Where Complexity Belongs

[stonehead]

Yes! I was just thinking that my take on it can be expressed as

The more you use the rule, the more important it is for it to be simple. The less often it is used, the more it should stand out from normal gameplay with a little more complexity.

To push back slightly against this, when I think about the rules that I've ignored at my table, they've been complicated rules that don't come up very often. If it's only going to happen once or twice every dozen sessions, I'm less likely to remember how the rules work, and if it's very complicated, I'm less likely to learn them mid-session.

---

@TheAlkaizer already mentioned this, but complexity is the cost of adding things to your game, it generally shouldn't be seen as a goal in and of itself. What are you trying to get out of these sub-systems? Why do you want a ritual to take an entire session?

You listed a half-dozen things that could be components of a ritual, but I haven't seen a justification for why they should be separated. A ressurection spell could cost a hundred gold for special salts plus two hundred gold for a rosary plus three hundred gold of healing potions plus four hundred gold for a holy symbol, but that would be no different than it costing a thousand gold worth of diamond dust. To the players, they'll just see it as 1000g either way.

The "roll a die and add your bonuses" resolution mechanic for social encounters catches some flak sometimes, but I've never seen anything different actually work better at the table. You could add complexity by requiring a roll for your word choice, and another roll for your pronunciation, another roll for your body language. Doing so wouldn't actually add any depth though. Would failing your pronunciation check mean something different for the game than failing your body language check? Basically never.

If you want to keep all these different elements, I think you need to come up with some mechanical or narrative justification for each of them. Is there a meaningful difference between failing the "circle check" compared to failing the "implement check"? Combat is long and complex because there should be meaningful decisions to be made every round. Are there meaningful decisions for the players to make during the "component phase" and the "spell phase"? Or are they just padding?

I hope the tone didn't come across too harsh, if you have answers to all these questions, I'm interested in hearing them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To push back slightly against this, when I think about the rules that I've ignored at my table, they've been complicated rules that don't come up very often. If it's only going to happen once or twice every dozen sessions, I'm less likely to remember how the rules work, and if it's very complicated, I'm less likely to learn them mid-session.

And my experience is opposite that.

---

@TheAlkaizer already mentioned this, but complexity is the cost of adding things to your game, it generally shouldn't be seen as a goal in and of itself.

Generally, perhaps. Not always.

What are you trying to get out of these sub-systems? Why do you want a ritual to take an entire session?

It isnt really a subsystem. And i said rituals could sometimes be a whole scene, not a whole session. Equivelent in scope, importance, consequnces, and complexity, to a conflict scene like a combat or social challenge.

As for why i want that, it is simple. I want some rituals to be that "big" because it makes them feel like tense ritual magic to do something that couldnt be done otherwise. It makes gameplay allign with fiction.

It is also simply more fun and satisfying.

You listed a half-dozen things that could be components of a ritual, but I haven't seen a justification for why they should be separated.

Then please reread my posts, because i provided clear justifications. You may not agree with them, but they are certainly present.

A ressurection spell could cost a hundred gold for special salts plus two hundred gold for a rosary plus three hundred gold of healing potions plus four hundred gold for a holy symbol, but that would be no different than it costing a thousand gold worth of diamond dust. To the players, they'll just see it as 1000g either way.

Not the best comparison, since i havent suggested running rituals like that at all. Each aspect is a skill check in a game based entirely on skill checks. No need for pricing components and being nitty gritty. I prefer not even tracking money in detail.

And IME players are much more invested in skill challenge style ressurection rituals than in just "click paper button get friend back".

The "roll a die and add your bonuses" resolution mechanic for social encounters catches some flak sometimes, but I've never seen anything different actually work better at the table. You could add complexity by requiring a roll for your word choice, and another roll for your pronunciation, another roll for your body language. Doing so wouldn't actually add any depth though. Would failing your pronunciation check mean something different for the game than failing your body language check? Basically never.

You seem to be ignoring literally all details of anything i have suggested in favor of assumptions based on games not being discussed. Please stop doing that.

If you want to keep all these different elements, I think you need to come up with some mechanical or narrative justification for each of them. Is there a meaningful difference between failing the "circle check" compared to failing the "implement check"? Combat is long and complex because there should be meaningful decisions to be made every round. Are there meaningful decisions for the players to make during the "component phase" and the "spell phase"? Or are they just padding?

I literally addressed these questions in the post that you are referencing.

I hope the tone didn't come across too harsh, if you have answers to all these questions, I'm interested in hearing them.

Yesh your tone does not at all suggest genuine desire for a friendly discussion. putting this at the end is a bit like insulting someone and then saying "no offense".

I will give benefit of tbe doubt and assume you arent intentionally using a aggro and condescending tone.