Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nothing to see here" data-source="post: 2389240" data-attributes="member: 16432">You're right...The simple fact is -- if we want to create some sort of half-way objective ranking system for RPG complexity, PLAY EXPERIENCE CANNOT BE USED AS A DEFINITION.&nbsp; It's counter-intuitive, but true.&nbsp; Play experience is what you use to measure different systems...not define them.Which brings us back to the first debate...you take any three systems...hold the core bokks in your hands...how do you define them in terms of rules complexity.Here are some starting ideas:1) Number of independant, rules dependant components of character creation: (For example D&amp;D 3.5 has now fewer than 7...&nbsp; Abilities/Race/Class/Skills/Feats/Equipment/Class features(spells).2) Number of Core Action combinations available during an 'action' (in combat)3) The number of 'fluid' variables (i.e. HP) that require tracking during a game siting.4) The number of steps/dice rolled to resolve an attack in a combat (assuming combat resolution is a key mechanic in your game).5) the number (and kind) of different dice required to play the game6) the number of different tables required to play the game.7) The number of supplements available (altenately the number of supplements required to play the game)8) The number of rules prefaced as exceptions to the standard resolution mechanic.9 ) (hard to measure) the relative quality of indexing in the game's rules material (perhaps as a ratio to rule text references).Those (in my opinion) are all QUANTITATIVE variables that apply across different systems and can be used to rank the relative rules 'heaviness' of a game.&nbsp; Is it perfect?...no.&nbsp; Subjective?...no.&nbsp; But, still, a good place to start.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nothing to see here, post: 2389240, member: 16432"] You're right...The simple fact is -- if we want to create some sort of half-way objective ranking system for RPG complexity, PLAY EXPERIENCE CANNOT BE USED AS A DEFINITION. It's counter-intuitive, but true. Play experience is what you use to measure different systems...not define them. Which brings us back to the first debate...you take any three systems...hold the core bokks in your hands...how do you define them in terms of rules complexity. Here are some starting ideas: 1) Number of independant, rules dependant components of character creation: (For example D&D 3.5 has now fewer than 7... Abilities/Race/Class/Skills/Feats/Equipment/Class features(spells). 2) Number of Core Action combinations available during an 'action' (in combat) 3) The number of 'fluid' variables (i.e. HP) that require tracking during a game siting. 4) The number of steps/dice rolled to resolve an attack in a combat (assuming combat resolution is a key mechanic in your game). 5) the number (and kind) of different dice required to play the game 6) the number of different tables required to play the game. 7) The number of supplements available (altenately the number of supplements required to play the game) 8) The number of rules prefaced as exceptions to the standard resolution mechanic. 9 ) (hard to measure) the relative quality of indexing in the game's rules material (perhaps as a ratio to rule text references). Those (in my opinion) are all QUANTITATIVE variables that apply across different systems and can be used to rank the relative rules 'heaviness' of a game. Is it perfect?...no. Subjective?...no. But, still, a good place to start. [/QUOTE]

Verification