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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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."

Though that only works because the penalty applies to all actions. If you only penalize successive actions it creates an incentive to roll a lot of pointless (because they'll be progressively less likely to get anything done) rolls.

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.

This is why I finally concluded I didn't like Mutants and Masterminds; there are a lot of options for doing things other than damage, but a combination of factors ends up making them a waste of time most often, so they're things that look good, but mostly aren't.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

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.

Yeah, and it makes Slow and Quickened effects at a very particular amount of power increasing or decreasing by 1.

Though in Divinity, you can manage a lot more Action Points when it's a CRPG. I couldn't imagine doing that manually. Though honestly, I don't know if I'd enjoy PF2e without our Foundry setup that handles a lot of the various bonuses incredibly quickly. In many ways, it's basically a hybrid CRPG/TTRPG during combat encounters. One that is easy enough for the GM to quickly design encounters which I think CRPGs often have too much detail to allow an easy GM Mode.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Okay, so lets use an example of binding a demon while it is trying to emerge and kill you all. Understand that this stuff depends on the specifics of the situation, so there is guidance to be given but there is no chart of "circle fail: mark 1 stress" or whatever.

The circle - since it is a binding ritual the GM might spend an adversity to say that the demon has an advantage to attempts to get free of the circle because it isnt perfect. On a cursed failure the circle would simple not do its job. The demon isnt spatially restrained.

The tools - a tool might break, causing you to have to channel power with your body, taking Injury every time you make a subsequent check.

Other things that could happen would be more scene dependent like depending on the demons nature, and the gm always has the ability to just introduce an unrelated complication. It is very contextual.

 

[Tigris]

Yeah, and it makes Slow and Quickened effects at a very particular amount of power increasing or decreasing by 1.

Though in Divinity, you can manage a lot more Action Points when it's a CRPG. I couldn't imagine doing that manually. Though honestly, I don't know if I'd enjoy PF2e without our Foundry setup that handles a lot of the various bonuses incredibly quickly. In many ways, it's basically a hybrid CRPG/TTRPG during combat encounters. One that is easy enough for the GM to quickly design encounters which I think CRPGs often have too much detail to allow an easy GM Mode.

Well slow and quickened effects are hugely affected by the multiattack malus in PF2 though. Losing 1 action is not really bad if you can still do 2 attacks, like it does almost nothing. Even losing 2 actionsis not as bad as it sounds since the first attack has like 60% of the damage of a target.


This can be quite different in other games. Also other games which have 4 actions, and work well like Emberwind have most attacks costing 2 actions. While more utility things like movement costs 1. This way it works well and does not even really need any multi attack penalty