Asymmetrical Complexity in RPG Design

[Snarf Zagyg]

Seems to me that if the GM is leaning toward improv over prep, that a game which is less complex for them might be easier to improv. Certainly it's easier to improv an opponent in Cypher than in, say, D&D 3.5 (or probably 5e). I know that when I run D&D 5e--and I run mostly improv--most of what I put prep-time into is working out the opposition (finding something in my many books of monsters, deciding to homebrew a thing, whatever).

In my regular AD&D sessions, I never use dice or charts, nor do I allow my players to use them. The same goes at my convention appearances- no dice at my tables. In 10 years, I've yet to have a single player abandon ship.
-Johnathan Tweet.
-Rick Swan, in a review of Tweet's game, Everway.

 

[Umbran]

Right. One of the complaints we hear a lot about running high level monsters in WotC era D&D but 3.x in particular is how unwieldy the statblocks can get. That's because the designers are trying to maintain the same rules between monsters and PCs and that creates a burden for GMs that have to run multiple monsters as well as manage all the other things. Simplified monster stat blocks (including eliminating the need to page flip for feats or spell like abilities) goes a long way toward reducing the workload on the GM there.

Yes, there's a thing there.

The PCs are commonly designed and built out to be a cool and interesting level of complexity for a player to handle one at a time (typically in RPGs today). That level of complexity quickly overwhelms a GM who is trying to run seven of them at once. My goal as a GM is not to get my cool and interesting fun managing each individual NPC, but to have that over the whole adventure.

An example: I was running a one-shot of Sentinel Comics RPG with my group, and one of the sample adventures pits the group of PCs against another group of superpowered people.

But, that group of NPCs was written up like PCs. And I have to tell you, that was an ugly experience for me as a GM - six multi-page character write ups at once. The weird thing is that the game actually has a Boss/Lieutentant/Mook structure in its design that they chose not to use for this adventure.

 

[Umbran]

Because meta-complexity don't stop?

Oh, it does. But the meta-meta-complexity then...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh, it does. But the meta-meta-complexity then...

It's complexity, all the way down!

 

[prabe]

In my regular AD&D sessions, I never use dice or charts, nor do I allow my players to use them. The same goes at my convention appearances- no dice at my tables. In 10 years, I've yet to have a single player abandon ship.
-Johnathan Tweet.

I guess I would have been the first, then. Doesn't sound to me as though Tweet much likes the players playing the game.

 

[Umbran]

That said, workload can also come in the form of prep versus improv (hence my "multidimensional" above) and I think that is largely independent of rules complexity.

Oh, I don't think it is at all - especially in the realm where consistency in the tactical game is important to the players.

Like, you want to improv a 18th level 3e D&D Wizard in a fight? Yeah, good luck with that.

What I mean is that whether the GM improvs or preps, assuming they are using the rules, they use the rules in the same amount whichever way they go. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that in general low complexity is beneficial to improv, but that isn't universally true.

If we are going to hold ourselves only to saying things that are "universally true" this is going to be a very short discussion.

if an individual GM is highly skilled with even a very complex game, they will be able to improv just fine; conversely, a GM will struggle to improv with even a very low complexity game if they don't know what rules there are.

So, with respect, if you have to invoke a highly skilled GM to make it plausible, then it probably is about rules complexity. Specifically, that's an indicator that the complexity matters, because the highly skilled GM has learned how to manage it, where others have not.

 

[TwoSix]

It's complexity, all the way down!

And at the bottom is Gary Gygax.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I guess I would have been the first, then. Doesn't sound to me as though Tweet much likes the players playing the game.

Au contraire. Tweet was a wonderful DM, and everyone loved playing with him. He was so good, that WoTC's first TTRPG was Everway!

A Remembrance of Everway: The First WOTC RPG that was too Good to Succeed

I'm taking a break from writing my second post about dice mechanics to have a little refresher- this will be a bit of an appertif, much like a bracing Cynar Spritz before a meal. 1. Prelude. The Cognitive Dissonance of Diceless Games. The problem with life is that either you know what you want...

www.enworld.org

But most people aren't Tweet (like they aren't Arneson, or they aren't Matt Mercer, etc.).

I would have loved to play an AD&D game run by him.

 

[Reynard]

Oh, I don't think it is at all - especially in the realm where consistency in the tactical game is important to the players.

Like, you want to improv a 18th level 3e D&D Wizard in a fight? Yeah, good luck with that.



If we are going to hold ourselves only to saying things that are "universally true" this is going to be a very short discussion.



So, with respect, if you have to invoke a highly skilled GM to make it plausible, then it probably is about rules complexity. Specifically, that's an indicator that the complexity matters, because the highly skilled GM has learned how to manage it, where others have not.

I'm just saying that workload and complexity might be related in many cases, but they are not inextricably linked. And, as I mentioned, i am not particularly interested in talking about workload in relation to GMing because it is something of a bugbear that distracts from such discussions.

Can we imagine a game with asymmetrical complexity in more than 2 directions? That is, a game where there are more than 2 roles (players and GM) and that a third or fourth role might have a completely different level of complexity than either.

Something that comes to mind is the "netrunner" character in various cyberpunk games. Very often, the player is engaged in a different role than the street samurai and even riggers. They are playing an essentially different game within a game, and their rules complexity is often greater than the "normal" player rules complexity. I can't think of one, but I can imagine it being similar with a very complex magic system in a fantasy game.

 

[overgeeked]

In my regular AD&D sessions, I never use dice or charts, nor do I allow my players to use them. The same goes at my convention appearances- no dice at my tables. In 10 years, I've yet to have a single player abandon ship.
-Johnathan Tweet.

Where did he say that?