Where Complexity Belongs

[doctorbadwolf]

It can be. It can also be repetitive or a mindless grind, like trading basic attacks in a combat.

Sure. Success ladder based actions help with that, with mixed results as the most common outcome. Crossroads adds to that with success granting Momentum and failure giving the GM Adversity, a some explicit player agency in determining what mixed results actually means for the action in question.

Yep. Having a useful and dynamic decision space in each step would be good complexity.

It can be easy to go overboard with that, too, of course. For a ritual to remove some of a supernatural being's power so your allies can defeat and bind it, some checks simply womt have a reasonable set of decisions beyond "keep trying or give up and try a totally different tactic", but that is fine because you have quick actions as well, and you can spend resources to establish secondary benefits to successful checks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am an advocate for simplicity whenever possible. Unless there is some advantage gained through added complexity -(which can include feel/aesthetics/etc.) I think complexity should be minimized as long as it's not a detriment to other aspects of the game. I think the more complicated you make a sub-system the more likely it won't get used by the vast majority of players...especially if the rest of your game runs towards simpler in general.

One thing i have come to is that complex tasks run on a blown up version of how single checks work.

That is, a skill check works by you rolling your dice pool and comparing it to a success ladder, with 4 steps and a potential to crit. Most checks get mixed results early on, with full success more likely as you level for checks you are well trained for.

A complex task has 2,4,6, or 8, checks. You compare number of successful checks to the complexity, and determine if it is a total fail, fail with opportunity, mixed success, or total success.

Idk it is a new idea for the game it may not work out. The idea is to leverage the same success ladder that players use with every check.

I’m in the don’t care about crafting at all club, so complexity should not be there if you want to include it.

Crafting may need to have two options.

I love the idea of ritual casting being an adventure itself. This is a place I wouldn’t mind complexity.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

The more you use the rule, the more important it is for it to be simple. The less often it is used, the more it should stand out from normal gameplay with a little more complexity.

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that the exact opposite is true!

If you do something a lot, you will remember the complexity and you often are looking to have different experiences each time, so looking for more options and more detail. Whereas if you do something rarely, it's much nicer to have a simple implementation that you don't have to look upa nd read in detail.

D&D focuses on combat, so combat is the most complex part of the game. It cares less about social encounters, so they have few rules beyond "make a skill check" or the extremely simple skill challenge rules. When D&D did have complex rules for rarely used systems (grappling rules, anyone?) they annoyed the heck out of everyone.

For ritual magic and crafting, if that is a rare feature of your game, make the rules simple -- use a skill challenge structure or whatever other simple system makes sense to you. But if every session you spend half your time crafting rituals, then it makes sense to develop something to stop people getting bored.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

One thing i have come to is that complex tasks run on a blown up version of how single checks work.

That is, a skill check works by you rolling your dice pool and comparing it to a success ladder, with 4 steps and a potential to crit. Most checks get mixed results early on, with full success more likely as you level for checks you are well trained for.

A complex task has 2,4,6, or 8, checks. You compare number of successful checks to the complexity, and determine if it is a total fail, fail with opportunity, mixed success, or total success.

I'd look into D&D 4E skill challenges -- they are pretty much this, looking for a number of successes depending on the complexity of the task, before a set number for failures.

The One Ring Council rules add an interesting twist -- one player sets up the encounter by rolling a skill that determines both the tone of the encounter, and the degree of success at that skill determines how many rolls are allowed to get the required number of successes.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I don't think complexity belongs anywhere. Complexity is undesirable. But it's often unavoidable to introduce complexity as you add rules, or try to add depth to your designs. So it's a necessary evil that you try to curb. The golden goose is always to have simple rules have offer great depth. People often confuse their enjoyment of the depth of something with the complexity that stems from it.

Complexity can also bring other things: nuance, design space, etc.

As for the main question, as time goes on I'm definitely shifting to simpler rulesets. However, I also often have a reaction where rulesets look too thin for me. I think the component where I'm often disappointed like a lack of depth is player progression. Purely fictional progression, or very limited ones where players don't change much mechanically as they progress don't work with me. That's often where I'm asking for more depth, and thus, more complexity.

I also like more rules and more structure to the exploration facet of RPGs. But I wouldn't say that I like it to have much complexity, I just think that that's a facet that's often underdeveloped and I'm seeking a more middle-of-the-road option.

Procedures are a great way to introduce depth while keeping complexity at check. You mentioned rituals and I agree that they're often quite boring and I think procedures would be a great solution. Something akin to a Skill Challenge.

 

[Staffan]

Clocks arent simple, though. Precision required, lots of moving parts moving in sync.
Same with Skill Challenges. The comparison is resolving the task with a single binary roll.

I expect Tigris is talking about RPG progress clocks as popularized by Blades in the Dark and described at this link, not mechanical clocks.

 

[Necropolitan]

I actually really don't like having complex ritual mechanics.

The PCs going on multiple quests to gather the ritual components only to have it go wrong thanks to one or more failed rolls only causes aggravation.

I prefer it when it's the gathering of the ritual components that has a chance of failure, that way all the time and effort isn't wasted at the end of it.

 

[overgeeked]

Where Complexity Belongs

Not disagreeing with the OP but this was the first thing that popped to my mind when reading the thread title.

Despite the post being a joke, I agree. Anything with more than a few pages of rules belongs in a museum.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd look into D&D 4E skill challenges -- they are pretty much this, looking for a number of successes depending on the complexity of the task, before a set number for failures.

Yep 4e skill challenges inform a lot of my GMing and design ideas.

The One Ring Council rules add an interesting twist -- one player sets up the encounter by rolling a skill that determines both the tone of the encounter, and the degree of success at that skill determines how many rolls are allowed to get the required number of successes.

I have been meaning to play some TOR and get a feel for the council rules.
In Crossroads you can get bonuses by making preparation checks if you know a conflict is coming, but i have also thought of using something like that for scenes where it makes sense.

Procedures are a great way to introduce depth while keeping complexity at check. You mentioned rituals and I agree that they're often quite boring and I think procedures would be a great solution. Something akin to a Skill Challenge.

I guess i use complexity differently from many of the folks here. imo a skill challenge is complex, and its complexity is good.

I actually really don't like having complex ritual mechanics.

The PCs going on multiple quests to gather the ritual components only to have it go wrong thanks to one or more failed rolls only causes aggravation.

I prefer it when it's the gathering of the ritual components that has a chance of failure, that way all the time and effort isn't wasted at the end of it.

Why assume that complexity has to involve fetch questing? I have never run rituals that way, yet i do run them as complex endeavors.

 

[Necropolitan]

Why assume that complexity has to involve fetch questing? I have never run rituals that way, yet i do run them as complex endeavors.

If the complexity is the ritual itself then you end up staking a ton of effort on at most a few die rolls.