Where Complexity Belongs

[stonehead]

Not sure where in all that i suggested the kind of gameplay you seened so worried about, so now i am even more preplexed by your earlier statements.
Different aspects, as i said in one of the posts you quoted IIRC, have different appropriate consequences.

What are these differenct consequences? That's the part I haven't seen. It's one thing to say they will have appropriate consequences, and it's another to illustrate how those consequences are meaningfully different. If you described the differences, then I missed it.

I think the comparison to social checks is apt. A character could mechanically fail a diplomacy check because in the narrative they stuttered, or because their fly was down, or because they accidentally claimed to be a jelly donut. Most games don't differentiate mechanically between them though, because the end result is the same: your audience is unconvinced. Some crunchy games do differentiate between "making an impression" and "making a request" so diplomacy involves two different checks. That's because the end results are different (eg. they agree to your request but don't like you, and they like you but don't agree to your request)

I apologize that I came across as rude. That was not my intention. I think it would help to give examples of how failing at the components step would differ from failing at the focus step. That's the part that I don't understand.

 

[JohnSnow]

I've really only resonated high complexity when I want a tactical combat sub-system that is full of meaningful, balanced choices in both building the character and in choosing your actions in the combat (and I'd probably prefer a computer RPG doing the brunt of the effort). Pathfinder 2e stands out time and again as I try other 4e-Successor games like Lancer, Icon and Gubat Banwa. The 3 Action economy with the penalty to just spam Attacks is pretty huge. Though I think PF2e should sell itself as a grittier premise when you get knocked unconscious and brought up, your next turn may look like picking up your weapon, standing up and getting Reactive Strike'd in the face - it doesn't always match that heroic style it often sells. A lot of spells don't have that show-stopping presence of Icon, 4e or Draw Steel, but instead every round of combat, I feel like I can looking through my options.

I find it interesting that Pathfinder 2e, Nimble and a few other games have figured out the sweet spot for actions in a single round is 3, with a scaling discouragement for trying to just attack or spell cast repeatedly. I think DC20's 4 is too many, and I think it's important that you have viable options for doing other things in a round.

Savage Worlds essentially does the same thing, although it says you can move and attack, but choosing to take actions (other than moving) more than once means you take an escalating penalty to all actions. I rather like the "the first one is at full competency, and later actions incur an escalating penalty."

More broadly, I'd say that complexity needs to be implemented in such a way that choices matter and you ideally want to avoid "false choices" - i.e. choices that are actually traps. As an example, if a character chooses to do something other than just attack in combat, there should be a meaningful benefit to doing so, commensurate with the risk they take. Choosing to forego damaging an opponent in favor of disarming them is only really a viable alternative if they can't quickly re-arm themselves at zero cost. This, by the way, goes to a whole rant I have about opportunity attacks based largely on my experience studying martial arts in general and swordplay specifically.