How Complex Do You Prefer Your TTRPG Systems In General

[HatWearingFool]

For sure. I really WANT to learn and like Draw Steel!, but I don't think I have the bandwidth...

Just about to start the Delian Tomb for some people. Haven't started it yet but I think it's going to be easier to teach Draw Steel to people than 5e. Partially because of the tutorial nature of the adventure (which seems excellent for many, many reasons) but mostly because Draw Steel is just simpler than 5e is (to me) in many ways.

Fewer dice (amount and type), abilities are self-contained so you just need to know yours and you can easily create a card with everything on it for each one, less abilities/powers whatever you want to call them for each player...

I'm honestly not sure why Draw Steel has a reputation for being high crunch, I haven't run it yet but their "rules for players" handout is 2 double sided pages, everything else is on the character sheet (except for projects and montages). I have also created 3 actions cards (main, move, maneuver) for each player so they can put them down as they do them. The cards will help them track what they've done and each list what you can do with that action type.

But I haven't started the game yet so I might be completely wrong and have the whole thing blow up in my face

 

[timbannock]

For Poll purposes, I chose 6, but that's more like the place beyond which the complexity really needs some justification, or it starts getting in the way of my enjoyment.

I'll play just about anything for a one-shot. For long term play, I am happy anywhere from Fate Accelerated up through Daggerheart, Cortex, Cypher, Savage Worlds, and 5e.

I chose 11 because of this.

I don't want to ever read (mandatory/core) rules text that stretches nearly or over a hundred pages again. But I will absolutely play in a Pathfinder 2nd edition session if you hand me a pregen. Meanwhile, I find Fate to be way too light for my GMing, but I'm currently a player in an extremely baseline Fate Core supers game and it's a lot of fun, even though I still haven't bothered to understand or implement any Stunts for my character yet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a poll.

Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is something like no-rules storygaming, 2 is something like Lasers and Feelings, 6 is something like 5E D&D and 10 is Phoenix Command, what (in general*) is your preferred complexity level for TTRPGs?

*I know that we often want different complexity for different kinds of games and purposes, but that is a much harder poll to write. So use your most preferred, or choose option 11.

I chose 8, which can be anything from 5e with more subsystems and granularity (like Level Up), to something like full corebooks and supplements FFG Star Wars or a very detailed OSR system like Rolemaster or ACKS. I need complexity to get the mechanical modeling I prefer.

 

[Bagpuss]

Use to love games like GURPS and Hero System, now I prefer game with simpler mechanics.

I don't mind a little complexity as long as the core mechanic is straight forward. You can have depth and complexity to your character design process so long as the character is easy to use once the character sheet is done and ready to play.

I hate games with none-standard dice pool mechanics, with special dice. Not a huge fan of games with massive differences in power level between character you start with and more experienced.

 

[CleverNickName]

I used to be all about game complexity, but some of the earlier editions of D&D broke me. Now I don't really enjoy anything more complicated than the older B/X or BECM rules. I can tolerate 5E (2014), but that's my new upper limit.

Fortunately we live in a time of unprecedented creativity and accessibility, where games (and people to play them with) are a lot easier to find.

 

[Tigris]

This is a poll.

Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is something like no-rules storygaming, 2 is something like Lasers and Feelings, 6 is something like 5E D&D and 10 is Phoenix Command, what (in general*) is your preferred complexity level for TTRPGs?

*I know that we often want different complexity for different kinds of games and purposes, but that is a much harder poll to write. So use your most preferred, or choose option 11.

Honestly for me this is kinda hard to answer because I really have problems with placing games on this scale.

Where would Pathfinder 1 be? Where pathfinder 2? Where D&D 4e? And where a really streamlined game like Beacon?

I in general want depth not complexity, but I know that games need a certain amount of complexity for certai depth.

For me 5e has not enough complexity (or rather not enough depth but I do think its because of the too simple base).

For sure. I really WANT to learn and like Draw Steel!, but I don't think I have the bandwidth...

But this also has a lot to do with how good or in draw steels case how bad rules are written.

I dont think draw steels complexity is too much for me, but the rules are a pain to read. Similar the gloomhaven RPG. I dont think the game is much more complex than the boardgame, but the boardgame rules are soooo much easier to read because its just better written. (Better order, better examples, better more modern layout and visualization etc.)


So about scaling:


I find pathfinder 1 still ok, 5e too simple, beacon good, but a bit more complex I would find even better. D&D 4e is good but could be better if a bit simpler. Pathfinder 2 i find clearly too complex.

So would that make it a 7.5 or so?

Beacon at 7 (even though its better streamlined than 5e and rules clarity is way better), D&D 4e at 8, PF1 at 8.5 and PF 2 at 9+


Or is my scale way off to what you had in mind? (I dont know the phoenix game).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If 5e is at a 6 or 7 for some, D&D 4 must be 9 or 10? Because that's the complexity I enjoyed. But where would something like Shadowrun (3e? 4e? 5e?) or Phoenix Command fit then?

I'd definitely rate 5E lower. But maybe there is an important point to what Umbran says - complexity needs to exist in the parts that I am interested in. I don't really need a crafting system as complex as 4E tactical combat, or if I am playing Shadowrun, I don't really want hacking(decking) rules to be as complex as the regular combat system unless it can be integrated in regular combat and isn't a macro-mini-game for a specialist character.

 

[Scribe]

Is Shadowdark a 4? If* so, 4.

 

[Basic Expert]

I voted 4, though it probably ranges from 3 to 5. Lighter rules play faster, which is a huge factor for me. The D&D 3.5 games where our druid spent 20 minutes to resolve his TURN broke me and I'm never going back. There was one battle where I was stunned in the first round and sat out the next 3 HOURS of gaming. Nope nope nope. Hard pass.

Complexity often means "character options", which is game-speak for having a set of carefully curated and defined abilities. The more things you have in your "power menu", the cooler you are! The downside of this, however, is that you are then expressly limited to your power menu so, consequently, you have fewer options. The same goes for skills. A character that has "Fighting" as a skill has many more options than one that has ranks in "Battleax" or "Spiked chain".

As a result, I favor design with a more robust and permissive core resolution system that all characters can access. An example in D&D terms would be to make something like "Power Attack" an option that all characters can do, with appropriate tradeoffs, rather than something gated behind a Feat. That generally leads to simpler, more general rules systems rather than exception-based systems with lots of moving parts.

 

[Tigris]

If 5e is at a 6 or 7 for some, D&D 4 must be 9 or 10? Because that's the complexity I enjoyed. But where would something like Shadowrun (3e? 4e? 5e?) or Phoenix Command fit then?

I'd definitely rate 5E lower. But maybe there is an important point to what Umbran says - complexity needs to exist in the parts that I am interested in. I don't really need a crafting system as complex as 4E tactical combat, or if I am playing Shadowrun, I don't really want hacking(decking) rules to be as complex as the regular combat system unless it can be integrated in regular combat and isn't a macro-mini-game for a specialist character.

I have exactly the same problem. There is not really enough space above 5e at a 6 to clearly classify the complexity I like and difference from the complexity I dont like. (Phoenix command is at 10 according to op).


And in addition to that in RPGs games complecity is not consistent. Many games are way more complex than they need to be because of legacy baggage and other problems.


In boardgames this feels a lot more consistent, because game design (and the understanding of the players) in general feels farther evolved and all games try to streamline the gameplay ans most do a good job with it (minus some awfull written rules).


In RPGs a game like 5e could with almost the same amount of choices be a lot simpler, if one would not care for sacred cows etc.