Why the hate for complexity?

[Umbran]

We are taking the experience of gaming many times and many tables. After we know what rules got used, both official and house rules, we are attempting the measure the complexity of the games. Is this not practical and constructive?

Insofar as we don't actually have the data, and no realistic way to gather it properly, no. We actually have rulebooks that don't depend on gathering data from statistically relevant samples of people.

Every mass published RPG has thousands of pages of material beyond the core mechanics.

Define "mass published".

I think saying *EVERY* one has *THOUSANDS* of pages of material is nowhere near accurate - either a poorly considered statement, or unreasonable levels of hyperbole. Unless the only games that qualify as "mass published" are D&D, Pathfinder, and White Wolf, I suppose.... but then "every" is really "three", and your point isn't so strong.

It's simply not possible to use every book for every game. "Throwing out large chunks of it" is literally the only way to play any professionally made RPG.

First it is "mass published" now it is "professionally". Please settle on one definition of what games we may or may not consider here. Otherwise, intentionally or not, the goalposts are going to tend to move. If you feel a need to limit what games we consider, let us lay that out early.

It sounds like you want a very academic discussion of complexity using a specific set of game texts. I don't think that's possible, simply because that's not how RPGs are played. Discussion of complexity is only valid if we include real life experience.

And it sounds like you are somehow of the opinion that the real life experience is significantly different from what's in the text. I am of the opinion that if the rules of a game are complicated, leaving out some of the most egregious parts still leaves you with a game that's complicated in play.

I don't think, "the game as written is complicated, but in the majority of play, it turns out not to be complicated," is a real scenario.

 

[Deset Gled]

Well, no. Because the OP asked:

I don't think that there have been calls for fewer tabletop tools, less customer support, or lower writing quality.

Well, to start with, I'm well past the first round of questions and deep in to the discussion of exactly what makes something "rules light". I think the answer is highly subjective, which makes the OPs question harder to answer.

And, honestly, yes, I can think of calls for all of those things on this very message board.

Re: Tools. One thing some people dislike about OD&D is a reliance on tables. For them, adding more tables (tools) is seen as adding complexity. For those that prefer tables, tables are less complex than reliance on complex formulas for everything.

For another example, one of the big concerns about 4e was how much it pushed people to rely on the Character Builder, DDI, and other online tools as part of playing. For people who were used to books only and had a "no screens" rule at a game table, these tools were seen as complex technology that removed focus from the table. For players that used the CB and online tools heavily, it was a great way to get away from the complexity of looking things up in books all the time.

Re: Customer Support. Every seen a thread arguing about a Sage article? How about rulings in any of the "Living ###" communities? Does having a guru in charge of questions make things simpler for answering questions, or harder to stay on top of the rules when a Sage ruling contradicts the rule books? Did the many Shape Change errata makes things simpler for 3.5e druids?

Re: Writing quality. There have been many threads here about the tone and writing styles of the various versions of D+D. Some people prefer the more literary tones of Gygax, because it's simpler to pull the style of the game from the text. Others prefer game manuals to read like stereo instructions and be as dry as possible. This requires all game flavor to be added in as a module. Which style is more "rules light"?

Clearly, some of these are bigger factors that others. My main point here is that TTRPGs are an experience, and complexity can come from anywhere. If you focus on just the core mechanic, d20 and WEG d6 are the exact same complexity: role dice, compare to a number, determine result. Everything else around the mechanics also plays a factor in how complex the game is perceived.

That doesn't really support the premise of this thread, though, or explain the observed trend toward reduced complexity (if it exists). Tools and writing quality have both improved dramatically in recent decades, which should make complex games more appealing rather than less.

Is there a difference in "hate for complexity" and "hate for apparent complexity"? If we just move the complexity around enough, does a complex system become "rules light"?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Is there a difference in "hate for complexity" and "hate for apparent complexity"? If we just move the complexity around enough, does a complex system become "rules light"?

There's a difference, but there's also a strong correlation, in all but the most-degenerate of cases. If you build an app that does all of the dice-rolling and table-lookups at the push of a button, then you would have a very complex system that doesn't appear very complex to the player, but I would also argue that they aren't really even playing the game at that point.

The decision to cast Reckless Dweomer means something very different when you know that "fireball yourself" is a possibility. If all you know is that you should push the button, and you don't actually understand what the button does, then you're really more of an observer than a participant.

 

[Deset Gled]

I don't think, "the game as written is complicated, but in the majority of play, it turns out not to be complicated," is a real scenario.

This is the part where we don't agree, but I can say that your summary here is an accurate description of my POV.

Lots of things feel like this to me, not just TTRPGs. 7 Wonders, Small World, Flash Point. Card games like pinochle and euchre. Video games like Castles and Dwarf Fortress. My 5 year old plays baseball but the MLB rule book is 170 pages.

 

[Umbran]

My 5 year old plays baseball but the MLB rule book is 170 pages.

Yes, now, are you going to claim that someone actually took the MLB rulebook, and specifically cut that down to the game your 5-year-old plays? Because I would be dubious of that proposition. If not, then this example is not really relevant.

I submit that the rules of baseball in general are pretty simple, and that the MLB has branched from that and produces Advanced Edition Baseball for Professional League Play, that they have added lots of rules to.

The argument you present here is like claiming OD&D is complicated, using the 3.5e rules as evidence.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What's more complex, inventing a new sportsball game on the spot or refereeing a game of Cricket?

 

[Staffan]

Complexity is always a cost. It requires mental effort and time spent handling it during play.

That's a good point. I read a similar discussion over on the Paizo forums, where someone said something like "Complexity is the currency with which you buy depth," and I thought it was a great analogy.

It's very hard to have (mechanical) depth without complexity. You need the complexity to get the depth. But the complexity has to be spent carefully, where you get the most bang for your metaphorical buck. This is probably different for different games - a game about playing wizards can get away with tons of info on magic - summoning, research, magic languages and having those have different uses, and so on. But when the wizard is one character type among many, you don't need that much magic stuff.

And different people have different tolerances for complexity - and that tolerance may change over time. I sure know mine has - I used to love getting into the nitty-gritty stuff of 3e/Pathfinder, but I eventually got tired of that and had some vague idea about working out my own hybrid of 3e, Pathfinder, 4e, and Trailblazer. Fortunately 5e came along before that.

 

[Deset Gled]

I submit that the rules of baseball in general are pretty simple, and that the MLB has branched from that and produces Advanced Edition Baseball for Professional League Play, that they have added lots of rules to.

I agree. The game as written by the foremost authority is complicated, but in the majority of play, it turns out not to be complicated.

The argument you present here is like claiming OD&D is complicated, using the 3.5e rules as evidence.

OD&D is complicated. Have you ever compared THAC0 to the d20 mechanic in 3.5e?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I agree. The game as written by the foremost authority is complicated, but in the majority of play, it turns out not to be complicated.

They aren't even playing the same game anymore. They're literally using different rule sets. It's not that kids stay in the part of play that's less-complicated; it's that the kids literally aren't playing the game that contains the complicated rules.

I would say that the kids have house-ruled out a lot of the complexity, but the reality is more that the foremost authority has house-ruled a lot of complexity into the game.

 

[Ratskinner]

Grappling is complicated. So, none of us initiate grapples. Complicated rules. Simple resulting behavior.

I'll set aside for the moment the idea that playing/using the rest of the 3e rules is "simple". I'm not sure I buy your line of thinking here.

1) If no one ever casts Fireball is the game simpler than if we do? I'm not sure that it is. I don't think American Football is more or less simple because people rarely use the "dropkick" rules anymore. (Thank you, Doug Flutie.)

2) If the behavior is the result of ignoring the rules, is that really "emergent" from the rules? I tend not to think so. (Flocking behavior is the result of boids/birds following simple navigation rules. Their grooming or mating habits are not.)

3) There is also the "what game are we playing/discussing here" bugaboo.