How much complexity is right for you?

[Pseudopsyche]

I prefer the combat rules themselves to be fairly streamlined: players should have a handful of interesting choices at each decision point and not too much bookkeeping. But I prefer a large number of character builds and equipment options, so that each player can have a completely different set of choices.

So many distinct weapons, each not too complex, would work well for me.

 

[Smoss]

For me personally - I worked quite a while to hit my perfect balance of realism vs speed of play. For me - 4e and 3e D&D are both too slow in combat. SW Saga improved on that, so I aimed at about that level of speed. But I also wanted it to feel more REAL than D&D or Saga. It is a tough job!

For the weapons, I have several, loosely grouped. Slightly different stats depending. Swords having a bigger proficiency bonus to hit, maces doing better versus armor, lasso type weapons like ropes and nets are a bit different, etc... My weapon tables might be a bit much - I've thought about simplifying it further, but it works pretty well. The bumber is probably comparable to the 3e PHB. I definitely would not want ALL weapons of even the most minor difference being statted out.
-----------------
Smoss
Doulairen (Doulairen)
Or go directly to details on my RPG system:
RPG System (Doulairen)

 

[Vegepygmy]

Do you prefer games that have four kinds of weapons and five kinds of armors, or do you prefer the approach where you give a different stat for Elvish Thinblades than Dwarvish Thickblades and there is a game-mechanical difference between Steel Plate Armor and Iron Demi-Plate with Greaves and No Helmet?

It's very difficult for people to tell you whether they like "a little" or "a lot" of complexity in their game, because it's so subjective. What I consider "moderately complex" may be to others "extremely complex."

Based on what I've seen other people post, I suspect that I like more complexity than most, but I certainly don't like complexity for the sake of complexity.

I kind of frown on weapons and armor with a lot of different stats, because unless you're some kind of genius at balancing them, one or two weapons/armor are quickly identified as so obviously superior to the others that nobody ever chooses a different one. I think it adds flavor when people choose unusual weapons, so I'd prefer a system where it doesn't much matter whether you wield a longsword or a warhammer, what really matters is your skill with it and the tactical choices you make.

That being said, I hate to play in "stand there and swing" combat systems. For me, 3E's huge array of tactical options (grappling, disarming, bull rushing, tumbling, fighting defensively, etc. plus an endless number of feats) is just about perfect. I just wish you could choose "heavy mace" over "morningstar" without feeling like a putz.

Similarly, do you like for your games to have vastly detailed combat, down to tracking hit locations and the like, or do you prefer a more freeform, "zoomed out" kind?

I don't mind hit locations, as long as they don't slow the game down too much. I also prefer my combat to be gritty and dangerous. (In that respect, no edition of D&D has ever really thrilled me. Hit points just aren't the way to go for that.)

 

[howandwhy99]

I prefer low complexity to start with increasing complexity as the game goes up in level. The rules of the game that everyone knows are very few, but the pattern behind the screen that the DM conveys increases in complexity / difficulty as the players gain proficiency and seek out greater and greater complex challenges.

 

[Verdande]

Firstly:

Great googly moogly, you guys (and gals) are helpful. I appreciate the feedback people have given so far and heartily encourage more. Seriously!

So the real question with any attack/hit is whether it succeeds in scoring a wound? You might want to fold everything in to one die roll.

How are you inside my head? While the game isn't based around the d20, you've got close to the framework that I've got. While there are still separate attack and hit rolls (as I like to have a difference between toughness and agility which blanket AC scores do not have), it really boils down to one roll per person. The attacker rolls to hit, and then the defender basically makes a "save vs damage" and that's the end of that. Failing by a little hurts a little, and failing by a lot hurts a lot. It's all in rediculously basic math terms because I'm honestly bad at juggling numbers. Two target numbers, two rolls, done.

Danger can mean more things than actual wounds though. It may mean how much you can get yourself exposed to some attack that can be critical. For example when you fight and your enemy gains advantage danger to get hurt rises. When your enemy loses that advantage your danger status may get lower.

That's in the system, actually. You get a mechanical bonus to having the "advantage" and since all of your stats are penalized when you hurt, a lucky swing can have one go from having the situation totally in hand to being, basically, dead on one's feet.

Actually, when I reread what you have to say, I realize that I seem to have missed your point. What you're saying is that it's not just about wounds, it's about who has the advantage in the first place and how that should be a prelude to actually getting hurt. For example, if you're more skilled you could have the advantage, but then your foe does a daring counter-attack, interrupts your rhythm and suddenly, you're on the defensive? I like the idea, but I'm at a loss as to how to breach that mechanically, although I'd certainly love to do so.

I just wish you could choose "heavy mace" over "morningstar" without feeling like a putz.

That's exactly the reason I've been trying so hard to make my weapons useful, and if nothing else, to just make categories and leave it at that. Really, does a longsword hurt more than a dagger when you're poked by it? I've never been slashed by either, and my knowledge of actual fighting techniques are nil, so would it be best to sidestep the question?

That being said, currently the weapon chart has vague weapon types attached to weapon qualities like Heavy and Large, so perhaps it's only necessary to track weapon qualities? For example, a Greatsword in another game could be a Large Bladed weapon, and whether it's a Greatsword, a Flamberge, a Katana, or a chunk of sharpened bone is irrelevant except for flavor.

Something to think about, certainly.

Lastly:

I prefer low complexity to start with increasing complexity as the game goes up in level. The rules of the game that everyone knows are very few, but the pattern behind the screen that the DM conveys increases in complexity / difficulty as the players gain proficiency and seek out greater and greater complex challenges.

This is something I agree with, honestly, although I disagree with the entirely combat-centric focus some games go to. I like increasing complexity because:

A) The characters' places in the world is growing as their reputation, stature, and power to change the world is growing, and most importantly,

B) The world is a seriously complex place.

I think it's natural that a sufficiently powerful adventurer will found a town or enter politics or found the Order of the Black Steel because that's what skilled, influential, and famous people do in real life. Blackbeard, who I imagine was highly skilled to live as long as he did, didn't keep fighting one on one fights with guards just because he was better than them. He used his skills and knowledge to get other pirates to serve under him and led them into battle, getting even more loot, notoriety, and power that way. When he get even more famous, he got bands of pirate ships and became a serious terror. That's what it's all about, to me. You start to affect the rest of the world whether you want to or not. When you get above a certain level, you simply cease to be able to live a relatively discreet life where you can do as you will, if for no other reason that people will follow you around and ask for advice or want to be your sidekick or try to steal from you.

Sorry for the wall-o-text, but you guys inspire a lot of writing out of me.

 

[amnuxoll]

A game without a fair amount of complexity is no fun for me. Complexity should be engaging and interesting to the players. In some cases, complexity makes the game tactically interesting. Sometimes it just adds an injection of realism that makes it fun to imagine what's going on.

However, If the added complexity creates realism at the expense of detracting from play, then it's a dud. Concentration checks in d20 are a great example of this. They interrupt combat, they're often irrelevant (i.e., the caster modifier is so high he can't fail) and the only result they can bring is negative. The best you can accomplish is status quo.

On the other hand, if the game is simplified to the point where it restricts creativity, that's a game killer for me. This is 4e's biggest flaw, IMO.

I also really dislike when the game grinds to a halt while someone consults a rulebook. The solution, in my view, is to move complexity rulebook-related complexity away from the game table. These choices should be part of character creation and advancement whenever possible. The in-game play should follow a set of rules that's easy to remember. This is the major flaw of 2e, IMO.

Not all complexity is equal. A beautiful design can be complex without being cumbersome. Think of chess, for example. It's a very complex game but also simple all at the same time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's the thing:

I want enough complexity to have interesting variety in the places I want to play in.

That's a pretty broad continuum, but it means that simplicity is not inherently a desirable goal.

It's a useful tool for those things that I don't want to spend much time on, but it is not appropriate for the things I want to be doing at the table.

Depending on the game, that's different.

In D&D, I want being a hero to be fairly complex. Too simple, and I don't feel like I'm doing anything. It can also be too complex (too much getting in the way of being a hero), but more modern games tend to err on the "too simple" side more often.

 

[maddman75]

What is your game about? Is it about swordplay and hand to hand combat? In that case intricate details like the difference between an elven thinblade an a Dwarf Waraxe might be interested. If its about other things - politics, exploration, exploring characters, etc., then it really isn't needed or wanted.

 

[Dausuul]

To me, it all boils down to gain versus cost.

Every layer of complexity added to a game imposes a cost; it reduces the level of energy at the gaming table, adds pitfalls where lack of system mastery can result in getting burned, and steepens the learning curve. So the question is: What are you getting in exchange? What does this rule add to the gaming experience and is it worth it?

Taking your example regarding weapon types: What are you planning to do with your weapon types? 4E D&D, for instance, has some very fine-grained distinctions - a longsword and a broadsword have slightly different stats. I have yet to see such distinctions provide any kind of benefit. Mostly it's just a "gotcha." "Oops, you took Focused Expertise in the longsword, but this is a broadsword! Gotcha!" "Oops, you chose to wield a broadsword, but if you crunch the numbers, you'll find the longsword is statistically a better weapon! Gotcha!"

On the other hand, there are good reasons to make distinctions between certain weapons. Verisimilitude is one; it strains credulity when a longbow and a greatsword are equally good at killing enemies from a hundred paces. Tactics is another; the "combat mini-game" is more interesting and has greater depth if the swordsman and the archer have different moves.

So, I would say you should have exactly as many weapon types as you can find ways to make unique and interesting in play. Past that, don't bother.

I can play and enjoy a simple, fast-paced game, or a detailed, complex game. Each has its appeal. But if I'm going to play the latter, I want to get my money's worth out of the complexity.

 

[Stormonu]

I like moderate to low complexity. I prefer to weapons having a somewhat different feel to them, so that an axe acts differently than a longsword, a knife and two-handed sword have their own advantages and like. At the same time, I don't want it to be so complex I'm consulting tables or having to read a paragraph of text every time I make an attack.

In my own game I've been working on (54 Fantasy), weapons have an Attack/Damage rating; attack is used to see if you hit the target, damage is used to see if the strike manages to cause a wound - all weapons deal a base of one wound. A fist is an Att +5/Dam +0 weapon (it's easy to hit someone with it, but hard to score a wound), a dagger is an Att +4/Dam +1 weapon, a short sword is an Att +3/Dam +2 weapon, a longsword Att +2/Dam +3 weapon, and up to a Two-Handed sword, which is Att +0/Dam +5 weapon. (Also, because the two-handed sword uses two hands, it deal an extra wound).

I've also worked up a "critical damage" optional system for the game (which uses cards instead of dice). When you take a critical hit, you draw a card from the deck and set it beside you; based on the card, it has a special effect such as giving a penalty to actions, slowing moving, causing a bleeding wound, etc. Generally, the lower the card, the worse the effect; however, that's offset by that card can't be used for actions (so a 2 tends to have a really detrimental effect, but an Ace, which is the highest value for performing actions, tends to have a minor effect).