Where Complexity Belongs

[Thomas Shey]

So when I say simplicity in terms of combat I probably mean something more like elegance. Some complexity is fine, but too much is not, and multiple tables to consult makes my list.

Ah. Special casing and the like. I'm not a fan of that either (I've been on record more than once saying I think most incarnations of D&D are more complex than the Hero System because of all the special casing).

 

[Fenris-77]

Ah. Special casing and the like. I'm not a fan of that either (I've been on record more than once saying I think most incarnations of D&D are more complex than the Hero System because of all the special casing).

I don't really mean special casing, but complexity comes in a bunch of flavours, and a lot of them don't taste good when all you really want to do is stick the bad guy with the business end of your rapier. I want every choice in combat to matter, and to not chew up too much table time. So odd subsystem interactions and extraneous table consultation are out for me, although that might not make the definition of 'complex' as defined for this thread.

 

[Necropolitan]

So...no one thst matters?

The people who design the systems you're asking for do matter.

 

[Blue]

@RenleyRenfield

Also, I really like the point you made about how soon after chargen a rule will matter.

I recognize that my system has a lot of character creation complexity, so it is even more vital that the stuff you will use right after session 0 be quite simple. If there are 13 steps to making a character, session 1 gameplay should be simple enough to fit on a single page in condensed language.

I'm of two minds about this. If you have complexity, I'd much rather have it off-session instead of during a session. But I'm also very aware of complexity being a barrier to entry, especially for new players who have no metrics to evaluate against. So I'd rather move those 13 steps to character advancement, revealing them a bit so not to overwhelm, when it's appropriate because the player has context. I'd rather keep character creation simple.

That said, character creation aspects with a complexity rating I'd be okay with, with a key early on like "A complexity of three skulls or higher can be an underwhelming or even trap option unless other character traits are picked to support it".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm of two minds about this. If you have complexity, I'd much rather have it off-session instead of during a session. But I'm also very aware of complexity being a barrier to entry, especially for new players who have no metrics to evaluate against. So I'd rather move those 13 steps to character advancement, revealing them a bit so not to overwhelm, when it's appropriate because the player has context. I'd rather keep character creation simple.

That said, character creation aspects with a complexity rating I'd be okay with, with a key early on like "A complexity of three skulls or higher can be an underwhelming or even trap option unless other character traits are picked to support it".

I get that for sure, though i also think there is space in the market for games that simply arent for brand new players, and/or thst are for players who like complex chargen.

I'd also add that the friction that a set of rules create is different from the complexity. They can be confused. A high friction can make internalizing and understanding rules much more difficult, which might make it seem like they are complicated.

A simple example would be making a random roll to get a result on a table. It's very simple. However, the difference between doing so on a d6 table and a table with 1000 options is only a matter of friction. Neither is more complex. But the friction of rolling more dices, interpreting results, going through pages of results to find the right one definitely has a cost.

As per the threads' initial topic. I've seen many example of games that attempt to make part of their game more interesting by adding some mechanical meat. They'll state that the rules are not complicated, but the friction is very high. True, read on a piece of paper it's quite simple. But the friction makes it unbearable.

Both complexity and friction affect the cognitive load of the material we engage with, and both players and GM are limited in cognitive load.

Okay, for sure. Friction can be hard to read for, as opposed to testing for once a system is mostly built.

Ritual magic I don't necessarily want to be extemely complex but I think I want some more complex rules on complications and consequences on what happens when you cast magic that big. Do the outer planes notice? Does hell suddenly get a warm fuzzy and an note with the names of the casters if it's an evil ritual etc. How do the gods react if it makes a substantial change to reality or a portion of reality. How do individual gods react when you try do big magic that impacts thier domain. I think there is lots of complex stuff the DM should be considering. But For the actual stuff the PC's need to do I agree a limited number of steps is better.

Yeah the game already has that built into using skills, but guidance for GMs for using adversity/complications in the context of Big Magic is very important to making ritual magic matter.

Crafting the puzzle to solve thing my gut reaction is nope. But I will say that past normal mundane magic items the DM and player should probably be collaberating. I'd love to see more detailed rules for newer DM's on how to handle the PC that wants to craft a sword of "RED DRAGON Slaying" or an "Arrow of Slaying" . I think the process for things, or the mats for things should be hard, whether that's a whole bunch of complex things to do or just hard things to get like say the heart of a red dragon of every age category and they can't be over XXX months old when the ritual starts with no magical preservation usable because that magic will jack up the ritual. But having written all that I don't want an MMO style crafting system in my RPG game that takes hours and hours of planning and other stuff in game. I want it all to flow with the story and the game going on.

The big thing is I don't complexity turning into stressful chores to waste time like some World of Warcraft game.

I hate fetch quests so much, so yeah i am with you on that last sentence.

Well, both of my terms (and both of the ones I'm told are used in game design) are the opposite of "simple". The innards of a pocket watch are not simple, nor are the resulting movements of a three body problem.

The point is that the field of complexity is too complex for just one word. Both my, and the game design terms, are talking about where the complexity lies, and having ways to talk about that is good.

And now we are discussing the intricacies of discussion...fair enough.

Exactly! You shouldn't have expected that a discussion of complexity would be simple!

LOL

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The people who design the systems you're asking for do matter.

Um...what?

We seem to be having disconnected discussions right now.

Some designer not involved in the discussion nor any hypothetical project implimenting said discussion...matters to the discussion? How?

Or did you mean something else?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't really mean special casing, but complexity comes in a bunch of flavours, and a lot of them don't taste good when all you really want to do is stick the bad guy with the business end of your rapier. I want every choice in combat to matter, and to not chew up too much table time. So odd subsystem interactions and extraneous table consultation are out for me, although that might not make the definition of 'complex' as defined for this thread.

As with many things, the word "extraneous" may be doing some heavy lifting here. But to me, most of the time having to mess too much with subsystems (as compared to applications of extent systems for certain purposes) are special casing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Complexity should exist to faciliate making the outcome interesting and giving the players meaningful choices.

I like your ideas here

If your skill challenge for a ritual or crafting is just: "Make 6 checks, don't fail too hard", it doesn't really add as much as you'd like.
Combat isn't like that - sure, you might need to make 12 attack rolls and 9 damage rolls to beat that enemy, but you are doing more than htat - you might need to position yourself, consider which weapons, powers or spells to use (depending on your game system), you might need to consider the environment.

My current thoughts/how i have run it improvised so far, is thst you need certain "aspects" of the ritual to be good enough, and the better they are/the more that are good/right, the better the outcome.

So you need:

The Circle - Contains magic and allows caster to keep everything in place for the right moment.
Components - Anything consumed or that channels the power via sympathic linking, like gems or rare herbs or whatever. help aim the magic at the correct effect and keep the spell from draining the user
Tools/Implements- Blade, Bowl, Candle, Bell, etc. Used to control the magic and to invoke power
The Spell - the actual words, gesticulations, etc.

Each aspect makes the ritual safer and more successful, and can scale from just 2 or 3 checks (circle, implement, spell) to a whole scene-long ritual that requires multiple checks for each aspect. PCs declare which aspect they are doing (circle is always first and spell always last), and any consequences for a specific check depend on that. Eg, failing the circle means that the spell is now more dangerous and the GM can basically create minir hazards every round or an immediate bigger hazard as a result.

Then you see how many (and which) checks succeeded and use the number to determine if the goal of the ritual is a failure, mixed result, or success.

In some way, the outcome is still easily predicted: The players win. Because if they don't win 90 % of the time or something like that, you get very short campaigns and lots of TPKs. But how they got there, and what happened along the way, is not so predictable and can be interesting. (Unless you game doesn't consider positioning, weapon choices, powers, spells, environment and so on, but then it's probably not complex. Unless it is is, and then you might have made a mistake? )

So, what makes your crafting or ritual casting complexity actually interesting? Where do the player choices come in?

I am not really familiar with that many crafting systems or ritual systems from RPGs.

But things that come to mind:
Obviously, for crafting and probably rituals, you might want to think about the ingredients. But if ingredients are just a check-list, it's not that interesting. So, make ingredients mean somthing - change the outcome of the crafting or ritual, perhaps? Or at the minimum, some ingredients might allow you to shore up on weak spots in your crafting or ritual casting.

Say, to cast "Consult Mystic Sages", you need to make 6 checks, if you have 3 or more failures, you lose, and the more successes you have, the more detailed and precise your reply will be. Maybe they won't answer in riddles even!
The checks are on Arcana, History and Persuasion. But your mage always slept through history classes, all those dates and boring kings and queens and senseless wars were so boring! You're also not very charming, truth to be told. So what can you do?
Maybe you're a bit into blood magic, and can ritually cut yourself to reroll a check? (or sacrifice a lamb, but it's so cute, you can't do it!). Or maybe you can go a bit riskier, try to focus more power, that makes your Arcana check harder, but you got expertise, so you can risk it. Or maybe you could get some crushed diamonds as power boost?
Or alternatively, you could try for some bargain - reveal a secret to them they don't know (and is sure to land in the hands of your rivals and enemies at some point), or offer a favor?

I am a big fan of being able to pay something to boost a check, so Crossroads has a mechanic called "Push" where you spend 1 attribute point to move a check result up one step on the success ladder. You can also sometimes Push by giving the GM an Adversity Point (similar to fear in Daggerheart), or by taking on a burden or complication, etc. The game also empowers you to create custom costs based on the story. Sometimes it can just be taking more time.

Keep in mind though that this can also be awkward, to have such complexity if rituals aren't supposed to be major part of the game session, but will need to be used often. If every Teleport ritual or Water Breathing ritual requires collecting live stock or making bargains, it might excessive.

Definitely. A sliding scale is required, for the same reason that in the game somwtimes you can deal with some mooks with a single skill check rather than a whole conflict scene.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A version of my ritual magic guidelines i have been using, but for crafting, would be:

Container - what holds the magic. Item, bottle, etc

Base - what absorbs magical energy to go into the item. Could be runes, or a liquid, etc.


Catalyst - Main ingredients, makes the magic do the specific thing

Tools - everything from mundane crafting tools to magical implements used in the process.

Recipe - preparation, following a procedure, etc

Evocation - the actual bit where you put it all together

These elements can be combined in simpler crafting tasks, or split up and duplicated in more complex tasks. Each has suggested complications and boons for failure or for critical successes.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Star Fleet Battles, 18XX series games, Starfire, Babylon 5 wars....

Me, I don't mind moderate complexity as long as it increases the range of meaningful choices available to both GM and player...

The added complexity of the DGP Task System (for CT, originally, but core in MegaTraveller, and 2300 AD) is, for me, worth it, as it allows for rushing, haste, precise time taken (and hence races), mixing a variety of different kinds of asset (Skill, attribute, equipment rating [usually computer]) and doubling up on a single kind (eg: two attributes or two skills or maybe even Computer + Maneuver) consistently. It has a process for "uncertain" tasks, for hazardous tasks, for when a failure actually causes problems (mishaps), modifiers for how hazardous a task is...
it has 5 explicit difficulties (Simple, Routine, Difficult, Formidable, Impossible) and, if using rules as written, those correspond nicely to the chances of a skill 1, attribute 7 (Traveller's average attribute) character with extra time... and it has two more implied (automatic and simple failure). Note that it also has no "nat 2 always fails" nor "nat 12 always succeeds....
That default Att 7 skill 1 is a net +2; TNs are Sim 3, Rou 7, Dif 11, For 15, Imp 19. With a +2 on 2d6... Simple is automatic, you cannot fail. Unless unskilled, simple succeeds, and it's just by how much. Routine is automatic if you take extra time for effective +4 of a difficulty shift; Difficult is a chance when not taking time but not rushing, and a needed Nat 5+ when taking extra time. Formidable needs extra time for the Att7 skill 1 to have a chance, as without extra time, it needs a nat 13 on 2d6. And Impossible needs a nat 17+, nat 13+ on extra time, for the Att 7 skill 1. Since skill 1 is "employable in field", that sets a mental mapping of the difficulty for making it playable - I internalized it readily. (I'd rather have 3 point steps than 4 point, but that pushes need for something between routine and difficult, and it would benefit from one between formidable and Impossible - T4 gives us Staggering there.)

That complexity in the core mechanic, however, makes the game feel lighter in play since 90% of player mechanical interactions are using it. (The rest are mostly damage mechanics.)

Likewise, I like the complexity in the FFG NDS line of games' task systems... Star Wars, WFRP 3, L5R 5th... again, they open meaningful choices by how certain factors are handled.