What Is "Unnecessary Complexity" to You?

[aramis erak]

I think one might be able to take advantage of a VTT to make processing math quicker, but I agree that (at least using voice, no cameras) actual play will be slower, because the communication channel/s won't have as much bandwidth as in person.

Even with video; visual communication is reduced. My face isn't the most expressive... I do a lot with gesture, sign, and gaze. While ASL is possible over video, in my limited experience, it's like talking past a a mouthful of candy: Sure, you can communicate, but it's not natural in size, tone, nor expressiveness. (My brother-in-law is profoundly deaf, his wife totally deaf.) Even before I learned ASL, I used ASL-like signs often.

Also, there's the issue that a lot of subvocal audio is missed on VOIP.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Frankly, my view is the only time complexity is "unnecessary" is when it doesn't serve the purpose intended, or there's an obvious way to get very similar levels of input and output (i.e. things that effect the thing being represented, and information yielded by the process) without as many steps or calculations. Everything else is projecting on other people what they want to matter because its not what you want to matter.

(And no, ad-hoc GM intervention is not a substitute. No matter how many times people think its a virtue).

 

[Jd Smith1]

My FTF vs VTT experience is that VTT is always slower...

A large portion of that is interfacing with the tech. Another portion is increased distraction susceptibility....

How much slower varies... 2 to 6 times slower.... by game, specific players, and how tired everyone is.

My experience is exactly the opposite. With so much automated (2\Roll20), there is almost no thumbing through rules, so action moves faster and players are more engaged. Since I only use audio (discord), the technical end is much reduced. I just lots of handouts and cut & paste key descriptions and information into chat, so note-taking is much reduced.

 

[James Gasik]

Question for you. Do you read the rulebook ahead of playing? Or do you just tear the shrink wrap and dive in? I have friends who love terribly complex games and are notorious for trying to learn as they go. Drives me nuts. The worst part, after teaching folks a few times they look to me as the rules explainer by default...

Sorry, I failed to answer this in a timely fashion. Yes, step one is to always read the rulebook. And sometimes, be subjected to a half hour video about the game. In this specific instance I'm talking about, the game wasn't very clear about what was going on, and we couldn't find a clear example, so we were left to infer "this must be how it works because nothing else makes sense".

But by that point, I was checked out, because I knew I was going to lose, lol. It was one of those games with multiple ways to earn points for scoring, and I'm notoriously bad at figuring out which of the ways presented is the right one. So Dominion, Alhambra, Ticket to Ride, are all games where I'm like "somehow I lost and that other guy won. Oh well!"

I'm not super competitive, but I do hate being confounded by how a game can obscure what should be a simple task- the correct strategy to win, lol. Though in fairness, I guess if games were up front about that sort of thing, they'd be instantly solved and no one would play them!

 

[Jd Smith1]

But as to the thread core, to me, it is rolls for things that you shouldn't need to roll for, and inconsistent dice rolling. For example, I played in a system where some attack rolls were equal or over the target number, while others, using other dice, rolled under.

It made sense mathematically, but it was quite annoying.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Whenever complexity comes up I need to mention Hero. But Lord Mhoram has already said what I would, so I'll just second them.

I will say that complexity is fine when it gives the game something the players want. As long as the complexity is as simple as possible for the job.

 

[payn]

Sorry, I failed to answer this in a timely fashion. Yes, step one is to always read the rulebook. And sometimes, be subjected to a half hour video about the game. In this specific instance I'm talking about, the game wasn't very clear about what was going on, and we couldn't find a clear example, so we were left to infer "this must be how it works because nothing else makes sense".

But by that point, I was checked out, because I knew I was going to lose, lol. It was one of those games with multiple ways to earn points for scoring, and I'm notoriously bad at figuring out which of the ways presented is the right one. So Dominion, Alhambra, Ticket to Ride, are all games where I'm like "somehow I lost and that other guy won. Oh well!"

I'm not super competitive, but I do hate being confounded by how a game can obscure what should be a simple task- the correct strategy to win, lol. Though in fairness, I guess if games were up front about that sort of thing, they'd be instantly solved and no one would play them!

Sure, I get it. My friends were notoriously bad at explaining games. I mean, they wouldnt talk about the various ways to score points until it came up in play. Usually by then, you are out of the race. Which is why you always cover the ways to score points and that the objective is to score highest (if thats true) from the get go.

I do find BGs have gotten much better with their manual layouts. The videos you mention usually help too. Sometimes though, its a language translation and that can add a whole other level of complexity.

 

[Grogg of the North]

A badly-organized rulebook can make a relatively simple game feel massively complicated. This is true.

This right here, 100%.

I know the rule I need isn't in the core rulebook. Is it in the GM's guide? No? Oh, it's in the appendix to the bestiary. Because I would have obviously thought to look there first.

I make it a point to tell people that I GM for that if I cannot find a rule quickly and if no one at the table knows what it is off the top of their head, I'm just going to make a ruling and move on. I don't want the game to grind to a halt as we check indexes or search google. After the session I'll hunt down the correct ruling and if I'm wrong, I'll absolutlely mea culpa. Thankfully, the people I play with are pretty cool with that.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, in the old days, rules were squirreled away all over the place, and few people have the time to read a rulebook cover to cover (or the super high reading comprehension to actually REMEMBER some of these rules). I used to wow and amaze my friends with 2e D&D rules they never heard of, but totally exist. Sometimes, there are trends. Like if you're playing GURPS, you know to pay close attention to sidebars- often, that's where all the important rules are!

Over time, you can get good enough to know where the basic rule you are looking for is, and flip to the right section. And if the rules are placed in a logical place, this is soooo much easier!

Though while too much complexity is a headache, it also needs to be stated that too little complexity is just as bad- a good example of this are the old White Wolf games, where arguments usually started because a rule wasn't comprehensive enough!

As an example, an ability might say that you "lower the difficulty of ALL Perception rolls by 2". Then go on to say that "to see through illusions, roll Perception + Kenning difficulty 8". Is the difficulty 8 or 6? Any way you rule, you have an equal chance of being right!

 

[delericho]

On the other hand, I disagree with the example used in your "hidden descriptions". Having common keywords that always have the same meaning is easy because of it's uniformity, something that could be included on a DM screen, and is also something that player can understand and bring that experience to other creatures of the same type.

We should have both - use the common keyword but also repeat the text in the monster statblock. That way the DMs who do remember can skip the repeated description, while those who don't have the text handy.