What Is "Unnecessary Complexity" to You?

[dragoner]

Things like power points on spacecraft in Traveller, where you get chernobyl 3000 megawatt computers, it only works as inhibition, and does nothing else, totally not realistic. Things such as that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I second these and would add spell descriptions. I dont want 30 pages of prewritten spells, all with varying levels of usefulness from garbage to gotta have. Give me a chart of various spell features and let the player decide how to combine them into unique spell effects, or just eldritch blast. Make it easy to use but hard to master.
Now that I think about it, same thing for feats that modify melee or ranged attacks. 1st level you get a 2 point attack or spell. 1 point for die of damage, one point for added element. Or 2 one point attacks maybe? Not sure about the logistics, but 30 pages of scripted attacks is both boring and pointlessly complex to keep track of.

This is why I comment that you can have games that have a lot of complexity in some areas but aren't exception-driven being easier for some people to keep track of. The problem in the D&D-sphere is that ship sailed right at the creation of the game system.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We should have both - use the common keyword but also repeat the text in the monster statblock. That way the DMs who do remember can skip the repeated description, while those who don't have the text handy.

That's case where clarity and controlling pagecount are very much at war with each other.

 

[Blue]

We should have both - use the common keyword but also repeat the text in the monster statblock. That way the DMs who do remember can skip the repeated description, while those who don't have the text handy.

So every spell that inflicts a condition should list out the effects of the condition? Ugh.

Also, that's a very errata-unfriendly thing to do if a keywork ever has to change. To make up an example, if an RPG added in psionics and allowed them to be used while Paralyzed. Change on one master sheet, or one master sheet and dozens of spells and monsters? Including some 3rd party.

 

[delericho]

So every spell that inflicts a condition should list out the effects of the condition? Ugh.

Yeah, they need to be sensible about these things. The example given was "undead traits", which was a random grab-bag of unrelated stuff. The other particularly egregious case is monsters with spellcasting and spell-like abilities, where huge amounts of their power is tucked away in a handful of random names. But a spell that accesses a very simple condition description can probably manage without the repeat.

Edit: Have changed 'you' to 'they' in the above. My apologies to @Blue if I gave the impression I thought you weren't being sensible - not my intent, but on reading it back I can see I phrased it poorly.

Also, that's a very errata-unfriendly thing to do if a keywork ever has to change. To make up an example, if an RPG added in psionics and allowed them to be used while Paralyzed. Change on one master sheet, or one master sheet and dozens of spells and monsters? Including some 3rd party.

Well, in an exception-based game like D&D, you'd expect to handle an exceptional case like that by putting the relevant text (this can be used while paralysed) in the psionics rules.

However, to address the point more widely, if they're faced with a change that's going to cascade like that, it needs to wait for the edition change. And, honestly, anything that stops them thinking they can patch printed books as if they were software is a good thing - of the many things I disliked about 4e, the constantly creeping errata was the very worst... and 5e is increasingly going the same way, IMO.

 

[delericho]

Actually, in light of my previous post, there's something I'd like to add to my general "unnecessary complexity" list: errata.

As a rule of thumb, if your errata runs to more than 1% of the page count of the book you're fixing, it probably means you've made a mess of writing the thing. If you need to patch the same thing twice (that is, provide errata for your errata), that almost certainly means it's unnecessarily complex. And as soon as your "errata" moves beyond fixing errors and to revising good rules, you're adding unnecessary complexity - it should almost certainly wait for the next edition.

There are exceptions to all of the above, of course. And, of course, it's all IMO only.

 

[James Gasik]

I can agree with that, I don't know how many times I had to put up with Paizo completely rewriting how stuff in books works because someone broke the balance of their public play.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Actually, in light of my previous post, there's something I'd like to add to my general "unnecessary complexity" list: errata.

As a rule of thumb, if your errata runs to more than 1% of the page count of the book you're fixing, it probably means you've made a mess of writing the thing. If you need to patch the same thing twice (that is, provide errata for your errata), that almost certainly means it's unnecessarily complex. And as soon as your "errata" moves beyond fixing errors and to revising good rules, you're adding unnecessary complexity - it should almost certainly wait for the next edition.

There are exceptions to all of the above, of course. And, of course, it's all IMO only.

Didn't 3.5 have this problem with polymorph and wild shape? Constantly trying to balance it? Isn't it why we got the Rules Compendium?

 

[delericho]

Didn't 3.5 have this problem with polymorph and wild shape? Constantly trying to balance it? Isn't it why we got the Rules Compendium?

I'm not sure if that was the motivation for the RC, but they certainly had several attempts at fixing shapeshifting. Definitely one of my go-to examples of how not to do things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

However, to address the point more widely, if they're faced with a change that's going to cascade like that, it needs to wait for the edition change. And, honestly, anything that stops them thinking they can patch printed books as if they were software is a good thing - of the many things I disliked about 4e, the constantly creeping errata was the very worst... and 5e is increasingly going the same way, IMO.

That's an almost inevitable problem with exception-based designs; there are all kinds of distinct parts, and at least some of them are going to show they create problems, sometimes serious ones over time. I agree that trying to keep track of ongoing errata is nightmarish, but I'm not sure "we'll just leave this broken thing be because its too hard to fix" is an improvement.