Why the hate for complexity?

[Zhaleskra]

My basic beef with people dismissing games they deem complex goes something like this. Rando sees some amount of complex rules, then rando assumes that because complex rules are included the entire game is complex, and dismisses the entire game on a false assumption.

 

[GMMichael]

Once a renewed interest in RPG theory arises, maybe rules systems that are highly complex but highly elegant will become more of a thing. Some people think RPG design is mature. I completely disagree. It is probably a bit out of its infancy, but still in early childhood.

All hail the great AI, for the One True RPG shall be its first creation.

I think if you factor in a lot of the optional steps then there are plenty. The problem is that complexity doesn't always translate to complication. It always has that potential, however.

That was complex.

You could reduce an attack roll in the game down to 1) Roll to hit and 2) Roll for damage. But within those steps there are many substeps. Those substeps all take time so they really need to be factored in. Even when the substeps don't apply during this particular attack, they still need to be checked to see if they resolve.

For instance:

Pre 1) Declare who you are attacking
Pre 1a) Can you see them?
Pre 1a1) If you can't see them, do you have a magical effect that allows you to see them?
Pre 1a2) If you have a magical effect that allows you to see them do they have a magical effect that counters that?
...
1) You attack them
1a) Do you have any bonuses or penalties on your attack roll from yourself?
1b) Do you have any bonuses or penalties from allies?
1c) Do you have any bonuses or penalties from enemies?
1d) Do you have any bonuses or penalties from the environment?
...

How about this one: simple, complex, or complicated?

PC: I chop at the ogre's knees from behind while Uriel is poking him with his foil.

GM: Roll. The ogre is too busy taking swings at Uriel to defend against you.

PC: (Rolls contest, d20, and damage, d10, separately. Adds 2 physical points and 3 skill points to the contest.) 22 and 6?

GM: Pro. There's a wiry snap as Uriel's foil gets caught and almost bent by the ogre's knobkierrie, when you whack the ogre behind the knees, digging in a little, and the ogre tips over...and it's about to crush you!

PC: Ah! I dive out of the way!

GM: Hold that thought. It's still Uriel's turn, and you're out of actions, right?

PC: (Grabs protection die) yes. Don't fail me, armor...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My basic beef with people dismissing games they deem complex goes something like this. Rando sees some amount of complex rules, then rando assumes that because complex rules are included the entire game is complex, and dismisses the entire game on a false assumption.

How can a game be less complex than the sum of its parts?

 

[generic]

How can a game be less complex than the sum of its parts?

It can't, but the average complexity of a rules system can be lower than the complexity of a section.

At least, that's what I think [MENTION=20544]Zhaleskra[/MENTION] is trying to say.

 

[Deset Gled]

How can a game be less complex than the sum of its parts?

The owner's manual to my car is about an inch thick with specs, diagrams, and tables. Every once in a while I have to stop driving and use the manual to check the optimal tire pressure, recommended oil type, or figure out what that unknown light on the dashboard is. Servicing my car is even harder and requires special tools and skills that I simply don't have. My car is very complex. But to drive it, all I have to do is push a button, pull a lever, and press a foot pedal.

Driving my car is much less complex than the sum of its parts. Most RPGs are the same way. Look at a stack of game manuals, try to read a stat block you don't understand, or look at a GM's screen, and it looks very complex. But rolling a die and adding some modifiers is generally quite easy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The owner's manual to my car is about an inch thick with specs, diagrams, and tables. Every once in a while I have to stop driving and use the manual to check the optimal tire pressure, recommended oil type, or figure out what that unknown light on the dashboard is. Servicing my car is even harder and requires special tools and skills that I simply don't have. My car is very complex. But to drive it, all I have to do is push a button, pull a lever, and press a foot pedal.

Driving my car is much less complex than the sum of its parts. Most RPGs are the same way. Look at a stack of game manuals, try to read a stat block you don't understand, or look at a GM's screen, and it looks very complex. But rolling a die and adding some modifiers is generally quite easy.

That's not a very good analogy. The vast majority of the processes in your car work automatically, but nothing happens in an RPG unless you manually make it happen. You aren't actually expected to service your car by yourself, but you are expected to understand and apply the rules of an RPG whenever they come up.

If you look at third edition D&D, for example, the rules for grappling are widely considered to be more complex than we'd like them to be. The fact that you aren't grappling on most turns does not change the complexity of the grappling mechanics. That's still part of the game. You're expected to apply those rules whenever you want to take that action. At best, you could say that the game as a whole is not as complex as the grappling rules would make it seem, but the total complexity of the game is still equal to the complexity of the grappling rules + the complexity of all other rules + emergent complexity.

 

[sd_jasper]

How can a game be less complex than the sum of its parts?

Many universal systems present rule options that are mutually exclusive and not meant to all be "toggled on" together. Others present games of scale, that CAN BE complex... if you want every bit of detail, but are usually built on top of simpler systems that work fine without the more complex detail. The problem is that some folks think that if a rule exists, you have to use it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Many universal systems present rule options that are mutually exclusive and not meant to all be "toggled on" together. Others present games of scale, that CAN BE complex... if you want every bit of detail, but are usually built on top of simpler systems that work fine without the more complex detail. The problem is that some folks think that if a rule exists, you have to use it.

That's a good point. I would argue that something like GURPS is really more of a "game creation kit" than it is an actual game. Playing your elf at the table is not nearly as complex as what the GM has to do in deciding how to build an elf template out of the advantages and disadvantages available to them.

 

[sd_jasper]

That's a good point. I would argue that something like GURPS is really more of a "game creation kit" than it is an actual game. Playing your elf at the table is not nearly as complex as what the GM has to do in deciding how to build an elf template out of the advantages and disadvantages available to them.

True, and even though most of what a player needs to know boils down to "roll 3d6 vs skill", GURPS still has a rep of being one of the (if not THE) most complex games out there.

 

[steenan]

Complexity is always a cost. It requires mental effort and time spent handling it during play.

This, in itself, does not make complexity bad. It makes it a budget. The question is, how well it is spent. How much value does the game offer in exchange for the complexity? Or, in other words, how well do the complex rules support and direct the process of play, compared to what simpler ones would do?

Unfortunately, RPGs tend to waste their complexity budget. We still have to learn what creators of board and card games already did - how to get the most return in exchange for the least amount of complexity.

In a lot of cases, rules are made complex in the name of "realism" or "simulation" that really isn't. They replace common sense with processes that produce absurd results and need to be moderated by the GM to work, thus turning their supposed gain into a loss. In a similar way, offering a lot of options that are wildly unbalanced wastes complexity, as many of them will never be used (or, when used, will result in frustration), while others can easily break the game, requiring additional effort to avoid that.
Another example of wasted complexity is making rules (often complicated ones) for things that are not a part of the core experience. The frequently given explanation is that, as such rules are rarely used, they do not add much complexity. The truth is that because they are rarely used, nobody remembers them, so when they would be useful either the group ignores them or wastes time looking them up.

So it's not that I don't like complex rules. It's that I like well-written rules, ones that pull their weight. And they are currently much easier to find in rules-light games.