How Complex Do You Prefer Your TTRPG Systems In General

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

My preference for TTRPG complexity is contingent on who I am gaming with.

If it is a table full of good natured engineers and computer scientists, then I’m down for complexity because everyone will want to answer a rules question that I ask.

If it’s just me and some kids playing? Then I prefer to keep it simple.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me there's complexity of inputs and complexity of outputs.

D&D 3.X maximises the complexity of inputs. You've 32 skills plus four skill categories (craft, profession, knowledge, perform), lots of individual modifiers including stat modifiers, skill ranks, and so many difficulty modifiers. And all for what? You have so many inputs and the output is normally a simple pass/fail.

By contrast Daggerheart goes for complexity around output; you just have trait (stat modifier), possibly an Experience (freeform but requires Hope to use and you probably have about three) and levels of Advantage/Disadvantage and maybe a character ability and get much richer outcomes because you've Hope and Fear as well as pass/fail (Star Wars/Genisys was the inspiration). Far less mechanically complex inputs for richer outputs in terms of impact.

I like to minimise the input complexity but have high output complexity

 

[Bill Zebub]

"Simple rules with deep implications."
-- Jon Hodgson, Handiwork Games

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I voted 4, but not all complexity is built the same. Simplifications can lead to making system mastery harder.

In 5e D&D, for an example I was just thinking about earlier today, disarming an opponent is an optional maneuver of Battlemaster Fighters, rather than something there is a general rule for, which at first blush makes the general rules simpler. But since it is something practically everyone playing the game would want to do at some point, it's a rule everyone (or at least every DM) has to at least know enough about in order to know that it is gate-kept as a specific option for a specific subclass. And then its also something which a DM might occasionally have to plan for if they have a character so-specced against a villain holding a vital MacGuffin. So we've gotten most of the complexity of just having it be a general mechanic, with a fraction of the fun.

 

[Reynard]

I voted 4, but not all complexity is built the same. Simplifications can lead to making system mastery harder.

In 5e D&D, for an example I was just thinking about earlier today, disarming an opponent is an optional maneuver of Battlemaster Fighters, rather than something there is a general rule for, which at first blush makes the general rules simpler. But since it is something practically everyone playing the game would want to do at some point, it's a rule everyone (or at least every DM) has to at least know enough about in order to know that it is gate-kept as a specific option for a specific subclass. And then its also something which a DM might occasionally have to plan for if they have a character so-specced against a villain holding a vital MacGuffin. So we've gotten most of the complexity of just having it be a general mechanic, with a fraction of the fun.

Why can't disarming be a class specific maneuver?

 

[aramis erak]

Why can't disarming be a class specific maneuver?

It can, but it shouldn't be; it's a staple of most armed melee martial arts.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Why can't disarming be a class specific maneuver?

Clearly it can. I just don't think doing so makes a game simpler.

When something people are likely going to want to try in their "you can try anything" games is made class specific (or other type of build specific) it seems to make things simpler, by limiting actions for everyone else and general rules that need to be digested to play at all, while actually adding a different type of complexity, by forcing everyone wanting to play the game "correctly" to be aware that a thing they might want to do is class specific to a class. And so rather than only needing to know the abilities of classes actually being played to play, it begins to feel like you need complete system mastery. And player freedom has been greatly reduced in the process.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My version of "disarm" might be to:
1) include it either as one of several/many predefined combat maneuvers, or as just one example of a general purpose, player-driven "propose something cool" philosophy
2) define a risk/reward mechanic that applies across all such maneuvers, that anybody can use freely
3) tie increased success to specific character choices