Do you consider learning a new game to be unpleasant work?

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not one of those people who want the rules to just "get out of the way"; I've found that in terms of the game play element, either that means large degree sameness to that layer, or throwing it to the GM to decide most decisions to a degree I don't find desirable.

I like RPGs to remain games with clear mechanics. I like when the mechanics are evocative, or when their design takes into consideration the fiction they’re representing. I think that’s different than the “rules getting out of the way”, so I think we’re on the same page here.

I don't think chess or go are really simple. It just happens to be that a lot of the complexity is in emergent elements, but its notable that books about chess still can go on quite a degree about various gambits and the like.

Perhaps I worded it poorly. It’s not so much that Chess or Go are simple games but that they are not difficult to learn. Chess involves knowing the six pieces and their moves, and how pieces are taken, and the goals of play. None of those elements are all that complex. Learning the rules of the game is relatively simple

The complexity comes with learning the ways to effectively use the moves.

I think the distinction I’m talking about is in learning a game as opposed to mastering it.

I think games can be relatively simple at their core....they can be easily learned so that they can be played. And those simple mechanics are not a limit to depth of play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In an RPG this tends to translate into the emergent properties being heavily dependent on the capabilities of the GM involved, and to be blunt, I don't think most GMs are either willing to engage with it enough nor consistent enough to satisfy me in this area.

Sorry for splitting up this reply. Multi-quoting on a phone can be temperamental.

This last part of your post is interesting, but I’m not sure if I’m following exactly.

Do you mean in the absence of complex rules that much of how a game functions falls to the GM, and so depends on their ability? Or something else?

 

[Garthanos]

No all learning is fun...

 

[ph0rk]

I think it depends on the rules and aesthetics of the game. If I like the tone or aesthetic of the game, learning the rules is easier. If the rules are intuitive, learning them is more fun - there's a pivot point where you're learning interesting new strategies and ways to blend the rules on one side and you're barely trying to figure out the sequence of combat on the other.

The first case is quite fun. The second is work.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sorry for splitting up this reply. Multi-quoting on a phone can be temperamental.

Given how often I mangle quoting, I'd have to have a lot of nerve.

This last part of your post is interesting, but I’m not sure if I’m following exactly.

Do you mean in the absence of complex rules that much of how a game functions falls to the GM, and so depends on their ability? Or something else?

You've got it. Any nuance to options that actually means anything has to turn on either rules or GM rulings. And the latter is super-dependent on the skill and engagement of the GM.

 

[schneeland]

As others have mentioned, it will depend on the quality of the writing and how well the content is structured, and also to a large extent how excited I am about the game. In general, reading the a rule book of a system I am excited to play is type 2 fun - it mostly feels good only in retrospect (either because I have discovered something neat about TTRPG design or because it is a system I enjoy in play).
There are exceptions, however - for example, Into the Odd was very pleasant to read, and so was Mythos World (German edition) and Warlock!

Side note: the 5e core books were somewhere in the middle - I enjoyed them because I like D&D, but they are not terribly well-written and I'm not the biggest fan of the edition as a whole. Still I have read a number of books that I enjoyed less.

 

[Umbran]

No all learning is fun...

You, clearly, have never had a bad math or history teacher...

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps I worded it poorly. It’s not so much that Chess or Go are simple games but that they are not difficult to learn. Chess involves knowing the six pieces and their moves, and how pieces are taken, and the goals of play. None of those elements are all that complex. Learning the rules of the game is relatively simple

So, in my line of work, we have a bit of language that may be of use here - the difference between "complicated" and "complex".

A thing is complicated when it has many parts or interacting elements.

A thing is complex when its resulting action is difficult to characterize.

So, a mechanical watch is complicated (it has lots of gears and springs and stuff in it), but what comes out of it is not complex - a simple readout of time. The "three body problem" in physics is not complicated, but the results are chaotic - so it is complex.

The game of Tic-Tac-Toe is not complicated, nor is it complex.

The game of Go is not complicated - the rules can be stated very concisely and clearly in just a few lines of text. The resulting play, however, is exceedingly complex, and difficult to master.

Having separated the two - it seems like he's talking about wanting the game to be complicated, but you are talking about the game being complex. They aren't the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Having separated the two - it seems like he's talking about wanting the game to be complicated, but you are talking about the game being complex. They aren't the same.

Sort of. In the context of a roleplaying game, nuance in many situations, but particularly in combat, is dependent on a certain degree of detail. Detail, can, in practice, only really come from two places; extent mechanical systems, or interactions with the GM. Some people absolutely prefer it to come from the latter (what the whole "rulings, not rules" motto is about) but I've seen sufficient failure states here back in the day that I have no faith in finding that an adequate result on any sort of consistent basis (which is not to say it can't be adequate; I played in largely mechanic-free MUSHes at one time, and had some truly amazing experiences in those, including back-and-forth narrated combat scenes. But it required particularly good fellow players and everyone to be on their game to get those results).

This is a case where I'd rather have a higher floor than a higher ceiling. Its less dependent on having a good GM or him being good on any kind of consistent basis. So the net effect is I tend to want more backed-in detail in my game systems (especially combat, but that's only because of the amount of time it takes up in game mindspace in most games) than a simple game system can intrinsically supply.

 

[Dr Magister]

At this point, I'm going to say work. I have enough systems that do what I require, for any given genre or style of game.

I recently got the Shadows of the Demonlord bundle of holding, because I've seen so many people saying really good things.

I've read through it, but find myself reluctant to put the mental time and energy into really learning it. It doesn't seem sufficiently different to 5e to make it worth it, and certainly not worth the energy of teaching my players. We don't just play D&D, we've tried lots of systems over the years, but my high fantasy needs are sorted, and it would be easy enough to use some of the rules from the DMG to create a dark fantasy setting.

If I'd come across SotDL before I invested (mentally as well as financially) in 5e, I might well prefer it, but I didn't, and I feel the same way about most new systems. Learning new rules just doesn't seem worth the investment.

This is mostly from a GMing perspective. I don't mind so much when it comes to playing, and therefore I only need to know the rules that effect my character.