Legends & Lore 3/12

[I'm A Banana]

Mearls calls us all geniuses and then asks us how complex we like things.

I'm getting the impression that Mearls has a bias. Mearls likes complexity. Mearls likes options. Mearls would love to give everyone 20 options of things to do on their turn.

I am not so on board.

I do dispute the conclusion that complexity is a tendency of a gaming community.

He compares the controller for the Atari 2600 to the controller for the Xbox 360, and makes the case that there is a "tendency toward complexity."

He neglects the system that won the most recent console wars (the Wii) and the newest control scheme that fascinates players (the Kinect) and the expanding market for touchscreen games and devices for gaming.

All these things have a feature in common: They are simpler.

In the case of the Kinect, we don't have 16 buttons, we have ZERO.

Complexity is not a tendency.

The fact is, all those buttons were trying to do one thing: give you a way to better control your character. It turns out, the most efficient way to do that is not to add more buttons, but to take away buttons. Give people a more direct path to what they want to do. Streamline the experience.

If we were to apply that discovery to D&D, we would see that the most efficient way to design the game is to design it so that you give people a direct path to the "D&D experience."

Which is, broadly speaking, rolling dice and pretending to be a fantasy hero.

Options are only useful as much as they enable that experience, and the best control scheme isn't the one with the most things you can tweak, it's the one where everything you can tweak, you want to tweak.

Anyway, lets hear your opinions!

 

[Aegeri]

I think the poll is the most telling thing in the entire article. Check out that ~70% of players combining the first and second group who responded weren't interested in the "stripped down" fighter.

I personally find 4E has the perfect mix of complexity compared to simplicity. It's on a knife edge a bit in places - like how the rules for interrupts/opportunity actions and such function at times - but in general it's probably just about right. I wouldn't mind some things being streamlined a bit more, for example most out of turn attacks being either an immediate interrupt or reaction (to stop out of turn attack spam).

The fact is, all those buttons were trying to do one thing: give you a way to better control your character. It turns out, the most efficient way to do that is not to add more buttons, but to take away buttons.

I don't know if you've used Kinect, but most of the games are an entirely uncontrollable mess. Some of them work really well though, for example Dance Central is a lot of fun - but Kinect is not very good at certain games whatsoever. Also the best Wii games are frequently those that use the least motion controls - or do so in a really intuitive manner (like Metroid Prime 3).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know if you've used Kinect, but most of the games are an entirely uncontrollable mess. Some of them work really well though, for example Dance Central is a lot of fun - but Kinect is not very good at certain games whatsoever. Also the best Wii games are frequently those that use the least motion controls - or do so in a really intuitive manner (like Metroid Prime 3).

This tendency is bigger than any one specific example. Fact is, Microsoft didn't trump the Xbox 360 controller with a new Xbox 360 controller with even more buttons. It trumped it by getting rid of the controller altogether.

More complexity (from more options) isn't going to make you happier (though most people think it will).

Seriously, look at The Paradox of Choice. Smarter minds than mine have looked at this before.

 

[Aegeri]

To be honest, the only reason I like building slayers in my examples I use sometimes on this forum is because they are simple to build. I would be bored stiff playing a slayer after a month in actual play though. I far prefer the much more complex fighter to either the knight or slayer.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think the poll is the most telling thing in the entire article. Check out that ~70% of players combining the first and second group who responded weren't interested in the "stripped down" fighter.

I personally find 4E has the perfect mix of complexity compared to simplicity. It's on a knife edge a bit in places - like how the rules for interrupts/opportunity actions and such function at times - but in general it's probably just about right. I wouldn't mind some things being streamlined a bit more, for example most out of turn attacks being either an immediate interrupt or reaction (to stop out of turn attack spam).

I don't know if you've used Kinect, but most of the games are an entirely uncontrollable mess. Some of them work really well though, for example Dance Central is a lot of fun - but Kinect is not very good at certain games whatsoever. Also the best Wii games are frequently those that use the least motion controls - or do so in a really intuitive manner (like Metroid Prime 3).

I agree with you, Aegeri.

I agree that 4e has nearly the perfect balance of complexity and streamlined design, IMO especially after adding Essentials options for those who want less bookkeeping.

I also agree about the issue of Wii controls. Best damn game I've played for it (as far as controls) was Blazing Angels. Flight controls were very, very good for an action game like that (except for the damn Norway canyon level - grrr). And Metroid is just awesome in (nearly) any incarnation.

The problem sometimes with neat-o new control schemes (and this probably applies to RPG rules too) is that sometimes they just become gimmicky and you are forced to use them even though the old solution may have been better suited to the task.

 

[ppaladin123]

I don't find 4e more or less complex than 3e; I find it less "fiddly." Between the constant changes to ability scores through buffs, debuffs, damage, negative levels, etc. and the sheer number of minions, auras, xd6 duration effects and so forth, a round of 3e can quickly turn into a nightmarish slog as players and DM alike struggle to keep track of all the adjustments and temporary modifiers. With some exceptions (I am looking at you Runepriest), 4e has avoided that pitfall. I just don't think complexity is a relevant dimension of comparison in this case.

And the number of options and mechanics doesn't equal complexity anyway. A 14 step character creation process can be simple and streamlined compared to a 4-step process if the steps themselves are more intuitive and less mentally taxing. A "simple" melee class in 3e can be amazingly complex in play, especially when you are trying to figure out hit bonuses/penalties or initiate a special maneuver.

These polls seem wrongheaded. I'm reminder of Donnie Darko; try to fit every human interaction on a uni-dimensional scale between fear and love.

Also, I get the feeling that each week we are witnessing desperate marketing research in the guise of a magazine column. Please tell us what you like!

 

[ppaladin123]

I agree with you, Aegeri.

I agree that 4e has nearly the perfect balance of complexity and streamlined design, IMO especially after adding Essentials options for those who want less bookkeeping.

I also agree about the issue of Wii controls. Best damn game I've played for it (as far as controls) was Blazing Angels. Flight controls were very, very good for an action game like that (except for the damn Norway canyon level - grrr). And Metroid is just awesome in (nearly) any incarnation.

The problem sometimes with neat-o new control schemes (and this probably applies to RPG rules too) is that sometimes they just become gimmicky and you are forced to use them even though the old solution may have been better suited to the task.

Best example of that: New Super Mario Brothers Wii. The controls are needlessly complex. Why, for example, do I have to shake up and down on the controller to pick something up? I used to be able to do it quite simply with the old 8-bit NES controller. The motion sensor has turned into a defining gimic for the Wii and it is used even when games would be better without that particular function.

 

[Dannager]

Also, I get the feeling that each week we are witnessing desperate marketing research in the guise of a magazine column. Please tell us what you like!

There's a pretty significant flaw inherent in this suspicion: WotC engages in real marketing research through their website, and they get plenty of responses. They don't need Mike Mearls conducting polling so informal as to be worthless for their marketing team.

I think the far more likely (by way of parsimony) answer is that he's including poll questions because they help drive future discussion, and they add a level of interactiveness to the column. And, to a certain extent, I'm sure the answers to the polls can help give the designers some ideas, especially since this kind of informal polling can go from conception to final poll results in a few days' time.

If you're ever unclear as to whether something is marketing research or not, ask yourself if they are asking you about your current, past, and prospective future spending habits. If they are, it's probably marketing research. If they aren't, it's probably informal polling for the hell of it.

 

[delericho]

I usually enjoy (and mostly agree with) these columns, but not this one.

In our last D&D (4e) campaign, I somehow fell into the role of rules expert, by virtue of being the one person in the group to have actually read the rules. I found myself constantly having to explain things to others, over and over again. And not just difficult things: the difference between At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers; the different action types (and why those two things weren't the same); the order of the steps in a character's turn (ongoing damage, then actions, then saves); the fact that the power cards already had the totals calculated, so you don't add you ability bonus on top since it's already included...

For some reason, I had to explain that last one every single session, and sometimes multiple times per session.

By the time I'd explained the same thing for the dozenth time, I concluded that yes, 4e is too complex.

I think Mearls is right when he suggests that the trend towards complexity is due to people looking for a deeper game experience. Where I think he's off-base is the assumption that people are right in thinking more complexity will give them that. Layering more and more complexity on the game doesn't necessarily make for a better game, just a more complex one.

This can also be seen in his end poll about the different editions of D&D. The thing is, while 3e probably is more complex than 2nd Edition, the much better presentation and organisation of the rules meant that that complexity was both much more intuitive and easier to handle. Without so many exceptions, micro-rules and special cases to deal with, players are able to just memorise a few key rules, and play (mostly).

Mearls also doesn't address is the different types of complexity in 3e and 4e. On balance, these are probably equivalently complex games, but whereas much of 3e's complexity is contained in character management (and the hunt for the 'perfect' build), 4e's complexity seems mostly to come from a lot of short-term conditions that keep appearing and disappearing during the combat.

I don't really have a position on the 'ideal' level and type of complexity for the game. All I can state is my preference: everything beyond core rules 3.0e has been too complex for my taste (with the exception of SWSE, which I thought was ideal). And even core rules 3.0e had significant problems in some areas.

If these columns are indeed a precursor to 5e, then I'm suddenly a lot more apprehensive than I was previously. I am simply not interested in any 5e that is as complex as 4e (or 3e plus supplements, or Pathfinder). That's one of my deal-breakers.

 

[Ryujin]

Our group's Pacifist Cleric suffers from "analysis paralysis" as it is. The same player took forever to make decisions, in earlier editions. MORE complex? You've GOT to be kidding!

I also find the reference to video game controllers vaguely insulting, in the context of an article about role playing.