 20 years earlier) added ship-to-ship combat. But it was such a simple system it could be turned to other genres quite easily, just without any real depth of simulation. Also, of course, these were programmed adventures and I don't know how robust the system would be at a traditional game table.

 

[Argyle King]

Bagpuss mentioned this as well. But at what point does a game become overly simple as you put it? You mentioned Parcheesi, but is Chess overly simple? The rules to chess fit onto a single page of paper, but it is a pastime to which many have devoted entire lives. If chess can captivate minds for years on end, what would stop a 30 page game from doing that? Or a 60-page game in three 20-page installments? Or a 100 page game in two 50-page installments? And if that 100 page game isn't enough, will a 5000 page game be enough?

On the other end of the scale, 1-page rpg is probably overly simple for a capaign; same for a 5 page system, but I'm not convinced a 30 page game can't do it. In fact, I know a 30 page rpg can do it because I'm running a campaign right now that's had the twelve year old from across the street knocking on my door twice a day to ask when we're playing again; I just counted, and the game is 24 pages, including artwork, maps, and a list of ambient songs on YouTube (which we haven't been using, come to think of it). The game could maybe see some expansion, with longer descriptions for the monsters, more information on gods and such, and a first adventure thrown in for good measure; you could bring it up to 50 pages. But if you took it to 200 pages my instinct tells me you would kill this game stone dead.
.

I'm not sure where the point would be for me. I'm not even sure it's necessarily a page count issue. I also have to know what I am able to do with the rules. A game with few rules that are flexible enough for me to do a lot of different things (and do them in a manner I find satisfactory and fun) is going to be a game that interests me more than a game that has a ton of rules, but uses those rules in a manner that is restrictive.

Also, as I have particular tastes, I find it likely that where the complexity is located in a game might also influence how I feel about it.


As for chess... I find it to be a fun game, but -for me personally- I couldn't see myself sitting down for a few hours every week to play it. There are times during actually play that I've started to lose interest. In contrast, I could probably play a lot of Catan before I got tired of it. I'm not really sure what that says for my interests or what I find too simple.

 

[Bagpuss]

"If it has classes, only four exist" doesn't mean it's "class based" and can't have skills. I'm not going to waste time defending a strawman.

It isn't a strawman, since it is only one example, you have it admit that many existing systems limit options, with good reason in some cases. For some people that's not a problem for others it is. You asked what the disadvantages are, that's one. It doesn't mean simple systems aren't without merit, just that for some people they aren't always the right tool for the job. Some people like complexity, and there are some thing complexity tends to do better.

First book Dragon Warriors (with Knights and Barbarians only)

you keep coming back to this as an example, but that first book was over 200 pages, now admittedly it was small paperback style so in normal RPG style and you ignore all none rules text you might get it down to 30 or so pages, but it didn't even have rules for magic. How can you say my point about limited options is a strawman when this is a prime example?

You start with only two classes and three races, and no magic simple enough, but then you add another book to add magic and more classes, then another book with another class and more rules that help support it, then another and another. Each time adding more options, but with more complexity, plus it's spread over 5 books by now, if you had put all the rules and classes into one book it would be well over your hypothetical 30 pages.

The rereleased Dragon Warriors rulebook is 256 pages, sure the core mechanic is simple "roll to hit, roll to danage" but so is any D20 system, or most other games, at their core.

 

[GMMichael]

I just took a quick look at Dragon Warriors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule for dodging traps (maybe attacks too?) was:

1) Take the attack's SPEED and subtract it from the defender's EVASION.
2) DM rolls 2d10.
3) If this result is higher, the attack misses. If lower, it hits.

This could be a lot simpler. In fact, D&D's attack system (at its core) is simpler. It looks like:

1) PC rolls 1d20, and adds his trap-evasion bonus.
2) If the result is higher than the trap's rating, the attack misses. If lower, it hits.

So which rule is more fun?
Which rule is more useful?

 

[Mike Eagling]

So which rule is more fun?
Which rule is more useful?

I think it's difficult to evaluate rules on the basis of relative fun-ness, as this will vary from player to player. Also, the utility of any two rules that achieve the same result (i.e. is the trap avoided or not) is equivalent.

Having said that, given the topic of the thread relates to simplicity the fact the second rule took two lines to explain compared to the first I would argue it is a more simple rule. Then again, they both require three values to compute an outcome so perhaps they are also functionally equivalent?

 

[Dethklok]

This actually promotes my idea that simple rpgs need to specificity if they are to remain simple.

OK, I can get behind that. I do wonder about it, though. That twelve year old who's been bugging me to play finally took matters into his own hands, rounded up some younger kids in the neighborhood, and started his own game. (I found out about this when everybody showed up at my door begging for dice.) Evidently they took the rules for the Egyptian game we were playing and imported them into a modern zombie apocalypse. I won't say it was any good - they were all pretty young, and I don't know quite what they did. But they were definitely enthusiastic about it when they returned the dice.

The thing is, I remember being a kid and roleplaying with nothing but one die - 1d6, 1d20, whatever I could lay my hands on. It was great fun, and basically no more than an entire game based on the GM using his head to figure out what the probability for success of an action was, and what the likely consequences of an action would be. If you had given us, say, 3rd Edition D&D when my friends and I were eleven, I have no idea what benefit we would have drawn from it. (The pictures?)

If however the game needs to be able to cover a huge variety of settings and themes it will usually end up looking like GURPS, and I don't think anyone could mistake GURPS for being simple.

You're quite right about that. But could GURPS be simple? Maybe you're right, and it just couldn't. But I'm not convinced that everything in a simple game that tried to cover many genres would need to be vague and mutable, especially in light of Mike Eagling's claim:

The Fighting Fantasy system I referred to earlier, whilst written primarily for the fantasy genre, was applied to horror, science-fiction, post-apocalypse, and probably a whole bunch of other genres too. Some of those introduced additional mechanics: the House of Horror book added fear/sanity; Starship Traveller (essentially Star Trek Voyager only 20 years earlier) added ship-to-ship combat. But it was such a simple system it could be turned to other genres quite easily, just without any real depth of simulation.

I believe this. The lack of depth may be a problem, of course, but I didn't know what you just posted. Thanks for this - I'll have to look into it more.

Disallow is fair enough - but I suspect that RPG players aren't the type to take "no" for an answer.

Hm! I further suspect that there are very different kinds of rpg players.

Point being, I guess, good rules create opportunities, bad rules restrict them?

To some extent, and that was a good insight when you first brought it up. But I also think there's much, much more than that.

I just took a quick look at Dragon Warriors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule for dodging traps (maybe attacks too?) was:

1) Take the attack's SPEED and subtract it from the defender's EVASION.
2) DM rolls 2d10.
3) If this result is higher, the attack misses. If lower, it hits.

This could be a lot simpler. In fact, D&D's attack system (at its core) is simpler. It looks like:

1) PC rolls 1d20, and adds his trap-evasion bonus.
2) If the result is higher than the trap's rating, the attack misses. If lower, it hits.

So which rule is more fun?
Which rule is more useful?

The D&D system is not really simpler; they're so close as to be virtually indistinguishable. Both of them follow the formula where (Skill) +/- (Roll) > (Target difficulty) means Success. Having played both, I can verify that they take the same time and have virtually identical feel - the main difference being just the type of die or dice used.

I think it's difficult to evaluate rules on the basis of relative fun-ness, as this will vary from player to player.

Yes, but there are also plenty of circumstances where players with otherwise disparate attitudes will still be unanimous in their evaluations.