Where Complexity Belongs

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Im not sure what you even mean.

What is the effort you are referring to?

Who says the ritual cannot, in cases like big magic, involve the same amount of actions and resources and cleverness as a conflict scene?

And where it involves less than that...okay? Every type of challenge can scale from a couple rolls to half a dozen rounds of "encounter". Why is it magically a bad thing for this one type of challenge?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I haven't posted here for a little while (decade/s?) but here goes - this topic looks worthwhile rolling around in the head.
For me there is an intermeshing of a few different contexts. Complexity can come from a process or procedure being unfamiliar, or it can be because the process is finicky, requires a few interactive loops, or possibly generates a result that is indirect, or unaligned with the narrative. I think it was Monte Cook who described RPGs as: the best hour of fun you can have across four hours... or something similar. If you like, complexity at the table is more often in that three hour component, than the one hour.
And so the question becomes what complexity in a games becomes part of the fun hour? Complexity is really about time at the table.
I think this is very much related to how time is being treated in-game - what frame or mode of play is being used.

1) If it's much real time: 6 seconds gametime - in other words encounters or combats where everything slows right down - then you want to keep complexity out of this, or at least have a lower tolerance. If three players are using their "paper buttons" and achieving an in-game result with minimal adjudication or GM interference, then this keeps things flowing in an environment where your turn is only one amongst the many. If the fourth player is negotiating or playing mother-may-I with a more complicated ability or process that colours outside the lines, this is where complexity bites.
2) If it's 6 seconds real time: 6 seconds gametime, such as in scene or "roleplaying" with NPCs, then this is where you want ZERO complexity. You don't want mechanics pressuring the players out of this mode of play - you want it decided by the narrative.
3) If it's 6 seconds real time: much gametime, such as exploration, through to montages, then to "downtime", then I think this is where you can spend most of your complexity budget. I think the two you mention (magical rituals and crafting) are excellent examples. Personally, I would differentiate between rituals (one exploration "turn" up to an hour), works of magic (several hours to possibly several days - or ongoing), and crafting permanent magic (several days to several decades). However, as has been seen in this thread, this is player/game dependent. An OSR crew will most likely be in their happy place if they have to manage intricate resources and follow smart procedures to survive. Others just need to hear the word encumbrance and they're up and away from the table. If a complex procedure vibes with the style of game - then it's most likely worth it as it's the type of game the players have already bought into.

For myself, I like complexity with certain exploration activities. Disarming traps, unlocking strange locks/devices and anything where focusing on the in-world stuff is important (and can't be procedurized into let's do macro one for this, or macro two for that). I would love more complexity with healing wounds - treatment, surgery, and so on as it fits in with a grittier game (rather than a hand-waivy heroic style). I would love tracking to be more involved than a simple check. Discerning, identifying and understanding magics and spellcraft deserves far greater complexity. Haggling or bartering as a more complex procedure. For me, such things are juice worth the squeezing.

 

[Necropolitan]

Im not sure what you even mean.

What is the effort you are referring to?

Who says the ritual cannot, in cases like big magic, involve the same amount of actions and resources and cleverness as a conflict scene?

And where it involves less than that...okay? Every type of challenge can scale from a couple rolls to half a dozen rounds of "encounter". Why is it magically a bad thing for this one type of challenge?

"Who" would be the people who've created the mechanics for the ritual magic you're describing in RPGs.

Like Pathfinder 1E's Occult Rituals, where all preparation does is increase/remove a decrease from the ritual's difficulty.

 

[Umbran]

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.

A slight aside - I have come across terminology that I find helpful.

If a thing has a lot of moving parts, it is complicated. If it is hard to predict the result of a thing, or hard to describe the results, it is complex.

So, a mechanical clock is complicated, but it is not complex.
The three body problem is not complicated, but it is complex.

Legos are typically complicated, but not complex.
The game of Go is not complicated, but it is very complex.

 

[Umbran]

Who says the ritual cannot, in cases like big magic, involve the same amount of actions and resources and cleverness as a conflict scene?

Well, that depends.

In a pretty traditional game, the answer to, "Who says it cannot?" Is, "The Rulebook".

As in, look at how much you've written of stuff for conflict scenes. Write as much again for rituals, and they can be equivalent. If, in D&D terms, you have as many abilities, powers, feats and skills that players might choose to apply, then they will be similar.

The level of complexity in traditional play largey comes from the choices the player has to make. With fewer detailed options, there are fewer choices.

 

[Retros_x]

Well I like decisions to be not simple, but I understand what you mean.

I agree with you. Decisions should not be simple, but it doesnt mean it needs to be complex. If a decision between two simple options is hard for you, its not a simple decision. The options themselves might be simple, but the decision is not. I am not saying that "ingame" gameplay decisions should have only two simple options, but they should not require you to consult the rulesbook in detail and weigh a dozens of factors. This grinds gameplay to a halt. Some people enjoy this, but I hate these kind of ruleframeworks. I want to play a roleplaying game, not a simulation or detailed tactical warfare game.

 

[Retros_x]

A slight aside - I have come across terminology that I find helpful.

If a thing has a lot of moving parts, it is complicated. If it is hard to predict the result of a thing, or hard to describe the results, it is complex.

So, a mechanical clock is complicated, but it is not complex.
The three body problem is not complicated, but it is complex.

Legos are typically complicated, but not complex.
The game of Go is not complicated, but it is very complex.

Excellent examples! I want to add the system analysis perspective:

Complication is defined by the structure of a system and its quantity - how many parts are there and how many layers and subsystems, how many steps does a process have.

Complexity is defined by the behaviour of a system and the relationships of its parts and subystem - how do the components interact with each other, influence each other, what outcome emerges from the system if a process gets initiated/triggered.

A system can be both complicated and complex, but it doesn't have to as the perfect examples above show.

Thats why I don't want complexity at the table: If a player needs to make a decision, the outcome of the options should be as clear as possible. A player should make an informed decision. That doesn't mean that an outcome is guaranteed, it only means the player knows exactly the possible outcomes if he makes an decision (and triggers the system process of resolution). Thats what roleplaying is all about IMO, not puzzling about the system, but making informed decisions from the perspective of your character.

 

[Tigris]

A slight aside - I have come across terminology that I find helpful.

If a thing has a lot of moving parts, it is complicated. If it is hard to predict the result of a thing, or hard to describe the results, it is complex.

So, a mechanical clock is complicated, but it is not complex.
The three body problem is not complicated, but it is complex.

Legos are typically complicated, but not complex.
The game of Go is not complicated, but it is very complex.

In general gamedesign this is normally called depth vs complexity: Defining Complexity and Depth in Game Design | An Alternate Perspective

It is less broad than what you describe here, but it goes in the same connection, and your terms might confuse people who are familiar with general gamedesign since the complexity you use is the opposite of the complexity used in gamedesign. Like Alkaizer used in the post:

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.

I in general agree with you. Complexity is normally a "cost" you have to pay in order to reach your goals (which often is depth but can also be specific game feelings etc.)

One example would be the by me mentioned "clocks" (the gamemechanic). You do want to have a consequence NOT be dependant on a single roll and this will necessarily add some complexity. But still given that the amount of complexity needed can varry and you can try to make it as simple as possible (like clocks)

However, there are some games (or rather target audiences which are targeted by those games), where complexity is the goal itself. There are people who feel clever when they understand complex things and like this feeling. I would say Pathfinder 2 or Path to exile (1 and 2) are games which go for these target audiences. They specifically dont try to streamline, rather the opposite, because thei know their fans want that.

The options themselves might be simple, but the decision is not. I am not saying that "ingame" gameplay decisions should have only two simple options, but they should not require you to consult the rulesbook in detail and weigh a dozens of factors. This grinds gameplay to a halt.

I fully agree with this. Having to look up things in the rulebook, or worse, having to argue what an ability does, because rules are formulated so unclear stops the gameflow and feels in general bad.

 

[Joerg Baumgartner]

The original problem sounds to me like the need for a different kind of resolution mechanic that builds up over several steps.

Does your expectation allow to fail forward (inflicting a flaw on the result?), or is a single failure on the way the end for the entire process? Does the mechanic allow several characters to contribute? How do you calculate the cost of the entire process, of partial failures?

Does the distributed task work like a choir, with the occasional failure caught up by successes of fellow contributors, or does a single failure trigger a catastrophic cascade?

 

[Umbran]

It is less broad than what you describe here, but it goes in the same connection, and your terms might confuse people who are familiar with general gamedesign since the complexity you use is the opposite of the complexity used in gamedesign.

I can't help if if game designers didn't turn to science for their terminology

In the end, I don't really care what terms are used - the operative bit is that the distinction allows one to choose what kind of cognitive load you're putting where.

However, there are some games (or rather target audiences which are targeted by those games), where complexity is the goal itself. There are people who feel clever when they understand complex things and like this feeling. I would say Pathfinder 2 or Path to exile (1 and 2) are games which go for these target audiences. They specifically dont try to streamline, rather the opposite, because thei know their fans want that.

Yes, I know - I used to play Advanced Squad Leader. So... many.... rules...

I imagine there's several wargames that are excellent examples of this kind of play.