How many "steps" is too many?

[Reynard]

Spinning this out of the Daggerheart thread and making it more general.

When considering a particular process in play, how many steps is too many.

For example, in D&D, the process of attacking is: roll to hit, compare to AC, roll damage, apply damage.

In Daggerheart, the process is similar but has a couple extra steps: roll to hit, compare to difficulty/evasion, check for hope vs fear, roll damage, check threshold, potentially apply armor, reduce HP. Not terribly complex, but deffinitely more steps.

Other games might have similar processes for casting spells (maybe there is a table or miscast chance) or have a wide band of potential outcomes you have to check against.

So, at what point do you personally feel like a process of play has to many steps? Does it matter if it is a commonly used process versus a rarer one? Is there a particular kind of process where too many steps really bugs you, or a process where you want more granular steps than is typically called for?

 

[payn]

Thats a difficult target. My mind first goes to having a uniform process across all units, player and GM alike. Just so its easier to understand how it works and to remember all the steps. Then again, that can feel pretty samey and get a little boring. So, I do like variable offenses/defenses. While I tend to lean on the granular side of design, there is a point where I feel the juice isnt worth the squeeze. Its more of a feel it when it happens than can just eyeball it in a book and know its gonna happen. So, a lot of times I gotta play it at least once on the table in the intended contextual situation.

So, if it takes a min or more of table time, but everybody is leaning in and staring at every dice roll, that can be a lot of fun. If its completely uninteresting and folks groan and start reaching for their phones, its probably too many.

 

[Seramus]

4 steps is about the limit of tolerance for most people I've met. You can always have situations that require more steps, but those should generally be few and far between (grapples and the like). Some game designers violate KISS in a major way in pursuit of innovation, but I've seen even 5 or 6 steps bounce off people pretty hard.

There's definitely a market for more complex games, and a thriving one, but if you're trying to sell to the most number of people then KISS is usually the safest path.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When considering a particular process in play, how many steps is too many.

Looking at the number of steps in isolation is not very meaningful, especially as how to break them down into steps is (perhaps surprisingly) subjective (like you split out "determine Hope and Fear", but I don't think that's really a separate "step" from the roll resolution).

I would suggest that it's about the number of steps, the complexity of the steps (which often varies wildly - some "steps" are so easy as to be basically subconscious, others might entire sub-processes), and how often they're repeated in a short time period.

If resolution of tasks is relatively complex, but relatively rarely rolled, then it's unlikely to be unduly burdensome (some WW RPGs arguably operate like this).

If resolution of tasks is simple, but frequently rolled, you're probably okay too (5E most of the time, for example).

The problem with resolution usually actually comes when you're rolling a lot, but the resolution is at least moderately complex. For me, a good example would be Shadowrun - resolving an attack in most editions of that, including the person taking damage, is not simple. Nor is casting a spell. Yet many PCs can act multiple times a round, and you tend to get an awful lot of rolls, which can fairly rapidly make resolution of combat particularly feel quite exhausting.

Also, we need to avoid oversimplification when looking at "steps" - it's not just about the rolls in many cases, but any calculations or logic puzzles that need to be solved around those rolls. D&D is very simple and quick if every PC and monster is making 1 attack per round just using proficiency + stat mod and hitting for weapon die + stat mod, and in 5E, Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't add much complexity to that. But in say, 3.XE, you might have to perform elaborate, on the fly calculations of your separate and frequently changing to hit and damage bonuses (many of which were circumstantial and thus constantly turned on and off, or worse, varied in value!)

Why do I bring this up? Because we could easily summarize 3.XE the same way as 5E, step-wise, but 3.XE was insanely more complex. An attack that takes 15 seconds to resolve in 5E might take minutes (easily a minute) to get right in 3.XE. But on paper, it seems like the same number of steps!

With DH it's interesting because whilst you arguably have more steps (albeit "apply armour" only applies to PCs and only ever a limited and relatively low number of times per session), each attack tends to be more individually significant than D&D, and PCs don't have multiple attacks. Even off-hand weapons are just combined into the attack (if they're usuable). In D&D, you might have two attacks with your main hand, and a Bonus Action attack or w/e, to achieve about the same significant of damage as a DH character's singular roll - and I think most cases DH will come out ahead even with the extra steps in terms of time-to-resolve - but not always (especially not if the DM is the kind of who tells the PCs the AC of the monsters).

Another complexity factor is - do any of the steps feature a choice?

In D&D 5E, the answer is typically no, but sometimes yes - a Paladin is continually choosing whether to smite or not, a Rogue generally but not always uses Sneak Attack at the first possible opportunity.

In DH, the answer is also typically no, except when a PC is taking damage, when usually can choose to burn an armour slot (but again you probably don't burn all that many in any given session).

In some RPGs, especially older, more simulationist ones, you might have a choice every single time you make an attack as to how you make that attack - like, I'm thinking of Champions: The New Millennium, where some PCs had basically fixed attacks via powers, cool, fine, but other PCs had either variable powers where they had to decide how strongly to use them every single time (which, that's a significant extra step), or worse still, attacked with unarmed melee combat, so could utilize a bunch of different actual attacks with different modifiers, different damage and so on, which changed the resolution - and I think we can't exclude that decision step entirely from this because it's very significant to how resolution actually plays out. In D&D or DH, you just "make an attack" for the most part (unless using a special ability), but not so all games.

In some PtbA games, the choice comes AFTER you roll, as you look at list of potential outcomes - maybe on a very good roll you get to pick two positive outcomes, a bad roll you fail and have to pick a negative outcome, or whatever, and that is not something I noticed as slowing things down until recently, but it is an extra step and because it requires the player to stop and make decisions, can be particularly time-consuming. PbtA usually gets away with it because it's not a system where you're rolling for anything insignificant.

EDIT - Another complexity factor - How hard is it to determine what happened from the dice?

D&D it's d20 + bonus vs number.

DH it's d12+d12 + bonus vs number and which of the two dice was higher, the good or the bad one?

Some dice pool games? OH NO!

It's stuff like "Roll a number of d10s equal to [number probably derived from skill + stat + bonus]. Count all the d10s which had a 7 or more, subtract any dice which had a 1, but double-count any dice which had a 10, and compare to a number of successes, which may itself be generated by a similar roll from the opponent, oh and if you failed and had more 1s than other dice, that's a critical fail, but if you succeeded and had more 10s than other dice, that's a critical success, so if you rolled any 1s or 10s you better go back and check how many!" (made up but I know there were some early WW ones about that complicated lol). God help us all if you have both variable TNs for the individual dice to roll AND different numbers of successes needed for different tasks! Entire pantheons help us all if you had to roll to hit against a roll to dodge then roll to damage against a roll to soak! Let's not even talk about exploding dice, especially if they explode on varying numbers!

EDIT EDIT - Sorry for the wall of text, there's just a lot to consider here, and having played a million different RPGs over the years, I've really seen how wildly the nature of the steps and the sort of "pre-step" can influence this, and how repeatedly doing an on-paper simple process can sometimes be more frustrating or boring than a single process which in theory has far more steps (but not always!).

 

[Aldarc]

Spinning this out of the Daggerheart thread and making it more general.

When considering a particular process in play, how many steps is too many.

For example, in D&D, the process of attacking is: roll to hit, compare to AC, roll damage, apply damage.

In Daggerheart, the process is similar but has a couple extra steps: roll to hit, compare to difficulty/evasion, check for hope vs fear, roll damage, check threshold, potentially apply armor, reduce HP. Not terribly complex, but deffinitely more steps.

Keep in mind that responsibilities are not necessarily shared equally between the GM and player. The player in D&D only rolls to hit, calculates their hit total, and then applies damage AFTER the GM compares to AC.

Likewise, what is added can also create complexity. For example, I have played with D&D players for years, and they still couldn't remember which numbers to add: Ability Score vs. Modifier, Proficiency, etc.

 

[Arilyn]

I agree with @Ruin Explorer. Checking for hope/fear is too fast to count as a step. Checking for threshold levels was a little slow when we first played, but is now almost as fast as hope/fear.

Adding 2d12 + modifier is slower than d20 + modifier. It's definitely faster to just mark armour and/or hp, rather than counting down.

I haven't personally come across any modern game with too many steps. I do remember some clunkers back in the day. Maybe Ryuutama? It's got too much for me, as a light hearted exploration game.

 

[Reynard]

Looking at the number of steps in isolation is not very meaningful, especially as how to break them down into steps is (perhaps surprisingly) subjective (like you split out "determine Hope and Fear", but I don't think that's really a separate "step" from the roll resolution).

I would suggest that it's about the number of steps, the complexity of the steps (which often varies wildly - some "steps" are so easy as to be basically subconscious, others might entire sub-processes), and how often they're repeated in a short time period.

If resolution of tasks is relatively complex, but relatively rarely rolled, then it's unlikely to be unduly burdensome (some WW RPGs arguably operate like this).

If resolution of tasks is simple, but frequently rolled, you're probably okay too (5E most of the time, for example).

The problem with resolution usually actually comes when you're rolling a lot, but the resolution is at least moderately complex. For me, a good example would be Shadowrun - resolving an attack in most editions of that, including the person taking damage, is not simple. Nor is casting a spell. Yet many PCs can act multiple times a round, and you tend to get an awful lot of rolls, which can fairly rapidly make resolution of combat particularly feel quite exhausting.

Also, we need to avoid oversimplification when looking at "steps" - it's not just about the rolls in many cases, but any calculations or logic puzzles that need to be solved around those rolls. D&D is very simple and quick if every PC and monster is making 1 attack per round just using proficiency + stat mod and hitting for weapon die + stat mod, and in 5E, Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't add much complexity to that. But in say, 3.XE, you might have to perform elaborate, on the fly calculations of your separate and frequently changing to hit and damage bonuses (many of which were circumstantial and thus constantly turned on and off, or worse, varied in value!)

Why do I bring this up? Because we could easily summarize 3.XE the same way as 5E, step-wise, but 3.XE was insanely more complex. An attack that takes 15 seconds to resolve in 5E might take minutes (easily a minute) to get right in 3.XE. But on paper, it seems like the same number of steps!

With DH it's interesting because whilst you arguably have more steps (albeit "apply armour" only applies to PCs and only ever a limited and relatively low number of times per session), each attack tends to be more individually significant than D&D, and PCs don't have multiple attacks. Even off-hand weapons are just combined into the attack (if they're usuable). In D&D, you might have two attacks with your main hand, and a Bonus Action attack or w/e, to achieve about the same significant of damage as a DH character's singular roll - and I think most cases DH will come out ahead even with the extra steps in terms of time-to-resolve - but not always (especially not if the DM is the kind of who tells the PCs the AC of the monsters).

Another complexity factor is - do any of the steps feature a choice?

In D&D 5E, the answer is typically no, but sometimes yes - a Paladin is continually choosing whether to smite or not, a Rogue generally but not always uses Sneak Attack at the first possible opportunity.

In DH, the answer is also typically no, except when a PC is taking damage, when usually can choose to burn an armour slot (but again you probably don't burn all that many in any given session).

In some RPGs, especially older, more simulationist ones, you might have a choice every single time you make an attack as to how you make that attack - like, I'm thinking of Champions: The New Millennium, where some PCs had basically fixed attacks via powers, cool, fine, but other PCs had either variable powers where they had to decide how strongly to use them every single time (which, that's a significant extra step), or worse still, attacked with unarmed melee combat, so could utilize a bunch of different actual attacks with different modifiers, different damage and so on, which changed the resolution - and I think we can't exclude that decision step entirely from this because it's very significant to how resolution actually plays out. In D&D or DH, you just "make an attack" for the most part (unless using a special ability), but not so all games.

In some PtbA games, the choice comes AFTER you roll, as you look at list of potential outcomes - maybe on a very good roll you get to pick two positive outcomes, a bad roll you fail and have to pick a negative outcome, or whatever, and that is not something I noticed as slowing things down until recently, but it is an extra step and because it requires the player to stop and make decisions, can be particularly time-consuming. PbtA usually gets away with it because it's not a system where you're rolling for anything insignificant.

EDIT - Another complexity factor - How hard is it to determine what happened from the dice?

D&D it's d20 + bonus vs number.

DH it's d12+d12 + bonus vs number and which of the two dice was higher, the good or the bad one?

Some dice pool games? OH NO!

It's stuff like "Roll a number of d10s equal to [number probably derived from skill + stat + bonus]. Count all the d10s which had a 7 or more, subtract any dice which had a 1, but double-count any dice which had a 10, and compare to a number of successes, which may itself be generated by a similar roll from the opponent, oh and if you failed and had more 1s than other dice, that's a critical fail, but if you succeeded and had more 10s than other dice, that's a critical success, so if you rolled any 1s or 10s you better go back and check how many!" (made up but I know there were some early WW ones about that complicated lol). God help us all if you have both variable TNs for the individual dice to roll AND different numbers of successes needed for different tasks! Entire pantheons help us all if you had to roll to hit against a roll to dodge then roll to damage against a roll to soak! Let's not even talk about exploding dice, especially if they explode on varying numbers!

EDIT EDIT - Sorry for the wall of text, there's just a lot to consider here, and having played a million different RPGs over the years, I've really seen how wildly the nature of the steps and the sort of "pre-step" can influence this, and how repeatedly doing an on-paper simple process can sometimes be more frustrating or boring than a single process which in theory has far more steps (but not always!).

Thanks for the detailed reply.

One thing you reminded me of that I had forgotten was resolution systems where you end up with some number of successes, and THEN apply them for different effects. i am thinking of Brave New World here specifically, but I am sure it is far from the only one.

I like that sort of system because it allows players to do cool stuff more regularly (as opposed to taking penalties to try and do cool stuff) but it also has the strong possibility of slowing things down due to analysis paralysis or simply players that aren't good at choosing options.

 

[overgeeked]

I think it’s a bit of a loaded way to phrase things. It’s not that all these steps are done by the same person. In Daggerheart, the player rolls 2d12 + mods then reports that to the referee. The referee determines if it hits or misses then reports that to the player. The player rolls damage and reports that to the referee who checks the damage thresholds and marks HP. So it’s not that the player is the one doing all those steps. Obviously reverse that when an adversary attacks a PC and add in the decision to use armor. If that were all player-side steps it could be too many steps. But it’s not.

For me, 2-3 steps per thing is enough. More than that would slow things down. Roll to hit, do basic math, and report the result. It would be better if damage were also collapsed into that same roll. Using Daggerheart, something like succeed with fear, deal 1 HP; succeed with hope, deal 2 HP; critical hit, deal 3 HP.

The ones that really bug me are when steps are added between the dice roll and the resolution of the action. Like negotiating in Fate or spending after you roll in Cypher. For some reason that drives me up the wall.

 

[Tonguez]

roll master is too many

Roll D100 add Offense -> subtract Defense -> Flip pages to find the weapon specific table -> identify armour type to find damage and severity - > roll on the Critical table for effects -> loose a limb or die -> Try to have fun

 

[Piperken]

Spinning this out of the Daggerheart thread and making it more general.

When considering a particular process in play, how many steps is too many.

For example, in D&D, the process of attacking is: roll to hit, compare to AC, roll damage, apply damage.

In Daggerheart, the process is similar but has a couple extra steps: roll to hit, compare to difficulty/evasion, check for hope vs fear, roll damage, check threshold, potentially apply armor, reduce HP. Not terribly complex, but deffinitely more steps.

Other games might have similar processes for casting spells (maybe there is a table or miscast chance) or have a wide band of potential outcomes you have to check against.

So, at what point do you personally feel like a process of play has to many steps? Does it matter if it is a commonly used process versus a rarer one? Is there a particular kind of process where too many steps really bugs you, or a process where you want more granular steps than is typically called for?

This feels like a good question designers would be suited to answer.

If we take combat as one part of a game... I don't like combat that lasts three hours of my gaming time, either as a table runner or a player.

Most everyone is familiar with combat as it is run in different iterations of D&D.

Some fantasy games combine the to hit and damage rolls into a single roll; you roll all the dice for these at the same time.

In Cairn, there is no to hit roll. Everything auto hits.

In Grimwild, there are action and defense rolls. Action rolls include consequences, which you do not get to roll defense for. Defense rolls are called for to avoid incoming trouble, when not caused by your own action.

These are all processes w/ a different number of steps that aim to create a certain sentiment in combat, each of which can be compelling, but different.