Why the hate for complexity?

[Blue]

I would love a game that more accurately modeled medieval combat and weapons, and made combat full of mechanical options and choices...but every system like that I've tried was a chore to run and bogged down at the table. So I went back to an OD&D philosophy and system and things are fine.

Respectfully, I'm not sure I would. Riddle of Steel (a Conan-expy RPG) was lauded about the realism of the combat - and was upfront that three okay combatants vs. a mighty hero would end on the side of numbers. Getting ganged up was very realistic - and therefore deadly.

I like slaying dragons and wading through hordes of goblins. My hobby is an escape, it needs only be to realistic enough to feel right and give me a sense of tension and risk - and needs to be unrealistic enough that we can be heroes and fight those dragons.

(On the other hand, I'd definitely play that as a pocket game against friends.)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Respectfully, I'm not sure I would. Riddle of Steel (a Conan-expy RPG) was lauded about the realism of the combat - and was upfront that three okay combatants vs. a mighty hero would end on the side of numbers. Getting ganged up was very realistic - and therefore deadly.

I like slaying dragons and wading through hordes of goblins. My hobby is an escape, it needs only be to realistic enough to feel right and give me a sense of tension and risk - and needs to be unrealistic enough that we can be heroes and fight those dragons.

(On the other hand, I'd definitely play that as a pocket game against friends.)

Oh I don't mind the hero getting larger than life to a degree but I'm more referring to accurately modeling weapons and armor really. But swords are sexy and pole axes aint.

Though one thing I like about S&W is you really peak around level 9-10, like old D&D. So you never get the crazy HP and/or attack bonuses of high level 3e/4e/5e PC, which makes them less godly. D&D often turns into a superhero game at higher levels, later editions more so, and I don't like that as much.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh I don't mind the hero getting larger than life to a degree but I'm more referring to accurately modeling weapons and armor really. But swords are sexy and pole axes aint.

One thing that I find if you start attempting to model the various factors involved somewhat reasonably is that what works on a battlefield doesn't always work for someone whose job is to explore steaming jungles, trap filled tombs, lightless caves, and reeking mires. One advantage that swords have over pole axes, however much all other things being equal on a tournament floor the pole axe wielder has the advantage of the sword wielder, is that swords are ever so much wieldier than pole arms. A soldier can put an axe over his shoulder and march, and fight on a battlefield, but I dare you to be doing what my players have to do wearing plate armor and carrying a pole axe. You just don't have enough hands, and you have no good way to store the thing when its not needed because it's longer than you are. You'll find that if you are realistic about pole axes, they are always clattering on the floor as necessity forces you to drop one to do something else - like draw your dagger to cut this stirge off you before it sucks you as dry as a raisin, catch hold of your colleague before they slip off this ledge 60' above the cruel hard ground, bar a door against some monstrousity on the other side, or what not.

Beware super powers like 'Invisible Third Arm' (Fourth? Fifth?) or 'Infinitely Large Back Pocket'.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So I wonder where this hate for complexity comes from? Was it always there?

Complexity is a bad thing. It always has been, and it always will be. Complexity is the cost of playing. It is the amount of work you have to put in, before you get any results from the system. In an ideal system, you wouldn't have to do any work, and you'd get exactly the results that you want the system to give you. No system is ideal, which is why every game has some degree of complexity.

Whenever you accept a certain amount of complexity from a game, the trade-off is that you can achieve more of your other goals for the game. Maybe it increases the detail of resolution; a more-complex system can tell you that you hit someone in the left shoulder, where a less-complex system may only tell you that you hit them. Maybe it increases your character customization; instead of playing a Fighter, you can play a two-weapon samurai with a particular faction affiliation that synergizes particularly well. There is good to be had from complexity, because it gives you a bigger budget to afford details in your game.

In the beginning, game were fairly complex, because they were poorly-optimized. I'm not going to fault Gygax or anyone else for that. They were doing something new, and they were mostly playing it by ear. Throughout the eighties, games became even more complex. Everyone had an idea for how to do things better, but that meant modeling more detailed realities, rather than optimizing the system design. It wasn't until the late nineties (or so) that people really started questioning the inherent complexity, and figuring out how much of it was truly necessary in order to give them the resolution they wanted.

When I was young, I played Shadowrun (2E and 3E), because the setting was cool. I had no idea how complex it was, because it was the first game I really played (aside from Palladium Robotech), so I just figured that's how games were. I wanted to play in that setting, so I agreed to pay the complexity cost. I didn't know there were any alternatives.

I recently read through the Shadowrun 5E rulebook, and for the first time, I realized how poorly-optimized it is. I don't think the complexity or resolution have changed much over the decades, but the sheer amount of work involved in getting anything done is staggering. I can't play Shadowrun anymore, because unlike when I was a kid, I know that I have alternatives. I can see how inefficient the rules are, and I don't want to put in that much work to get so little done.

I think a lot of other people are in a similar position. They accepted complexity in the past, because they didn't know that there were any alternatives, but now they know better and they've moved on to games that deliver better on what they want. Either they don't need the detail of resolution, and they've moved on to rules-lite games, or they like that level of resolution and have simply found games that are more efficient about delivering it. Nowadays, the only ones who stick with high-complexity games are the ones who absolutely want a high level of detail, or who care more about the IP and are willing to endure the complexity in order to have it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Gee... what started about 10 years ago...? Oh, yeah, the edition war. When everyone was looking for language they could twist to make eachother's favorite games sound bad, and their own sound good.

"Complexity," "Rules Heavy" and, conversely, for your favored system, "Simplicity" and "Rules Lite" fit the bill. They were far from alone.


There's no question, though, that complexity can be very un-fun - mainly, though, when it's /needless/ complexity. When complexity accomplishes something desirable, it's worth it, and can even be part of the fun.

Now, if you don't enjoy a game to begin with, all the complexity embodied in it is needless (for you), so every time you're dragooned into playing it, you're overwhelmed with how onerous all that complexity is - and you go on line and let the world know!

Conversely, if you love a game a priori, it's complexity vanishes from your perceptions, you can praise it to the moon for it's simplicity.

D&D 5E is already much simpler than previous editions like 3E and 2E, yet people still look for even lighter systems up to a point that for large parts of the you are freeforming with no mechanics at all.

5e has fewer books published than those other editions (or PF, even short-lived 4e - or a lot of even more obscure/less-successful games, for that matter). The system, itself, if you compare PH to PH across editions? D&D hasn't varied all that much in complexity. AD&D was wildly, needlessly complex, because it had this odd design foible of dreaming up completely different mechanical systems for each task: Attacking someone with a weapon? Roll a d20! Attacking them with a spell? /They/ roll a d20. Attacking them with psionics? Look up your attack vs their defense mode on a matrix. Wrestling with them? Roll d%! Then there were the classes, each class had it's own sub-systems, it's own exp chart, etc. Being 8th level in one class was barely even roughly equivalent to being 8th level in another. There was tremendous inconsistency, I suppose you could say.

Yet, when criticizing 3.x/PF & 4e/E, grognards would harp on how much less complex AD&D was! Really? They used /one/ system, roll a d20 + modifiers vs a DC, to resolve everything AD&D used entirely different systems for, above. Heck, 4e didn't even screw around with /who/ rolled that d20.

Now, 5e is doing the exact same thing (almost - sometimes you'll roll TWO d20s - gah! the complexities!), but does get credit for being simpler?

It's a bunch of nonsense.

RPGs are complex, because they model - one way or another - really complex stuff, like human (and imaginary non-human-sentient) behavior, and physics, and the imaginary physics of magic. Some RPGs model more of that stuff with rules, some even take the bizarre step of making those rules clear & consistent to reduce needless complexity, and some just punt it to the GM.







And even though 3E was once widely played it is now decried as a complex monster no one could have had fun with (hyperbole).

So I wonder where this hate for complexity comes from? Was it always there? Have people grown up, gotten jobs and dont have time/interest to learn rules anymore? Do they feel rules are constricting or that the granularity complex rules add like characters being differently competent in different skills instead of having one modifier for everything doesn't add anything to the game?[/QUOTE]

 

[Umbran]

Yet, when criticizing 3.x/PF & 4e/E, grognards would harp on how much less complex AD&D was! Really? They used /one/ system, roll a d20 + modifiers vs a DC, to resolve everything AD&D used entirely different systems for, above. Heck, 4e didn't even screw around with /who/ rolled that d20.

Now, 5e is doing the exact same thing (almost - sometimes you'll roll TWO d20s - gah! the complexities!), but does get credit for being simpler?

It's a bunch of nonsense.

Um, there's more to overall system complexity than the task resolution mechanic.

For example:
Questions - how much text does it take to describe the OD&D Fighter class? How many choices does one have to make in character creation, leveling up, and play? How many decisions do you make or elements do you have to line up and know before you can engage whatever resolution mechanic is used?

Then, same questions, but for 3e, 4e, and 5e.

 

[Celebrim]

Complexity is a bad thing. It always has been, and it always will be.

Now, I think we are going to need a definition of 'complexity', because I don't feel that that is sustainable at all.

Complexity is a good thing. Indeed, it's one of the best things, maybe the best things there is. If we tweaked the fundamental constants of the universe such that the universe was made of nothing but hydrogen atoms, it would contain the same amount of information but none of it would be complex.

When you say 'complexity is the cost of playing' and equate it to work, maybe you should just say 'Work is a bad thing.', because complexity is not work.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When you say 'complexity is the cost of playing' and equate it to work, maybe you should just say 'Work is a bad thing.', because complexity is not work.

Complexity inevitably begets work, so complexity is bad because work is bad.

What good can you say is inherent to complexity? What positive trait can a game not possibly have, without also increasing the number of rules involved?

 

[Morrus]

Complexity is a bad thing. It always has been, and it always will be. Complexity is the cost of playing. It is the amount of work you have to put in, before you get any results from the system.

What you're missing is that for some people, that *is* part of the playing. They enjoy the process. Let's not go all "badwrongfun", eh? We survived edition wars, we don't need game style wars.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What you're missing is that for some people, that *is* part of the playing. They enjoy the process. Let's not go all "badwrongfun", eh? We survived edition wars, we don't need game style wars.

I'm not saying that complex games are necessarily bad. I'm just saying that complexity, itself, is bad. You need to weigh the trade-off, for all of the awesome things you get in exchange for it.

Are you suggesting that some people might enjoy complexity, for its own sake? That someone might prefer to roll seventeen dice, and cross-reference the result on three different charts, because rolling dice and referencing charts is inherently fun for some people? Because I honestly hadn't considered that before. If there are people like that, then my blanket statement might be a bit over-reaching, and the whole topic just comes down to a matter of preferences.