Argyle King
Legend
I like for there to be an equal amount of complexity out of combat as there is in combat. The smooth talking bard should be just as viable in a party as the no-personality-hack & slash fighter.
How much complexity is right for you?
- Thread starter Verdande
- Start date
I want a lot of complexity for the things that the game is focused on and considerably less complexity for everything else. Things that occur often in the game and are important need to offer enough variety to stay enjoyable, hence the requirement for higher complexity.
Apart from that I'd rather have a complex basic system that is reused with minimal alterations to model different situations. I also strongly dislike everything I cannot memorize, i.e. everything requiring tables.
Apart from that I'd rather have a complex basic system that is reused with minimal alterations to model different situations. I also strongly dislike everything I cannot memorize, i.e. everything requiring tables.
Verdande
First Post
Thanks for the help, guys. I'm leaning towards keeping my Weapon Qualities table, but probably simplifying it out even more. As it is, I've got 14 weapons between 8 weapon qualities, since some of them are one-or-the-other deals (like Large vs Small or Heavy vs Light.) Even then, though, when I had my playtest I noticed that they gravitated towards one or two weapons, so it might take tweaking.
Like somebody up further said, there's no real reason to put extremely detailed stats down on a weapon, other than as a "gotcha", as in "You specialized in mace? Gotcha! You should have picked Heavy Flail, it's better in every way!" or whatever.
I think that if you have to crack open a book at actual playtime, then your rules need some rework. I'm not the type that particularly enjoys opening a book and doing math when the game starts, so there's no reason that the game I write should do that, right?
Like somebody up further said, there's no real reason to put extremely detailed stats down on a weapon, other than as a "gotcha", as in "You specialized in mace? Gotcha! You should have picked Heavy Flail, it's better in every way!" or whatever.
I think that if you have to crack open a book at actual playtime, then your rules need some rework. I'm not the type that particularly enjoys opening a book and doing math when the game starts, so there's no reason that the game I write should do that, right?
Starfox
Hero
I like detail in my games - if that detail is meaningful. I abhor small modifiers that clutter things up. In my own games, I tend to dramatize the individual characteristics of weapons to make the various choices meaningful, not merely small trite modifiers.
In a Swashbuckling game, the difference between a rapier and a cutlass should have an impact on how you play. If it doesn't, you might as well make them identical. That the rapier weights 3lb and the cutlass 2lb or the exact length of each is not meaningful information - it is trivia for weapon aficionados. That the rapier can riposte and the cutlass cannot is much more interesting.
In a Swashbuckling game, the difference between a rapier and a cutlass should have an impact on how you play. If it doesn't, you might as well make them identical. That the rapier weights 3lb and the cutlass 2lb or the exact length of each is not meaningful information - it is trivia for weapon aficionados. That the rapier can riposte and the cutlass cannot is much more interesting.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
I like to start at what I'd call "elegant simplicity": simple enough to be easily understood, not so simple as to be insulting. The best comparisson I can think of right now is board games: roll a die/pair of dice, consult something, something happens.
When it get to doing things that need to be complicated because they are complicated things to do, I'd go for "medium complexity": hard enough that you won't do them all the time and not so hard that you won't do it at all.
Options should have a complexity that fits how hard the action is to do.
Also, I like my systems a little dice heavy: I don't like static defense.
When it get to doing things that need to be complicated because they are complicated things to do, I'd go for "medium complexity": hard enough that you won't do them all the time and not so hard that you won't do it at all.
Options should have a complexity that fits how hard the action is to do.
Also, I like my systems a little dice heavy: I don't like static defense.
How much complexity is right for me depends on my mood. In generally, I prefer moderate complexity. That is, I want options to be available and choices to matter, but I don't want to perform complex calculations to try to figure out what is going on.
As far as weapons go, I like weapon complexity between these two levels:
1. Very little weapon differentiation - All weapons of a given type are basically the same, only the name is changed. Weapons are distinguished by qualities such as light/medium/heavy, one-handed or two-handed, and ranged or melee, with the possible addition of properties such as reach.
2. Significant weapon differentiation - Weapons are distinguished by a few key qualities that matter. D&D 4e is around this level, with the qualities being weapon bonus to hit, damage, and a few properties. There are also key classes such as swords, axes, and polearms that play differently for classes and characters that focus on weapon use.
I am not generally a fan of weapons that are super-simplified (i.e. weapons just add bonus dice to attack or damage), weapons that are strictly inferior to other weapons, or weapons that are differentiated by minor things that don't really matter (i.e. if the only difference is cost, then either the cost difference should matter or it's a waste of space).
As far as weapons go, I like weapon complexity between these two levels:
1. Very little weapon differentiation - All weapons of a given type are basically the same, only the name is changed. Weapons are distinguished by qualities such as light/medium/heavy, one-handed or two-handed, and ranged or melee, with the possible addition of properties such as reach.
2. Significant weapon differentiation - Weapons are distinguished by a few key qualities that matter. D&D 4e is around this level, with the qualities being weapon bonus to hit, damage, and a few properties. There are also key classes such as swords, axes, and polearms that play differently for classes and characters that focus on weapon use.
I am not generally a fan of weapons that are super-simplified (i.e. weapons just add bonus dice to attack or damage), weapons that are strictly inferior to other weapons, or weapons that are differentiated by minor things that don't really matter (i.e. if the only difference is cost, then either the cost difference should matter or it's a waste of space).
1Mac
First Post
Zhaleskra call for "elegant simplicity" reminds me that my own preferred way of thinking about complexity is not "simple vs complex," but "elegant vs complex" and "simple vs robust." That is; a simple system has ease of use at the expense of meaningful choices, while a robust system offers scads of meaningful choices but necessarily has a steeper learning curve, in order to understand all the possibilities the system offers. "Simple vs robust" is a design choice. "Elegant vs complex," on the other hand, should not be a choice, and elegance should always be preferred. Elegance is doing more with less, and complexity is doing less with more. A robust game will always be more complex than a simple game, but even a robust game should be as elegant as possible. Undue complexity is superfluous. The design goals of a game like Rifts are robust, but the game (IMO) is unduly complex. A game like Nexus has similar goals, but is a much more elegant game.
Paradoxically, you could have a "simple-complex" game, where there are few meaningful choices, and a lot of meaningless ones. Tables and tables of weapons that are fundamentally similar would be an example.
One way to make a robust system more elegant is to divide a big list of choices into two shorter lists. Consider races and classes in DnD. In older editions, you could choose a race or a class (that is, races were classes). When you could choose a race and a class, character creation became much more robust without much more complexity.
Thinking along these lines about weapons, consider a short list of weapon types that can have one of a short list of qualities applied to it. You can get the same degree of robustness as a long list of weapons, without the same degree of complexity.
Paradoxically, you could have a "simple-complex" game, where there are few meaningful choices, and a lot of meaningless ones. Tables and tables of weapons that are fundamentally similar would be an example.
One way to make a robust system more elegant is to divide a big list of choices into two shorter lists. Consider races and classes in DnD. In older editions, you could choose a race or a class (that is, races were classes). When you could choose a race and a class, character creation became much more robust without much more complexity.
Thinking along these lines about weapons, consider a short list of weapon types that can have one of a short list of qualities applied to it. You can get the same degree of robustness as a long list of weapons, without the same degree of complexity.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
I thought I'd hinted that "elegant simplicity" was just the starting point. That is, if I have to open the book to get the gist of the basic rules, it's not elegant even if it is simple. Basically I like to be able to keep the core of the game in my head (or at most on an index card), and only refer to the books or reference sheets (screens) when an action is necessarily complex.
Similar Threads
