"I hate math"

[woodelf]

You ran a combat with 15 combatants in an hour? Blessed be. Good for you. In HERO, that same combat would have taken 5 hours. In GURPS, perhaps 3 hours. In out large gaming group a 15 person combat could take the whole 4 hour session. What are you complaining about?

I just ran a playtest of a scenario for GenCon last week. The final confrontation turned out to be a battle between 6 PCs on one side, and the Big Bad, his 13 acolytes, his lieutenant, and a literal graveyard-full of zombies on the other. Oh, and for part of it, the PCs were in 3 different locations. I think it took a bit over 30min. Or about the same amount of time it took them to locate the sinking ship, assess the situation, rescue everyone, and discover why the ship had sunk. And the PCs and the "named" NPCs were all fairly powerful supers (thus significant power and much versatility), and in a system that provides more flexibility than D&D3[.5]E can even dream about--the players can literally invent character capabilities on the fly, as well as re-write the setting and plot within limited parameters.

My point? It's all a matter of perspective and priorities. Sure, there're RPGs that tend to take longer in combat than D&D3E does (though i wouldn't've said GURPS was one of them--but that's neither here nor there). But if an hour is "too long" for your combat, then it's too long, regardless of whether that is shorter or longer than any other system, or the median for all RPGs, or whatever. If someone complains that their 1-hr combat was too long, pointing out that it was shorter than some other systems, or even that it was amazingly quick for a combat in the system they're using, doesn't really help. It's very much of the "'it hurts when i do this' 'don't do that'" school of solution, and therefore doesn't actually solve the problem.

As for the priorities part: what is important to you in in RPG? If you want complexity and mechanical detail and rules-based balance and highly-competent characters, i don't think there's much you can do to improve over the likes of HERO System, D20 System, DC Heroes, Rolemaster, et.al. But if one or more of those isn't important to you, then a solution might be available. Frex, balance doesnt' have to be based in the rules, and isn't even inherently necessary to RPGs. Or, you can have flexible, complex characters without having mechanically-detailed rules. You can, as others have suggested, stick to low-powered characters.

As an example, i'll plug the game i described above: Four Colors al Fresco. It's narrative, rather than gamist or simulationist, so it simply doesn't mechanically deal with the sorts of issues that are bugging some about high-level D&D3E play. Green Lantern would be no more complex, mechanically, than The Thing--all the complexity comes in at the level of the players and the world, rather than the rules. So it's no more of a headache to adjudicate than is a comic book. We get all the flexibility of character conception and character action, and then some, but without all the mechanical complexity. Now, obviously, some people aren't gonna find this satisfactory--which gets back to the "what do you want" bit. If you want/need the rules to actively describe all the fiddly details, or you need them to provide some sort of check-n-balance system so that all the players feel everyone is "playing fair", you're not gonna like a narrative system. <plug type=shameless>On the other hand, if you haven't actually tried another route towards satisfying gameplay, don't dismiss it out of hand. Give something like Four Colors al Fresco, Sorcerer, Dust Devils, or Donjon a try. You may discover that it's worth giving up all the numbers in order to get the gameplay you want.</plug>

You will find that in most systems as the players get tougher, the game becomes more complex.

Yeah, another symptom of the "all RPGs are basically the same, mechanically" syndrome--we need more variety in the core elements of RPGs, so that fewer of these truisms hold.

 

[woodelf]

I'll repeat my earlier question, however, and ask does a great rpg HAVE to be so complex at high level? Or, is it possible to make it a GREAT rpg, and still be simple enough to grasp quickly at higher levels. Think out of the box on this one...

How high, how often have you gone? Have you run into any pitfalls?

One of our creations, Four Colors al Fresco, could run a game with Green Lantern, the Silver Surfer, Superman, and Galactus, and it wouldn't run any less quickly than one featuring The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Phantom, and the original Batman. The powerful characters also wouldn't have significantly more complex-looking character sheets. With a detail-oriented gamist model, yes, an RPG must get more complex with greater power/flexibility in the players' hands. With a detail-oriented simulationist model, an RPG will usually get more complex as the characters get more powerful/capable. With a narrativist model, or a non-detail-oriented gamist or simulationist model, there is no necessary correlation between complexity and power level.

 

[WizarDru]

The game IS played at cons. The game IS played at FLGS's. The game IS played by players who will not all want to participate 110% of their time to "building" a character. The game IS played by people who might be challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes, with all of it's variables. If you make the above assumptions, I'll ask you...

What can we do to make the game PLAY better?
How do we make it EASIER, without losing complexity or challenge?

1. At Cons, RPGA games should expect player dedication. Throw-down 'fun' games should play fast and loose with the rules. Don't sweat the details.

2. Cull down the materials you use. You can do volumes with just the core, and you really don't need all of those extra supplements. Keep it Simple.

3. Keep your group size manageable. Four players is the percieved norm. Six players is reaching far. More than that, and you're going to be not only ignoring/boring some players most of the time, but you'll be introducing a huge amount of complexity. It's far easier to follow the mechanics if you don't have to master all of them at once.

4. Use the 'Five or it's live' rule. If a rules question comes up, give a player a couple of minutes to find an answer. If you can't find one quickly, make a ruling a move on. Never go past five minutes over a rules topic. You can always change your mind or correct for error later. Do NOT get bogged down in rules debates.

5. I'll restress the 'effects' cards. Got a 'rage' effect? Write it down on a card, and put it on the table to be seen when you're raging. Have a bard song running? PUt the effects on the card, and put it on the table. Train players to check the 'in play' effects area, and give them a pad and pencil to do the math while they're waiting for their turn. If a magic circle is running, expect the players to know if the effect is going or not.

 

[argo]

challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes

I can only assume that you've never actually taken calculus

Still, different strokes for different folks. If you really feel that the ammount of math in high level play is bringing your group down then probably the easiest solution, easier than trying to invent house rules to simplify the game, is to limit yourself to low level play. You can get a lot of gaming in under level 8, then retire the characters and start a new campagin. Any other solution will probably add at least as much complexity as it takes away, you just won't see it for a while.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Calculus, eh?

The game IS played by people who might be challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes, with all of it's variables.

You've said this a couple of times. Where is this math that you speak of? So far as I have seen, there was a deliberate effort by the designers of D20 to remove all math except simple addition and subtraction. All modifiers, bonuses, and penalties boil down to simple addition and subtraction. If you add a miss chance (which is either 20% or 50%) you may have to add a second operation when making an attack (one die roll), but that's as complex as it gets. The allusions to higher math I keep seeing in this thread seem to be based on fiction.

I really don't get where all this complexity is supposed to be coming from. If you spend five minutes before you play a new character to add up the bonuses and maybe put a little chart on the back of the sheet saying which items/spells/effects give which bonuses (and what type they are), there's not much to complicate things. If a new bonus or penalty appears (because of a spell or whatever), check to see if a bonus of that type is already applied, and if it isn't, add a new box to your little chart. Penalties are easy, since they just stack no matter what.

Doing this at level 5 is not much different than doing it at level 10, 15, or 20. It's not like every round you have to add up all your bonuses again, because they mostly stay the same from round to round. Perhaps if your cleric casts five different buff spells before the combat, you might need to take 30 seconds or so to figure out how they change your numbers, but otherwise it's pretty damn simple to add up. Then you just roll the D20, and add your modifiers, and compare to the target number. The only complicating factor is determining whether you add a bonus or not due to the bonus type. And that's stupidly easy to keep track of. It just requires some minor organization of the character sheet. If you're adding all your modifiers each round, along with the "I get +X from spell A, +Y from spell B, etc." litany, you're doing something wrong.

With iterative attacks, things get slightly more complex. But not really. You just need to know two things:
1. I have X attacks each round on a full-round action
2. I subtract 5 from each subsequent attack until I hit X attacks.
That's it. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

If you aren't willing to keep track of multiple bonus types and the Mensa-level challenge of iterative attacks makes your head swim, just house rule that there are only unnamed bonuses, and that you may have no more than three on you at once. Then, eliminate iterative attacks and two-weapon fighting. There you go. One attack each round, no more than four numbers (including BAB) to keep track of. If a new bonus appears, check to see if it's bigger than an existing bonus. If it is, drop your lowest existing bonus and keep the new one. You should be able to do that math on your fingers.

 

[jmucchiello]

Yeah, another symptom of the "all RPGs are basically the same, mechanically" syndrome--we need more variety in the core elements of RPGs, so that fewer of these truisms hold.

The only RPG I know that doesn't get more complex as the players gain in power (in games where character CAN appreciably gain in power) is RISUS. RISUS is a narrative game. All conflict is resolved the same way, be it swordplay or speed basket weaving. The winner of the conflict determines the outcome of the conflict. The losing swordsman cries in shame. The losing basket weaver impales himself fatally on a piece of wicker. Not every group is capable of that level of narrative play though.

POINT2: The title to this thread is wrong. The math is not complex in high level play. The interaction of choices is complex. You have to know that some +2 bonus to your AC is a deflection bonus, not a dodge bonus even though they are similar in effect. Some find this too complex to deal with. I wish the title of the thread were changed to "too many bonus categories".

 

[Nifft]

I wish the title of the thread were changed to "too many bonus categories".

"and too many special situational modifiers."

-- N

 

[ashockney]

I can only assume that you've never actually taken calculus

Still, different strokes for different folks. If you really feel that the ammount of math in high level play is bringing your group down then probably the easiest solution, easier than trying to invent house rules to simplify the game, is to limit yourself to low level play. You can get a lot of gaming in under level 8, then retire the characters and start a new campagin. Any other solution will probably add at least as much complexity as it takes away, you just won't see it for a while.

You're right, no calculus for me. Bleh! In college, that is, because I tested out in high school. I'd had enough of that crap!

Please show me a formula that calculates the probability of doing 140 hit points of damage a round to a Fire Giant with a 21 AC, when you're playing the following character:

Here's a great example from Origins: A fighter/rogue with Expert Tactician, 4d6 sneak attack, a holy weapon, and Greater Invisibility, (Mass) Haste, and had drunk a potion of Bull's Strength. Wielding a keen falchion with improved crit. Now, her bonuses to hit were pre-calc'd with bull's str, but not the +1 from haste (from party), or the +2 from fighting invis, or the +2 if she could get flanking. The attack routine could be anywhere from one - four depending upon movement, haste, and expert tactician. If she hit, she has a 45% chance of threatening. For each hit, she deals 2d4+8 damage per swing +4d6 sneak +2d6 holy (what multiplies)? At the end of this little routine, the cleric reminded them that they just cast prayer for another +1 to hit and damage to each roll. (Rolling to hit required up to 8 rolls with up to six modifiers, and damage required rolling and adding up 8 dice per attack times 4 attacks + with up to seven modifiers per attack).

You're absolutely correct, the number of variables, and the number of modifiers, and the types of modifiers also play HEAVILY into the complexity.

THANK YOU to everyone who's given me advice on how to improve my home campaign. My home campaign is fine, however, and I've run two campaigns to 20th, and another to 32nd. Not the issue. The amount of time and complexity to do that IS the issue. I'm challenging you to get out of the box and THINK! Can't we have as good a game, without it being too complex?

The title of the thread is a direct quote from two different people at my table at Origins, that's why I chose it as the title, instead of something like "simplifying high level DnD to improve 4th Edition" as the title.

 

[ashockney]

...just house rule that there are only unnamed bonuses, and that you may have no more than three on you at once. Then, eliminate iterative attacks and two-weapon fighting. There you go. One attack each round, no more than four numbers (including BAB) to keep track of. If a new bonus appears, check to see if it's bigger than an existing bonus. If it is, drop your lowest existing bonus and keep the new one. You should be able to do that math on your fingers.

Now we're getting somewhere. Interesting concept. Do you have to have over a dozen different types of bonuses? Could there be some fluidity to the type and number of bonuses that stack? What if there were fewer types of bonuses, but they grew much higher at higher levels?

For example, instead of having luck (up to +5), morale (up to +5), and sacred up to +5) (divine) bonuses for cleric/divine abilities and effects, what if there were only DIVINE bonuses, that would grant up to +15 to an ability. So, at lower levels, you could have only a +1 - +3, at mid levels you could get a +3 - +5, from 12th - 16th you might see a +5 - +10, and from 16th - epic you may be able to achieve up to a +15 with the highest level spells.

Interesting concept. Why not? Far less "variables" to track. Simpler, yet not relinquishing the tactical effectiveness and challenge.

 

[Corinth]

You missed the "for me"s in there. Some of us want dynamic challenge-confronting storytelling out of our RPGs. And others want still other things. Even "fun" is not the least common denominator of why people play RPGs, so you certainly can't make a blanket statement that RPGs are not for "storytelling".

Yes, I can. A story, as a work of the humanities, exists to transmit an original discovery of natural law from the teller to the recipient in a manner consistent with the manner by which that discovery originally occured. There is no such process extant in tabletop RPGs, ergo it is not a storytelling medium.