Workload is a lot more subject to GM preferences and playstyle, and is more multidimensional.
Asymmetrical Complexity in RPG Design
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
I think that if someone has more rules interactions than everyone else at the table, the game they're playing is almost certainly more complex than anyone else at the table, workload aside. I think much of the asymmetry in many modern TRPGs is pitched as easing the workload--and it might actually be exactly that.
Right. One of the complaints we hear a lot about running high level monsters in WotC era D&D but 3.x in particular is how unwieldy the statblocks can get. That's because the designers are trying to maintain the same rules between monsters and PCs and that creates a burden for GMs that have to run multiple monsters as well as manage all the other things. Simplified monster stat blocks (including eliminating the need to page flip for feats or spell like abilities) goes a long way toward reducing the workload on the GM there.
That said, workload can also come in the form of prep versus improv (hence my "multidimensional" above) and I think that is largely independent of rules complexity.
Well, we may be getting into discussing a bit of what constitutes rules complexity vs other forms of complexity.
There ain't no complexity like meta-complexity!
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Because meta-complexity don't stop?
Behold the awesome power of a fully operational meta-complexity!
Free your meta-complexity and the rest will follow!
Seems to me that if the GM is leaning toward improv over prep, that a game which is less complex for them might be easier to improv. Certainly it's easier to improv an opponent in Cypher than in, say, D&D 3.5 (or probably 5e). I know that when I run D&D 5e--and I run mostly improv--most of what I put prep-time into is working out the opposition (finding something in my many books of monsters, deciding to homebrew a thing, whatever).
What I mean is that whether the GM improvs or preps, assuming they are using the rules, they use the rules in the same amount whichever way they go. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that in general low complexity is beneficial to improv, but that isn't universally true. if an individual GM is highly skilled with even a very complex game, they will be able to improv just fine; conversely, a GM will struggle to improv with even a very low complexity game if they don't know what rules there are.
It seems as though you're not really disagreeing that a game in which the GM/referee has a lot more rules to process than the players--which I think most people would describe as being asymmetrically complex--would also have an asymmetric workload in the same direction. Yeah, you were asking more about games like Cypher where the players have much more of the complexity facing them, which are arguably asymmetric in the other direction; I think much of the appeal there, for GM-types, is that they face much less rules complexity in play and can keep their thoughts focused on other responsibilities.
Similar Threads
