Units of game-design complexity?
- Thread starter gribble
- Start date
cybertalus
First Post
I think we should use hats.
It's well known that a hat of d02 knows no limit (which equates to infinity). Since a d20 has 10 times as many numbers on it as a d02, it's pretty simple to determine that the complexity level of a d20-based game is 10 times infinity.
It's well known that a hat of d02 knows no limit (which equates to infinity). Since a d20 has 10 times as many numbers on it as a d02, it's pretty simple to determine that the complexity level of a d20-based game is 10 times infinity.
Hussar
Legend
rugbyman said:The time honored way is to name units after the people most associated with their use/development. Especially once they die.
But since most of the people associated with RPG development are still alive, name the units after TSR. Afterall, TSR made RPG's widespread and its gone!
"My word, building that dragon was 10 TSR's worth of headache!"
Get's my vote.
How about a factorial system like what they use for earthquakes? Y'know, 2 TSR's is twice as bad as 1 and 3 is three times worse than two and six times worse than one.
10 TSR's is just mindblowing. As in the pulling the trigger and painting the walls kind of mind blowing.
DarkKestral
First Post
Nifft said:
So.. a Thac0's defined as 1 TSR/Round?
and a TSR's defined as 1 Thac0/(6s*((# of turns per 6s)/((# of PCs)+(# of Opponents)+(# of NPCs)))
I'll add another post in favor of Gygaxes. If we're going to measure this even pseudoscientifically, may as well stick to reasonably scientific conventions. Besides, the convenient abbreviation (for writing out the unit in long texts full of unit references) would likely be gx, which is unlikely to be confused with any other unit abbreviation I'm aware of. The TSR is effectively its own abbreviation- it's one letter longer and really just doesn't look right in lowercase (tsrs vs. TSRs).
But, one thing that occurred to me reading this is, if we get a way to measure game complexity, this might lead to an objective measure of DM skill; as in, "Hey, he ran that 10-gygax monster without breaking a sweat, and crushed the PCs with it besides! I could never do that, the best I can do is a 5-gygax one on a good day. With lots of Mountain Dew."
This, in turn, would lead to a real DM rating system, like we see in Knights of the Dinner Table for Hackmaster GMs. Being accredited "level X" means you can successfully run Y-gygax monsters without forgetting anything or needing to look it up. Would this be a good thing, or a bad thing, I wonder? Probably a bit of both, but how?
EDIT: After re-reading the thread about "Preserving the Sweet Spot- a Rebuttal," I have to think that this would be more good than bad. From the posts being made on that thread, it looks to me like the majority of people are intimidated away from high-level play because of the extreme complexity of it- but the fact of the matter is, what is horrifically difficult for some people to keep in their heads or figure out is a cakewalk to others. Having a semi-objective measure of game complexity could change the vitriol associated with all these arguments about the game "breaking down" at high levels to something more positive. We'd start seeing threads on "Is it possible to run a high-level, low-gygax game?" or "Anybody running 10gx games in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area?" instead of "Let's get rid of the higher levels" or other similar notions.
It might also help alleviate DM frustration in that those who find themselves unable to run super-complex games have a better idea of where to draw the line, so that they can either work on improving, or know where to stop, instead of trying to bite off more than they can chew multiple times and/or getting burnt out on GMing. Game quality in general should improve as a result, yes?
But, one thing that occurred to me reading this is, if we get a way to measure game complexity, this might lead to an objective measure of DM skill; as in, "Hey, he ran that 10-gygax monster without breaking a sweat, and crushed the PCs with it besides! I could never do that, the best I can do is a 5-gygax one on a good day. With lots of Mountain Dew."
This, in turn, would lead to a real DM rating system, like we see in Knights of the Dinner Table for Hackmaster GMs. Being accredited "level X" means you can successfully run Y-gygax monsters without forgetting anything or needing to look it up. Would this be a good thing, or a bad thing, I wonder? Probably a bit of both, but how?
EDIT: After re-reading the thread about "Preserving the Sweet Spot- a Rebuttal," I have to think that this would be more good than bad. From the posts being made on that thread, it looks to me like the majority of people are intimidated away from high-level play because of the extreme complexity of it- but the fact of the matter is, what is horrifically difficult for some people to keep in their heads or figure out is a cakewalk to others. Having a semi-objective measure of game complexity could change the vitriol associated with all these arguments about the game "breaking down" at high levels to something more positive. We'd start seeing threads on "Is it possible to run a high-level, low-gygax game?" or "Anybody running 10gx games in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area?" instead of "Let's get rid of the higher levels" or other similar notions.
It might also help alleviate DM frustration in that those who find themselves unable to run super-complex games have a better idea of where to draw the line, so that they can either work on improving, or know where to stop, instead of trying to bite off more than they can chew multiple times and/or getting burnt out on GMing. Game quality in general should improve as a result, yes?
Last edited:
Nifft
Penguin Herder
I think we need several dimensions of TSRs, too.
- Tactical TSR: monsters, spells, effects
- Politial TSR: states, rulers, agendas
- Social TSR: people, places, things
High level play is extremely demanding becasue the PCs not only are involved in high-TSR combats, but they are also mobile enough to have a lot of social interactions, and are powerful enough to become embroiled in (or causes of) ploitical conflict.
C, -- N
- Tactical TSR: monsters, spells, effects
- Politial TSR: states, rulers, agendas
- Social TSR: people, places, things
High level play is extremely demanding becasue the PCs not only are involved in high-TSR combats, but they are also mobile enough to have a lot of social interactions, and are powerful enough to become embroiled in (or causes of) ploitical conflict.
C, -- N
Remathilis
Legend
I like the idea of TSRs as the measure.
Of course, it should be on a sliding scale from 10 to -10. (10 is least complex, -10 is mind-numbing inpossible)
10 Goblins, Kobolds
09 Simple Traps, Orcs
08 Gnolls, Bugbears, Mindless Undead
07 Ghouls, Ogres, Fey
06 Constructs, Giants, Most PC classes
05 Celestial/Fiendish creatures
04 Elementals
03 Magical Traps, Psionics
02 Prestige Classes
01 Templated Creatures
00 Lycanthropes
-1 Vampires and Liches
-2 Non-Spellcasting Dragons
-3 Most Abberations (Beholders and Mindflayers)
-4 Most Demons, Devils and Celestials
-5 Tarrasque(s)
-6 Spellcasting Dragons
-7 Balors, Pit Fiends, Solars
-8 Any Epic Monster or NPC
-9 Demon Princes or Devil Lords
-10 Deities or Avatars
Most Everything else can fit somewhere in there. Spells would be 10 - SL (with certain spells being much father, like wish/miracle being around -1 TSRs)
Of course, it should be on a sliding scale from 10 to -10. (10 is least complex, -10 is mind-numbing inpossible)
10 Goblins, Kobolds
09 Simple Traps, Orcs
08 Gnolls, Bugbears, Mindless Undead
07 Ghouls, Ogres, Fey
06 Constructs, Giants, Most PC classes
05 Celestial/Fiendish creatures
04 Elementals
03 Magical Traps, Psionics
02 Prestige Classes
01 Templated Creatures
00 Lycanthropes
-1 Vampires and Liches
-2 Non-Spellcasting Dragons
-3 Most Abberations (Beholders and Mindflayers)
-4 Most Demons, Devils and Celestials
-5 Tarrasque(s)
-6 Spellcasting Dragons
-7 Balors, Pit Fiends, Solars
-8 Any Epic Monster or NPC
-9 Demon Princes or Devil Lords
-10 Deities or Avatars
Most Everything else can fit somewhere in there. Spells would be 10 - SL (with certain spells being much father, like wish/miracle being around -1 TSRs)
GuardianLurker
Adventurer
Hey, I can get behind gygaxes too. A dual "unit" system for complexity would even be appropriate.
How about cribbing a scale from MEGS (one of the most elegant & simple systems I know)? 10 THACOs equals 1 gygax. Each gygax is 1000 times as complex as the previous, so each +1 THACO represents a rough doubling in complexity.
With AoO == 1 THACO, I'd use the following benchmarks
Basic/Oldway D&D = 5 or 6 THACOs
1e AD&D = 1 gygax (by definition)
1.5e AD&D (Wilderness Guide, Survival Guide, Unearthed Arcana, et al.) = 13 THACOs = 1.3 gygax
2e AD&D = 9 THACOs
3e (Core) = 6 THACOs
3e (with splats) = 1 gygax
3.5e (Core) = 6 THACOs (with a temporary +1 THACO during the switch)
3.5e (with Complete Splats) = 1 gygax
3.5e (with all WotC books) = 14 THACOs = 1.4 gygax
All d20/D&D OGL books = 2 gygax
How about cribbing a scale from MEGS (one of the most elegant & simple systems I know)? 10 THACOs equals 1 gygax. Each gygax is 1000 times as complex as the previous, so each +1 THACO represents a rough doubling in complexity.
With AoO == 1 THACO, I'd use the following benchmarks
Basic/Oldway D&D = 5 or 6 THACOs
1e AD&D = 1 gygax (by definition)
1.5e AD&D (Wilderness Guide, Survival Guide, Unearthed Arcana, et al.) = 13 THACOs = 1.3 gygax
2e AD&D = 9 THACOs
3e (Core) = 6 THACOs
3e (with splats) = 1 gygax
3.5e (Core) = 6 THACOs (with a temporary +1 THACO during the switch)
3.5e (with Complete Splats) = 1 gygax
3.5e (with all WotC books) = 14 THACOs = 1.4 gygax
All d20/D&D OGL books = 2 gygax
Similar Threads
