How many "steps" is too many?

[Reynard]

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 anyway, it doesn't really matter who is resolving any given step. They all need resolving.

For the record, I don't think DH is too many. I do recall feeling like old Shadowrun was onerous, but the more recent editions feel about right. I think D&D 5E ability checks by the book are too simple and would benefit from a less binary approach, so long as they weren't called for constantly like many GMs do.

 

[Vael]

The other thing to consider is how easily can steps be short cutted? For example, a big roll in Daggerheart or 5e means I can often skip the math. A 10 and 11 on your duality dice to attack? Yeah that'll hit. 14 on a D20 when I know the AC is 15? Don't bother looking up that attack modifier that the player always forgets, that's a hit. Pathfinder 2, however, I now still have to check if that's a critical.

This is why I think 5e going to bounded accuracy was such a revelation for me ... I was so used to 3.5 and 4e having numbers always go up, but while the target roll to hit on a D20 might be the same, there is a difference at the table between d20+15 vs AC25 and d20+5 vs AC15. Sure, VTTs can automate that, but I've gotten very Luddite lately, I want my RPG experiences to be tactile and just paper, pencils and dice and sitting together at the table.

 

[overgeeked]

The other thing to consider is how easily can steps be short cutted? For example, a big roll in Daggerheart or 5e means I can often skip the math. A 10 and 11 on your duality dice to attack? Yeah that'll hit. 14 on a D20 when I know the AC is 15? Don't bother looking up that attack modifier that the player always forgets, that's a hit. Pathfinder 2, however, I now still have to check if that's a critical.

This is why I think 5e going to bounded accuracy was such a revelation for me ... I was so used to 3.5 and 4e having numbers always go up, but while the target roll to hit on a D20 might be the same, there is a difference at the table between d20+15 vs AC25 and d20+5 vs AC15. Sure, VTTs can automate that, but I've gotten very Luddite lately, I want my RPG experiences to be tactile and just paper, pencils and dice and sitting together at the table.

That's one big benefit of reverse engineering the math. In 5E, if everything's balanced where it should be, as long as the player rolls 8+ on their d20, they succeed. Whatever the PC's level or the monster's CR, 99% of the time, their AC will be exactly 8 + the assumed progression of PC ability modifiers + proficiency bonus. You can do basically the same thing with Daggerheart.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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?

I think it has first and foremost to do with = how easy and simple are the steps. And then equally importantly, how good is the reference sheet to those things?

For example = RuneQuest is testing a new combat system where its stages of combat: Prep > Magic > Ranged > Move > Melee
where in each of those steps you make a roll for an Action you can do on that stage. This has been great for some folks who like simple games, because it walks them through each option of each round = "Can you do this now? yes = roll, no = skip." And they feel more empowered to know options of what they can possibly do.
As well, its a "Roll equal to or under your own skill", so you dont need to reference anything from anywhere else. They don't need to know the constantly changing array of enemy AC or skills or whatever. if its opposed, its the same roll, just opposed. winner does the thing.

Lots of steps? yeah! But guided, simple, quick steps. So... seems "less complicated" than a system where the values and number change action to action.
Is it simple? no. its still a busy crunchy system.

....

Now let's look at 2d20 Momentum = roll 2d20, offer Heat to GM to get more d20s or spend Momentum you have saved up to get more d20s. Then roll against your own skill TN, and count successes. Are they less than, then fail. Are they equal to, succeed. Are they more then each more is momentum gained. Now spend momentum again for damage, spend for bonus damage on ammo or such, roll damage, check armor, check for special damage effect types, mark hp lost, check for wounds and apply as needed.
Oh SHEESH = LOTS of steps, LOTS of options, LOTS of changes constantly. A good system, but without a really good reference sheet AND great character sheet = this is a mess waiting to have things forgotten or skipped.
- Is it really more rules than D&D = no. Its actually about the same amount of moving parts and options, but they are all options... so that can be a difficult thing. Decent amount of tracking things too...

....

NOW for the game everyone wants to play but is afraid to (*just being cheeky) PBTA
Roll to do the thing, select options on Move (sometimes Gm selects, sometimes Player does). mark Stress if any = done.
SUPER simple!! yet, so much so that most players have no idea what they can do (they are used to limiting permissive games), or worse yet = they wrongly assume the Move are the only things they can do (wrong wrong). So ... sometimes simple is not what people are looking for.

...
Yeah, Daggerheart is cumbersome for its armor and damage rules. I still don't think their design on that was smart or clever. Kinda lame when there are other mechanics that could get at the "small numbers" of HP and damage they were chasing...
SO in that case, there are Obtuse rules that are not super complex, but not clear on their purpose either (to the average table player who likes to be able to see their chances in the function.)

.....

The MOST intuitive and 'simple' and elegant system I have personally seen is the first print of World of Darkness (that used to be called new world of darkness, you know, mage the awakening, vampire the requiem, etc = but NOT NOT their 2nd edition extra crunchy tilt junk).
In that system we had dots. count the dots. Everything in the game was "on a scale of 1 to 10" = one of the most intuitive phrasings ever. You roll dice, count how many came up 8+ as a success. And successes were also "on a scale of 1 to 10" how well you did (well, 1 to 5, but that's the same thing).
Nothing was easier for any age or level of player to count dots, count successes, count damage, reduce by soak (if any).
I have never had a game system that took almost zero explanation as WoD did.
= was it balanced? no . Was it fair? no. Was it tactical or realistic? no. ...but it was really easy to grok. and fist-fulls of d10s feels fun...

 

[MGibster]

The other thing to consider is how easily can steps be short cutted? For example, a big roll in Daggerheart or 5e means I can often skip the math. A 10 and 11 on your duality dice to attack? Yeah that'll hit. 14 on a D20 when I know the AC is 15? Don't bother looking up that attack modifier that the player always forgets, that's a hit. Pathfinder 2, however, I now still have to check if that's a critical.

No matter how many steps are in the game, everything slows down when players aren't familiar with how the rules for their own character works. I've been running a D&D campaign for months, and some of the players still have to double check what the final results of a roll to hit is.

For me, I guess that answer just depends on how long it takes to resolve an issue. In Savage Worlds, here are the steps for combat.

1. Roll to hit (either against target's Parry or 4 depending on if it's a ranged or a melee attack).
2. Roll to damage and compare results to the target's Toughness (subtract from Toughness if the target is wearing armor and the weapon is armor piercing.
3. If damage is over the target's Toughness, calculate by how much. If damage is 3 or less over the Toughness, the target is Shaken. If the damage is at least 4 over the Toughness, target is wounded and out of the fight. If the Target is a Wild Card, it receives one wound for every full 4 points of damage over their Toughness and is out of the fight after taking 4 wounds.

It sounds a little more onerous than it is. In practice, combat goes rather quickly.

 

[MNblockhead]

To me steps listed in the OP are misleading in terms of how complex the game mechanics are. The OP uses the example of combat in D&D, which presents a fairly simple 4-step process for combat. But it can be much more complex than that. Is it a ranged attack? How far away are you shooting from? Is the target behind any level of cover? Does the attacker or do the targets have any conditions on them that have to be taken into account? Determining how much damage the attack delivers involves adding up various stats (usually precalculated on the character sheet but this still increases complexity). There are weapon properties to consider, feats, class abilities, and so forth. Also, the four steps the OP gives only part of the picture. There is also surprise, initiative, and things you can do other than attack, etc.

Warhammer Fantasy Role Play 4th ed is another how a fairly simple combat routine can get very complex. If I ignore surprise, initial advantage, and initiative and just focus on making an melee attack:

1. Attacker makes an attack with an appropriate skill
2. Defender rolls to counter/doge the attack with an appropriate skill
3. If attacker's success levels are greater than defenders, determine damage
4. Determine hit location
5. Reduce damage by defender's toughness bonus + armor value on the hit location

But there are so many other rules that influence every step that the complexity is orders of magnitude more than what someone may assume looking at those five steps. At the end of this post is one example of flow cart that illustrates this complexity.

The complexity is exacerbated by all the page flipping and table references required.

Now I highly enjoy running WFRP4e, but I can see how it would be intimidating for someone new to TTRPGs or someone used to far more rules-light TTRPGs. Even D&D can be quite intimidating to many people.

The amount of rules by themselves, however, can be misleading. Many of the rules only apply in specific circumstances. You only have to worry about specific weapon stats or special rules for a weapon if you have that weapon. Same with character abilities, spells, etc.

If you have a streamlined core set of rules, you can add a lot of options and "complexity" without it becoming overwhelming. Similarly, if the rules are well organized, specific rules for specific situations, needn't be onerous if they are easy to look up and quickly understand and apply. D&D does a good job with this overall. In my experience, magic is the most complex part of the game because one character can have many spells and each spell is kind of its own subsystem. It can be difficult for players to keep in memory all of their spells and how they work.

In summary, I think a rules heavy game can be simple to play and a rules light game can still be confusing and frustrating. It ultimately comes down to what memory load is required for the game to run smoothly and how easy it is to look up and apply rules for specific situations.

 

[MNblockhead]

The MOST intuitive and 'simple' and elegant system I have personally seen is the first print of World of Darkness (that used to be called new world of darkness, you know, mage the awakening, vampire the requiem, etc = but NOT NOT their 2nd edition extra crunchy tilt junk).
In that system we had dots. count the dots. Everything in the game was "on a scale of 1 to 10" = one of the most intuitive phrasings ever. You roll dice, count how many came up 8+ as a success. And successes were also "on a scale of 1 to 10" how well you did (well, 1 to 5, but that's the same thing).
Nothing was easier for any age or level of player to count dots, count successes, count damage, reduce by soak (if any).
I have never had a game system that took almost zero explanation as WoD did.
= was it balanced? no . Was it fair? no. Was it tactical or realistic? no. ...but it was really easy to grok. and fist-fulls of d10s feels fun...

Interesting example. This may be an example of how each of us processes things differently. My group convinced me to run a Mage: The Ascension game. I had a very difficult time grokking the rules. I absolutely hated how the book was organized and how the rules were written. I noped out of it after two sessions. I've run many systems of various levels of complexity and there has been no game yet that I've run that I enjoyed running less than Mage: The Ascension.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The other thing to consider is how easily can steps be short cutted? For example, a big roll in Daggerheart or 5e means I can often skip the math. A 10 and 11 on your duality dice to attack? Yeah that'll hit. 14 on a D20 when I know the AC is 15? Don't bother looking up that attack modifier that the player always forgets, that's a hit. Pathfinder 2, however, I now still have to check if that's a critical.

This is why I think 5e going to bounded accuracy was such a revelation for me ... I was so used to 3.5 and 4e having numbers always go up, but while the target roll to hit on a D20 might be the same, there is a difference at the table between d20+15 vs AC25 and d20+5 vs AC15. Sure, VTTs can automate that, but I've gotten very Luddite lately, I want my RPG experiences to be tactile and just paper, pencils and dice and sitting together at the table.

This is a really good point re: resolution complexity - and yeah it's true in 5E and DH that a lot of rolls you just know they succeed/fail without even thinking about any math - but as you say, in 3.5E and 4E, you pretty much always had to do the math. Indeed with 3.5E, if you had multiple attacks, you had to the math differently for basically each of the attacks because of the absolutely bananas and whimsical decision to have the BAB decrease with each attack.

 

[Reynard]

To me steps listed in the OP are misleading in terms of how complex the game mechanics are. The OP uses the example of combat in D&D, which presents a fairly simple 4-step process for combat. But it can be much more complex than that. Is it a ranged attack? How far away are you shooting from? Is the target behind any level of cover? Does the attacker or do the targets have any conditions on them that have to be taken into account? Determining how much damage the attack delivers involves adding up various stats (usually precalculated on the character sheet but this still increases complexity). There are weapon properties to consider, feats, class abilities, and so forth. Also, the four steps the OP gives only part of the picture. There is also surprise, initiative, and things you can do other than attack, etc.

Warhammer Fantasy Role Play 4th ed is another how a fairly simple combat routine can get very complex. If I ignore surprise, initial advantage, and initiative and just focus on making an melee attack:

1. Attacker makes an attack with an appropriate skill
2. Defender rolls to counter/doge the attack with an appropriate skill
3. If attacker's success levels are greater than defenders, determine damage
4. Determine hit location
5. Reduce damage by defender's toughness bonus + armor value on the hit location

But there are so many other rules that influence every step that the complexity is orders of magnitude more than what someone may assume looking at those five steps. At the end of this post is one example of flow cart that illustrates this complexity.

The complexity is exacerbated by all the page flipping and table references required.

Now I highly enjoy running WFRP4e, but I can see how it would be intimidating for someone new to TTRPGs or someone used to far more rules-light TTRPGs. Even D&D can be quite intimidating to many people.

The amount of rules by themselves, however, can be misleading. Many of the rules only apply in specific circumstances. You only have to worry about specific weapon stats or special rules for a weapon if you have that weapon. Same with character abilities, spells, etc.

If you have a streamlined core set of rules, you can add a lot of options and "complexity" without it becoming overwhelming. Similarly, if the rules are well organized, specific rules for specific situations, needn't be onerous if they are easy to look up and quickly understand and apply. D&D does a good job with this overall. In my experience, magic is the most complex part of the game because one character can have many spells and each spell is kind of its own subsystem. It can be difficult for players to keep in memory all of their spells and how they work.

In summary, I think a rules heavy game can be simple to play and a rules light game can still be confusing and frustrating. It ultimately comes down to what memory load is required for the game to run smoothly and how easy it is to look up and apply rules for specific situations.

View attachment 410415

Ostensibly any of those modifiers would apply to any sequence, so it is a wash. That's why I did not bring it up. It isn't "misleading" it is irrelevent to the question asked.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Interesting example. This may be an example of how each of us processes things differently. My group convinced me to run a Mage: The Ascension game. I had a very difficult time grokking the rules. I absolutely hated how the book was organized and how the rules were written. I noped out of it after two sessions. I've run many systems of various levels of complexity and there has been no game yet that I've run that I enjoyed running less than Mage: The Ascension.

To be clear he's talking about NWoD, not oWoD, it's just very confusing because he says "first print edition of World of Darkness", by which he means the literal book World of Darkness, the NWoD core rulebook.

Mage: The Ascension was oWoD, and oWoD didn't do things the ways he's describing, in 1E, 2E and Revised it had slightly different ways of doing it, all of which were more complicated and annoying than the first NWoD. Mage: The Ascension 1E also had particularly hard-to-process rules re: how magic worked, which 2E cleared up a lot.