Why the hate for complexity?

[Celebrim]

You're the one who brought 'work' into this conversation. I was perfectly happy with 'complexity'.

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.

At this point, it's clear that this isn't going anywhere.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

At this point, it's clear that this isn't going anywhere.

I wish there was a 'sigh' option for interacting with posts. We're definitely talking past each other.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Sorry, but you are incorrect here. It takes significantly *less* information to describe a universe that is all Hydrogen than our universe. I our universe, to describe things within it, we have to describe where it is, how it is moving, and what it is. In the all-hydrogen universe, we don't need to know what, as that is the same for all things, vastly reducing the amount of information within the universe.

And, here's an interesting thing to chew on - one of my possible thesis projects was in what we call origin of life calculations, which includes study of self-organizing systems. We considered the probability of a system going from just a disorganized collection of molecules (a condition of high entropy) to an organized collection of cells/organisms (a condition of much lower entropy).

If your system has too few different puzzle pieces to work with, you don't have enough variety, and there's nothing to organize around. If your system has too many puzzle pieces to work with, it never settles into organized patterns, as there are too many options. Life requires some complexity, but not too much. There need to be some limits on complexity for the system to be organized enough to be useful.

Make of that what you will.

I think I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it might be useful here, as well. Most folks use "complicated" and "complex" mostly interchangeably. There are times when narrowing the connotations can be useful.

We say a system is complicated, when it has a lot of different parts in action. We say a system is complex when the results of the action are difficult to describe or predict.

So, a mechanical wristwatch is complicated, but not complex. There are many parts, but their resultant overall action is easy to describe, and works very predictably.

But, we can take a much simpler system - three planetary bodies moving under their mutual gravitation (a "three body problem") is super-simple to describe the parts, but their resulting action is, in general, chaotic, difficult to describe or predict in the long run. It is not complicated, but it is complex. Or, the game of Go - the rules are not complicated, but the resulting play is very complex.

In this sense, we probably all want our games to be complex - the results are not easy to predict, there is unforeseen emergent details or behavior. But some people want this to come from complicated rules, and others probably want rules that are not as complicated.

 

[GMMichael]

I don't know that anybody is really on-board with rule sets designed to trick new players into accidentally making ineffective characters, or which allow some players to completely dominate every aspect of gameplay just because they're good at math.

Damn. Back to the drawing board...

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?

This. Except people often have more than one job. And the competition, VRPGs, are usually rules-light by comparison, so a rules-medium TRPG seems to have a high barrier to entry.

 

[Umbran]

Are you suggesting that some people might enjoy complexity, for its own sake?

Of course!

Some people like the game of Go - the rules of this game are not at all complicated.

Other people like Eurogames with 17 different resources to develop and track over the course of play...

 

[MechaPilot]

Complexity is fine, as long as the complexity serves the purpose of enhancing the enjoyment of those playing the game (including the DM). When complexity is frustrating to implement or track, or when the effort it takes to implement the complexity provides little to no benefit to the gaming experience, then complexity becomes undesirable.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Particularly in the wake of 3E, and the reveal that they'd always known Toughness was a garbage feat which only existed so experienced players would feel smart by avoiding it, there's been a certain backlash against games that require significant degrees of system mastery in order to create an effective character. I don't know that anybody is really on-board with rule sets designed to trick new players into accidentally making ineffective characters, or which allow some players to completely dominate every aspect of gameplay just because they're good at math.

As a card-gamer, I think D&D has generally done a terrible job at creating good complexity. It is more often than not complex for the sake of being complex, not for presenting interesting options (even if some are superior to others) or creating interesting interactions. It's just, bloaty and complicated.

I doubt I could build a good character from scratch in D&D. But I know I could build a good MTG deck.

 

[Celebrim]

Sorry, but you are incorrect here. It takes significantly *less* information to describe a universe that is all Hydrogen than our universe. I our universe, to describe things within it, we have to describe where it is, how it is moving, and what it is. In the all-hydrogen universe, we don't need to know what, as that is the same for all things, vastly reducing the amount of information within the universe.

You sound like the expert in this, but it seems to me that I can describe all the what it is by simply identifying where all the constituents are. That is to say, in both universes I could simply say: proton, electron, proton, electron, etc. And as long as I labeled where all the parts where and where they were going (ignoring some known problems with that), I would still have a complete description. Indeed, does it take more or less information to describe 'bunch of protons and electrons' compared to 'U238'? Does the fact that things are frequently organized in a regular manner increase or decrease the information? (Seriously asking here, I don't know.)

I think I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it might be useful here, as well. Most folks use "complicated" and "complex" mostly interchangeably. There are times when narrowing the connotations can be useful.

I would say most times. I'll be happy to take correction over when my word choice is sloppy and ill-considered. I certainly wasn't thinking of this distinction until you brought it up clearly.

So, a mechanical wristwatch is complicated, but not complex. There are many parts, but their resultant overall action is easy to describe, and works very predictably.

But, we can take a much simpler system - three planetary bodies moving under their mutual gravitation (a "three body problem") is super-simple to describe the parts, but their resulting action is, in general, chaotic, difficult to describe or predict in the long run. It is not complicated, but it is complex.

I get where you are going with that, but I suspect that in reality the wrist watch is similar to a three body problem where the pieces are in a stable, regularized orbit - such as a solar system which has been orbiting a star for millions of years and so is likely to do so for millions of years to come. The constraints on the system make it seems as if both will necessarily run forever like, well like a clockwork, but in fact it is not true in either case. There are small deviations and changes happening that in the long run will make a very big difference. The watch is only easily described in the sense that it is meant to model something and we can easily describe the thing that it models.

In this sense, we probably all want our games to be complex - the results are not easy to predict, there is unforeseen emergent details or behavior. But some people want this to come from complicated rules, and others probably want rules that are not as complicated.

I'm not sure that he complicated nature of the rules is for most humans the real problem. Humans are pretty well adapted to complications. What seems to draw complaints is the computational burden of the rules. After all, we could in theory describe a simulation of the whole world in terms of a few 'simple' equations, but the computational burden of figuring out what happens by applying those simple rules in that simulation would be daunting. Gamers, as with engineers, make a model that reduces the computational burden down to something approachable, where the realism of the model is 'good enough'.

 

[Celebrim]

As a card-gamer, I think D&D has generally done a terrible job at creating good complexity. It is more often than not complex for the sake of being complex, not for presenting interesting options (even if some are superior to others) or creating interesting interactions. It's just, bloaty and complicated.

I doubt I could build a good character from scratch in D&D. But I know I could build a good MTG deck.

I think one of the things that the 4e designers were trying to do was make the complexity do a better job of making interesting choices at all times, at least within what they considered the core gameplay of D&D, which was the skirmish combat. Some people really enjoyed it. Some people didn't.

I agree though that D&D rules sets tend to be bloaty and complicated. For example, over time editions of D&D tend to accumulate far more spells than they really need, simply because on one level it is easy to write spells and then you have some content to put into the next splatbook you are selling.

PS: I really hate what MtG has become.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I think one of the things that the 4e designers were trying to do was make the complexity do a better job of making interesting choices at all times, at least within what they considered the core gameplay of D&D, which was the skirmish combat. Some people really enjoyed it. Some people didn't.

I felt like it did a good job of remaining complex, but also having fewer false choices. Particularly among "casters". As you reference spells below, there are a lot of them in vancian systems that are just...pointless. Noone takes them, and even people with no system mastery know they're bad.

I agree though that D&D rules sets tend to be bloaty and complicated. For example, over time editions of D&D tend to accumulate far more spells than they really need, simply because on one level it is easy to write spells and then you have some content to put into the next splatbook you are selling.

Without more regular smaller editions or the ability to update existing material like a digital game would, this is unfortunately bound to happen. The only other alternative is to create a very strict spell-creation algorithim and force all spells to be made according to it. It would probably result in a lot of "samey" feeling spells though.

PS: I really hate what MtG has become.

In what way?