Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 8663815" data-attributes="member: 467">Right. The value of complexity is entirely subjective, depending on a large number of factors mostly boiling down to &quot;what people want out of the experience of play.&quot; In the case of Vecna and his spells, some people want to model what an arch-lich should look like in the fiction while others want to optimize the stat block for utility while still others want to hew close to tradition and on and on.It is also important to note that individual points of complexity are tied up in broader system details and sometimes trying to fix one point causes a cascade of problems. My favorite example is the fiddly rules for weapons in 1E, including weapon versus armor type, weapon reach and other details that most people tossed out because they did not judge the benefit of that complexity worth the cost. But by tossing that stuff out, people inadvertently contributed to the borification of the fighter. That is, the fighter's primary advantage in 1E was their ability to use any weapon, which meant they had tools to face many kinds of opponents. By eliminating the granularity of weapon utility in tossing out those rules, all that was really left was the size of the damage die. Suddenly the fighter was boring and not especially useful compared to other martial classes, and certain when compared to clerics and magic users. The cost of reducing complexity in that case was very high, but essentially invisible to most people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 8663815, member: 467"] Right. The value of complexity is entirely subjective, depending on a large number of factors mostly boiling down to "what people want out of the experience of play." In the case of Vecna and his spells, some people want to model what an arch-lich should look like in the fiction while others want to optimize the stat block for utility while still others want to hew close to tradition and on and on. It is also important to note that individual points of complexity are tied up in broader system details and sometimes trying to fix one point causes a cascade of problems. My favorite example is the fiddly rules for weapons in 1E, including weapon versus armor type, weapon reach and other details that most people tossed out because they did not judge the benefit of that complexity worth the cost. But by tossing that stuff out, people inadvertently contributed to the borification of the fighter. That is, the fighter's primary advantage in 1E was their ability to use any weapon, which meant they had tools to face many kinds of opponents. By eliminating the granularity of weapon utility in tossing out those rules, all that was really left was the size of the damage die. Suddenly the fighter was boring and not especially useful compared to other martial classes, and certain when compared to clerics and magic users. The cost of reducing complexity in that case was very high, but essentially invisible to most people. [/QUOTE]

Verification