FWIW, I put myself at 8, since I believe that’s where HERO would land.
How Complex Do You Prefer Your TTRPG Systems In General
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Thomas Shey
Legend
At least of the ones I'm familiar with (M&M, Icon Assembled, Black Star, Cortex Plus, Savage Worlds and Outgunned) aren't really are in the same difficulty. Heck, I'm not sure Cortex Plus is always the same complexity as itself, and the Two Little Mice folks don't seem to think Outgunned proper and Adventures are of the same complexity.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Its really hard for me to assess that on a complexity scale, since I've known it so long that even though I don't use it any more, it feels significantly less complex than many games in the D20 sphere. I think some of that is its got less special casing and idiosyncratic bits, but if some of it is just decades of familiarity, how would I know?
stonehead
Explorer
This discussion seems to suffer from the "Everything is a 7" problem that so often follows every 10 point scale. If the gap between a 6 and a 7.5 is bigger than between a 7.5 and an 8, then I think we've done a poor job assigning numbers to systems.
I agree that Pathfinder 2 having flavor traits that don't do anything on their own and also traits that have hidden rules beneath them (potential huge rules like Incapacitation) makes it needlessly complex, but it's still much easier to introduce new players to than P1.
For my personal taste, I typically like the more complex side. I tend to get bored when gameplay is "I try to hit him with my sword" for 3 to 4 turns. Mechanical depth is a good way to break up the monotony, because it makes you think about where to stand, who to attack, which ability to use, all sorts of things like that. It's not the only way though, I'm a fan of Blades in the Dark, because it encourages you interact with the scene to improve your position and effect.
This framing is a little weird though because in game design terminology "complexity" is usually framed as a cost, not as an end goal. Complexity is how hard it is to learn and play a game. Usually "depth" is the goal, which is something like "how many meaningful decisions/interactions do you have?" Adding rules adds complexity, which makes a game harder to learn, but hopefully it also adds enough depth to be worth it. A rule or game that acheives a lot of depth without adding much complexity is "elegant". GO is the classic example. It's an incredibly strategic game that takes dozens of years to master, but the rules are simple enough that children can play it. RPS101 is a good example of a game with high complexity, but low depth. It's a fun novelty, but no one actually plays it.
This is all just me being needlessly pedantic, because they're usually correlated pretty well.
I agree that Pathfinder 2 having flavor traits that don't do anything on their own and also traits that have hidden rules beneath them (potential huge rules like Incapacitation) makes it needlessly complex, but it's still much easier to introduce new players to than P1.
For my personal taste, I typically like the more complex side. I tend to get bored when gameplay is "I try to hit him with my sword" for 3 to 4 turns. Mechanical depth is a good way to break up the monotony, because it makes you think about where to stand, who to attack, which ability to use, all sorts of things like that. It's not the only way though, I'm a fan of Blades in the Dark, because it encourages you interact with the scene to improve your position and effect.
This framing is a little weird though because in game design terminology "complexity" is usually framed as a cost, not as an end goal. Complexity is how hard it is to learn and play a game. Usually "depth" is the goal, which is something like "how many meaningful decisions/interactions do you have?" Adding rules adds complexity, which makes a game harder to learn, but hopefully it also adds enough depth to be worth it. A rule or game that acheives a lot of depth without adding much complexity is "elegant". GO is the classic example. It's an incredibly strategic game that takes dozens of years to master, but the rules are simple enough that children can play it. RPS101 is a good example of a game with high complexity, but low depth. It's a fun novelty, but no one actually plays it.
This is all just me being needlessly pedantic, because they're usually correlated pretty well.
Correct, which is why I have no idea where to rate myself. There is a range, but I don't even have an idea of what the range of my preference is let alone a single ranking.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Yeah, that's fair. I have some questions regarding my own; I have the sense I want things less complex than I did a decade or two ago, but I also know that my tolerance for what feels like overly stripped down approaches to important game elements or character creation isn't great either, so I kind of made a guess when I placed my vote.
I agree on an 8 for Hero.
I find my prefences vary depending upon things like genre/sub genre, tone, one-shot vs campaign (and length), the license (for licensed games), the players, etc.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
Somewhere between 1 and 3, so I voted 2.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 18 2026 -
October 1 2026
