What is the downside to simple systems?

[Mike Eagling]

But could GURPS be simple?

Could be but isn't! I'd say the last edition (4th?) is probably the most complex rpg I've ever read.

I believe this. The lack of depth may be a problem, of course, but I didn't know what you just posted. Thanks for this - I'll have to look into it more.

You're welcome. I have maybe ten of the original gamebooks plus Steve Jackson's Sorcery! series, which introduced a magic system. The basic system itself is a mind-numbingly simple 2d6 mechanic based around three stats (Skill, Stamina and Luck) that cover everything a character can do.

The gamebooks were (obviously) programmed adventures that had the benefit of a quality GM who could legitimately railroad the story with limited options. The "problems" of using this system in a more traditional setting were firstly the ultra-high level of abstraction (Want to hit that orc with your sword? Roll against Skill; Want to play the wizard at chess? Roll against Skill; etc.) and the necessity for the GM to adjudicate the stuff that wasn't covered by the rules:

GM: "Your path is blocked by a chasm!"
Player: "I jump over it!"
GM: "It's too wide to jump!"
Player: "Who says?"
GM: "Err..."

Neither of those things are necessarily obstacles to fun but they are the trade-offs that need to be made in exchange for having a rule for everything.

 

[Mike Eagling]

I've just seen this article at Roleplayers Chronicle, which is somewhat relevant:

Rock Crushes Scissors: A Return to Basics

 

[Argyle King]

@ GURPS


I'd dare argue that GURPS is less complicated than the last two editions of D&D. For me, consistency of rules is a big reason why; likewise, consistency of how the world(s) work. Granted, the latter is difficult to explain since there are a wide variety of things I can do with the rules. I suppose the easiest way I can think of to explain how I see it is that -even when I add all kinds of gonzo elements, and even if I ignore a majority of the rules, and even if I invent some of my own rules too- there is a certain solid baseline in GURPS that I can always fall back on and have the piece of mind to know it will hold me up.

Am I arguing that the game is simple? No, but I'd say far more simple in actual play than a reading of the rules might indicate.

 

[Bagpuss]

I suppose that's because a lot of it's complexity is in character generation, once you have the character the actual in play stuff is more straight forward (the same is true for Hero System and many other games).

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Most of the complexity in GURPS is optional.

GURPS is a toolbox game, so it is really not necessary to use all of those rules. I tend to use a very paired down version of GURPS most of the time, occasionally using those extra rules to 'zoom in' on a scene or scenario that I and my players find interesting enough to merit it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Is there anything that a simple system can't handle? Put another way, what is the benefit to complication in an rpg?

To frame the discussion, think about a simple game with these qualities:

* Four attributes rated 1-6
* Every action is resolved through either 1d6 or a resisted d6 vs. d6 roll
* If it has classes, only four exist
* If it has nonhuman races, only three exist for players to choose from
* If it has skills, there are only 20
* Fewer than 20 weapons (both missile and melee)
* No damage roll; weapons deal 1 damage, or 2 points on a strong hit (whatever that means)
* No encumbrance; all characters can carry Strength x2 items (or some such)
* Rules are 30 pages, counting all equipment and monster lists, and all special rules like warp drive, sanity, or anything else.
* Character sheet must fit on one side of a single sheet of paper

What is the downside to a game like this one?

Lack of specificity, lack of options, lack of flavour added by the rules.

But if that's the way you're thinking, I'd seriously suggest looking at both Apocalypse World and Fate Accelarated (or Fate Core) both of which are a whole lot deeper and subtler than the game you've suggested, and are very close to most of your criteria. Designing a simple game is very hard work, especially when D&D grew out of tabletop wargaming.

(And for encumberance steal the anti-hammerspace item tracker).

 

[delericho]

In the 3.5e campaign that has just finished, I encountered something I hadn't seen before. One of the players, who was playing an Artificer, spent a lot of time outside of the game working with the item creation rules, and working on his character build. A lot of his fun in the campaign came from tinkering with various things, constantly tweaking things to get the mechanical form of his character "just right".

A simpler system wouldn't really have offered that. The mere fact that the 3.5e rules are quite complex, with many moving parts, gave him scope for putting in all that effort, and was absolutely key to his enjoyment of the campaign.

(I'm just glad that he choose to optimise for what he considered interesting, rather than going for raw power. Had he done the latter, he could quite handily have destroyed the campaign. As it was, his character was one of the most powerful in the game, but was mostly driven by the various gadgets he could employ when the circumstances were just right.)

 

[GMMichael]

Point in favor of simple RPGs:

Less rules can allow more imagination. For example, some D&D players ask, "why doesn't strength make me a better archer?" or "should I use Wisdom or Intelligence to solve a riddle?" If your STR and DEX are part of the same score, or your WIS and INT are the same score, then the player can decide how that score translates into results.

"My high Physical score means I can draw a longbow string with no effort!"
or
"My Mental score is a reflection of my character's non-stop reading. In books, he's already found a solution to most problems!"

 

[Meatboy]

Point in favor of simple RPGs:

Less rules can allow more imagination. For example, some D&D players ask, "why doesn't strength make me a better archer?" or "should I use Wisdom or Intelligence to solve a riddle?" If your STR and DEX are part of the same score, or your WIS and INT are the same score, then the player can decide how that score translates into results.

"My high Physical score means I can draw a longbow string with no effort!"
or
"My Mental score is a reflection of my character's non-stop reading. In books, he's already found a solution to most problems!"

For some people things like this can strain believability. How do your differentiate hardiness, physical power and quickness (or any other similar yet different attributes) when they are all governed by a single stat?

 

[Bagpuss]

Why not go the whole hog and play TWERPS instead then? One stat represents everything.

You see Strength, Dexterity and Constitution split in so many RPGs because they help define characters better than just a Physical score.

You could say all the athletes at the Olympics have a high Physical score, but it doesn't really tell you who is a shot-putter, a archer, a distance runner, or a pentathlete. Splitting them up gives a clearer picture, sometimes that is desirable other times it isn't. I think most systems have found around six attributes a optimum number, some have had a few more, a few have had less, but they don't tend to be the popular systems as there is too much abstraction at that point for most people.