Asymmetrical Complexity in RPG Design

[Reynard]

I am wondering if there are good examples of assymetrical complexity in RPG design. That is to say, differing levels of complexity in rules management between different roles of participants. For example, Shadowdark GM rules complexity with, say, Pathfinder 2E character based rules complexity. Is it possible? Is it desirable?

I know we sometimes talk about complexity between classes or character types (the Champion Fighter versus the Wizard in 5E, or the Brick super versus the Matter Manipulator or Shapechanger in Champions). That isn't really what I am talking about, because everyone is still implementing the same rules, but some character types have more moving parts to manage.

Have you seen a game that explicitly creates asymmetry in rules complexity between different players or participants? What are some examples? Is it possible for the assymmetry to be a dial or switch, so folks with different preferences for complexity can be playing together?

 

[CapnZapp]

Not sure what you mean when you talk about "participants". You don't mean players vs other players.

Unless you mean DM vs players (example: 5E player characters don't play by the same rules as 5E monsters and NPCs) I don't know what you mean.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Have you seen a game that explicitly creates asymmetry in rules complexity between different players or participants? What are some examples? Is it possible for the assymmetry to be a dial or switch, so folks with different preferences for complexity can be playing together?

There was an early idea that 5e was going to at the very least explore that - 2e fighter, 3.x wizard and a 4e cleric at the same table.

In essence we do have the Basic Game, 2014 PHB and Tasha's each with marginal differing levels of character complexity. It is a start I suppose, but I suspect you are seeking a greater amount of complexity.

 

[Reynard]

Not sure what you mean when you talk about "participants". You don't mean players vs other players.

Unless you mean DM vs players (example: 5E player characters don't play by the same rules as 5E monsters and NPCs) I don't know what you mean.

I used "participants" because not every RPG uses the same players versus GM dynamic that traditional games do.

 

[Reynard]

There was an early idea that 5e was going to at the very least explore that - 2e fighter, 3.x wizard and a 4e cleric at the same table.

In essence we do have the Basic Game, 2014 PHB and Tasha's each with marginal differing levels of character complexity. It is a start I suppose, but I suspect you are seeking a greater amount of complexity.

And no focused on characters necessarily.

As an extreme example, imagine the GM using something like the Tunnels and Trolls rules, with single stats for monsters and few modifiers, while the players have 4E characters with complex abilities, movement rules and other play elements.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The example that comes to mind are DMs that may run older D&D modules on the fly with players who are using 5e characters. Conversions occur in the moment or not at all depending on how the DM eyeballs that particular monster, trap or situation.

It is possible (I've done it and even with a more complex homebrew mashup) but it's not desirable IMO.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

As an extreme example, imagine the GM using something like the Tunnels and Trolls rules, with single stats for monsters and few modifiers, while the players have 4E characters with complex abilities, movement rules and other play elements.

This is effectively how Cypher System works.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

And no focused on characters necessarily.

As an extreme example, imagine the GM using something like the Tunnels and Trolls rules, with single stats for monsters and few modifiers, while the players have 4E characters with complex abilities, movement rules and other play elements.

I also would say that Cypher system is like that. (and if you are used to DnD rules, its likely the easiest to see this play out)

Also, Powered By the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark also don't have same rules for Players and GM. There are a kind of hand-off system which triggers GM actions, who never rolls dice. Versus players narration which triggers actions which always use dice. GM gets to set challenge values via clocks, auto apply damage and so on. Not toooo different than Cypher, but less rules overall on both sides.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Asymmetry in complexity is one of the reasons D&D is so successful, which is so asymmetrical the expectation is often that players don't need to know any rules at all. Then there's the asymmetry in the temporal dimension, where a game gets more complex as you level up, which never seems to be talked about. Folks just seem to accept that RPGs break down around level 10.

The most interesting asymmetry to me however is when players are engaging completely different skillsets, which happens all the time in this hobby and is rather unique to it. And while this sort of dissonance has been disruptive enough that entire theories have evolved around it, it nevertheless has enough synergy to work well enough for these different agendas to coexist most of the time. The problem here of course is your question now involves finding ways to measure complexity across multiple domains.

 

[Umbran]

As an extreme example, imagine the GM using something like the Tunnels and Trolls rules, with single stats for monsters and few modifiers, while the players have 4E characters with complex abilities, movement rules and other play elements.

Hm. I ran two games this weekend (one-shots at a house con) that both have some level of asymmetry.

One was Old Gods of Appalachia - which is based in the Cypher System. And in Cypher there's some very obvious asymmetry, in that the GM doesn't roll dice.

And Cypher has rather the same sort of differences as you mention in that hypothetical. The player has a character with three stats, a pool of points to spend for each of those stats, a bunch of skills/inabilities that can make rolls easier or harder, and a list of special abilities...

Meanwhile, an NPC/monster can be one number denoting its Rank. If it is getting used in combat, it may have a number of hit points and a number for damage it deals, and that's it. I may also have a couple simple special abilities. But, broadly, all the complication is player side. It is remarkably simple for the GM.


The other system I ran was Deathmatch Island. To talk about it deeply would then include a discussion of "what are 'rules' in this context?"

Deathmatch Island doesn't have "task resolution", because it doesn't deal in individual tasks. Its basic conflict resolution is pretty simple: The GM states the situation. The players, mostly as a group, decides on their goal and approach for the overall conflict, not for individual actions. The GM rolls a die or two that generate a target number. The players roll a few dice, and add the highest two trying to beat that target number. The players then narrate, from worst failure up through best success, what happened.

But, above and beyond the conflict resolution, the GM has a whole lot of process they work through to determine what happens next. In a campaign you're going through three islands, each island has two phases, the second phase has three stages, and there's some items to manage between islands. So, on the player side, things are pretty simple, but I was having to flip through lots of papers on my side.