How much math should RPGs require?

[Deset Gled]

I think linear algebra might be too much for most players. Most RPGs should stick to basic arithmetic—addition and subtraction work well for hit points and damage. Adding layers of complexity, like differential geometry, could alienate casual gamers. Many just want to enjoy the game without doing complex math. It’s all about balance.

Welcome to the boards. Two thoughts for you.

First, you are quoting an early post in a thread that is about a year old. There are no rules against necromancy and you won't upset anyone, but expect that some points may already have been discussed, and some people may not respond.

Second, relating to the math you referenced. Linear algebra is more or less the eventual outcome of the basic addition and subtraction you describe. When there's only one variable, like making a simple skill check, things stay simple. But these variables eventually start to combine, like to-hit rolls, damage rolls, and other bonuses. Once that happens and players start to try and optimize tactics with multiple variables, you rapidly find yourself in the middle of linear algebra. Of course, how it is presented matters. You can absolutely have players doing linear algebra without knowing it.

 

[aramis erak]

My own preference is limited multiplications in play, and only double digit addition/subtraction most of the time.

I don't mind some triple digit add/sub if my group doesn't need calculators for it.

For char gen, I don't mind up to 4 digit add/sub, and 2 x 2 digit multiplications; square and cube roots are grumble-zone, and other roots (BTRC with an exponent of 0.87 in one calculation) are just a pain.

note that all RPGs I've read (hundreds of them) use basic algebra... as al-Gebra's basic idea is that of variables... and all use a variable or more...

Addition and subtraction of single digit numbers is as complex as it should get.

that rules out everything D&D... as double digit addition/subtraction is needed in various points in all...

 

[dragoner]

I'm reading a post that talks about levelling up/skill up/what have you, and seeing some algebra involved: at level x-1 you need x experience points to do (some cool thing). Now, this process is probably written out in plain language or found in a table, so there's no actual Solve For X required. But it raises the question...

How much math skill can an RPG expect from its players?

The lowest level is, what, compare high/low? Or identify numbers (did I roll a 6 or not)?
Then you get notorious addition and its dark sibling, subtraction. Hit points love these guys.
Multiply: critical times 2! Divide: energy resistance!
Exponents I have not seen, but it seems like something for a warmech game or mass warfare.
And then there's algebra. This is ripe for GM-designed puzzles, but do the rules ever call for algebra? Is it too much? For example, should a character's carrying capacity x equal her heart score times 5? What if the number of appearing goblins x should equal the current hit points of the party members y divided by 10?

For reference, Modos 2 uses compare high/low (e.g. contests and damage), addition (e.g. add hero point roll to contest), subtraction (protection from damage), and division (use half of the highest roll). The one place where I see algebra is possibly my least favorite part of the game: with the Bonus Action perk, you gain bonus actions x equal to your normal attribute less 11, then divided by four (round down). Evidently, I lean toward 5th grade levels of math expectations, because now I'd rather use a Bonus Action perk that just says: "you gain a bonus action if you are 5th level. You can take this perk again to gain additional bonus actions after levels 9, 13, and 17."

I do a lot of math for a living so I am not really the target audience, though my feelings are like don't make me do math for nothing, which I often see.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I do a lot of math for a living so I am not really the target audience, though my feelings are like don't make me do math for nothing, which I often see.

I'd argue its rarely "for nothing" though it may well be for purposes you personally don't care about.

 

[overgeeked]

I'd argue its rarely "for nothing" though it may well be for purposes you personally don't care about.

Well, it more depends on what you mean by the "for nothing" part. Take D&D as an example. In both 4E and 5E the leveling math, the bonuses you get, skills you gain, stat bonuses, etc, are all for nothing in the sense that the monsters advance at exactly the same pace as the PCs, so you're not gaining a thing. But, bigger numbers make people feel like they're advancing (even when they're not). So is the feeling of advancing (but not) worthwhile? Is that enough of a something to be justified? It depends entirely on the person. If the person cares quite a lot about the power fantasy and feeling of advancement in D&D, they tend to get quite mad when you pull back the curtain and point out that they're treading water instead of properly advancing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd argue even that isn't, per se, "for nothing"; you may spend most of your time fighting things where the extra numbers don't matter, but they give you a sense that the things you're fighting are that much more dangerous but you can handle them, and that's you'd chew up the things and problems you dealt with earlier in your career much more easily.

(We may just be saying the same thing different ways.)

And of course I agree with your last part. This comes up in terms of games that define characters in great detail as compared to those that do so in broad strokes; a lot of people just don't care about some of that detail so its just extra complexity for no purpose, but for those that do its hardly a waste.

 

[dragoner]

I'd argue its rarely "for nothing" though it may well be for purposes you personally don't care about.

You are literally arguing about nothing. lol

 

[Thomas Shey]

You are literally arguing about nothing. lol

I'm afraid I don't see how. I've seen this argument before, and as Overgeeked above says, one man's "math for nothing" (which you said you often see) is another man's "serving a purpose that concerns me." About the only time its "for nothing" is cases when its doing something no one cares about, which I can't say I've ever seen.

 

[dragoner]

I'm afraid I don't see how. I've seen this argument before, and as Overgeeked above says, one man's "math for nothing" (which you said you often see) is another man's "serving a purpose that concerns me." About the only time its "for nothing" is cases when its doing something no one cares about, which I can't say I've ever seen.

haha Baby pigeon theory: you don't see them, though you know they exist. However, that isn't my opinion of for nothing anyways. It's more like having a subsystem where you have to square the circle with calculating vehicle horsepower, and then the results only satisfy some mini game, and could easier be done by merely assigning a value. People will like anything though, I'm not going by that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

haha Baby pigeon theory: you don't see them, though you know they exist. However, that isn't my opinion of for nothing anyways. It's more like having a subsystem where you have to square the circle with calculating vehicle horsepower, and then the results only satisfy some mini game, and could easier be done by merely assigning a value. People will like anything though, I'm not going by that.

So, purposes you don't care about? Which is what I said?