How Do You Define "Game Complexity"?

[howandwhy99]

There are several definitions of game complexity as I understand it.

On the one hand, games are mathematical constructions with finite possibilities within them. If you're not a kid, you know how to always tie, if not win at Tic-tac-toe.

On the other hand, games are stories with the same multi-layered complexity we find in novels. Mario isn't just a pixel group moving about. He is a man, and an Italian at that.

Some folks have told me games fall in the literary genre of mathematics. What are your thoughts?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Good topic!

Human beings, even two different people with equal IQ scores do not think the same. This makes the perception of complexity very subjective even though there may be some objective standards for judging complexity level.

Some people can perform mental mathematical computations with such ease that dozens of floating modifiers and other numerical " fiddly bits" do not seem complex at all. A game with clear tactical objectives and the optimal calculated means to achieve them come naturally.

Some people can take the faintest hint of a broad concept and apply it instantly to very unusual situations. Specific rules and the details of mechanics might take some time to master but concepts click instantly.

I think most of us who have been playing a long time and have introduced people into the hobby have experienced this in some way. There are those who have never heard of roleplaying games who may instantly grasp their nature and seem like an old hand after one session. Playing a game in which the bulk of the focus is in a shared imagined space is a fairly complex activity by some measures. Other people might play for years and never really get the concepts behind the RP part of the game.

 

[Umbran]

"Games" are not one homogeneous bunch of things. "Game" is an incredibly broad term. Thus, some games are at their core mathematical constructions with a thin veneer painted on to ease human conceptualization (say, Chess and Go). Other games have almost no mathematical basis, are more about the activity of playing (say, soccer, or Cops and Robbers).

RPGs sit pretty solidly (and occasionally uncomfortably) in the middle somewhere. Most combat system have mathematical underpinnings, but outside of combat these underpinnings almost disappear. This can make speaking bout their complexity... complex

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Advanced Squad Leader?

Never even thought of playing it myself but knowing someone who did I've long held it as the point to reference such things.

 

[steenan]

Complexity, for me, is a measure of structure. Complex systems have correlations (and, thus, predictability) on higher level then the laws that rule them. Simple systems are either random or trivially (locally) predictable.

This approach may be used in both the mathematical aspect of the game and in the literary one. Mathematical complexity is what makes strategical and tactical thinking (including character optimization) important. Literary complexity is what makes the stories interesting.

The complexity of mechanics increases with the number of inter-connected pieces of the system that affect one another. A good complex mechanics has the pieces interact in such a way that one needs to take into account their surroundings and similar conditions and update their plans with the actions of opposition. Bad complex mechanics has a number of universally good tactics and optimal builds. Good simple mechanics has few rolls (and simple ones), letting players immerse in the setting without thinking about numbers. Bad simple mechanics give results widely divergent from genre expectations and no way of affecting them.

The complexity of the story-side increases with the number of interacting characters and plots. A good complex game has strong relations, mysteries to solve, complicated and conflicted motivations, important choices with real consequences. A bad one has a setting with too much detail, plots too unclear for players to follow and consequences one cannot predict. A good simple game focuses on a single, powerful story, often an archetype. A bad one is a linear railroad or a static sandbox where only PCs do anything meaningful.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Advanced Squad Leader?

Never even thought of playing it myself but knowing someone who did I've long held it as the point to reference such things.

ASL pretty complex but most of the rules are situaltional modifiers on the basics that depend on what army the squads are from and what they are equiped with. It a pain to remember and I don't really like squad level stuff anyway.
The Europa series would of similar complexity, there are worse than it like some of the Victory Games stuff with asymmetric turns and some really difficult command and control rules.

The thing is you could play ASL with only one player having rules mastery as long as both players understood the basics of squad level tactics but some of the VG stuff was difficult even if both parties understood the rules.

There are of course different kinds of complexities, sometimes the rules can be hard to figure out but the game is straightforward enough, sometimes the rules can be pretty strrightforward but the game can be still difficult to play well (chess for instance)

 

[Deset Gled]

On the one hand, games are mathematical constructions with finite possibilities within them...

On the other hand, games are stories with the same multi-layered complexity we find in novels...

This is all rather abstract, but I believe that "games as stories" (like your Round Robin example) have the potential to become more complex at a much faster rate. The number of dimensions (e.g. side characters, locations, background, etc) can accumulate with amazing speed without the players (storytellers) realizing it. Did your character just go get a meal at a restaurant? You've just introduced a waiter, a public location, an industry, and a form of currency into your game without even thinking about it. And each of these dimensions of complexity only opens things up further.

The flip side is that most of these dimensions of complexity are never realized. No one really cares about what color socks the waiter was wearing, or how much the character decided to tip. A vast majority of the details are forgotten as soon as their introduced. In a mathematical game, however, it is generally much harder to let the extra dimensions drop away. You can't just forget about that one game piece you left back at the beginning, because it's still there on the board. Because of the required attention to details, a mathematical game will appear more complex to the player.

Also, for the record, just because a game is based on a mathematical construction does not mean it has a finite number of possibilities.

 

[Umbran]

Advanced Squad Leader?

Never even thought of playing it myself but knowing someone who did I've long held it as the point to reference such things.

Hm, that's an interesting point. I used to play a lot of ASL, a long time ago. In a mathematical sense, I am not sure it qualifies as complex, but from a human standpoint, it certainly is.

The ASL rules, as I remember them, are... broad but not deep. There's a nigh-infinite number of situational modifiers that stack up, but other than adding and subtracting from a total, they don't interact much. There are few meta-rules (rules that impact other rules), and you don't have to wade through layers of rules to get to a final result.

Working with the ASL rules was kind of like putting together a jigsaw puzzle - the issue was merely to find the bits you need at a given moment. As opposed to something with lots of interdependencies - say, untangling yarn the cat's savaged, where pulling on one thread may make something else halfway across the mass tighten up.

I think the jigsaw puzzle is a pain for a human, but it isn't mathematically complex. Untangling the yarn is both a pain, and mathematically complex.

So, there's complexity, and there's... poor user experience design?