Why the hate for complexity?

[billd91]

So why is complexity currently in the doghouse? It’s the swing of the pendulum. Things get more complex, the market saturates, the reaction grows against it. Things get simpler, the market saturates, the reaction grows against it.

 

[Umbran]

So why is complexity currently in the doghouse? It’s the swing of the pendulum. Things get more complex, the market saturates, the reaction grows against it. Things get simpler, the market saturates, the reaction grows against it.

I think that's questionable. Do not confuse "we are currently talking about games/game-types X,Y, and Z" with "the market is saturated with X, Y, and Z". What we talk about is not strongly linked with what is present in (or even what is popular in) the market.

For decades, now, the market has always been saturated with all kinds of games. Complex and simple, fantasy and sci-fi and superhero and cyberpunk, and what have you. The market always has more than anyone can play, saturated to the point that most game designers make a marginal job, at best, of supporting themselves with their work.

In another sense, the market is basically saturated by it's top couple of games, that have the lion's share of gamers - Pathfinder (pretty complicated game, there) and 5e D&D (somewhat less complicated). These two have dominated the rankings... for several years now. I'm not sure there's a real pendulum swinging at all.

 

[Celebrim]

Which makes me wonder - can a game be complex on one side of the GM screen, and simple on the other? If the players are character-optimizers, can the game still be simple for the GM - or if the GM loves minutiae, can the players still get by with four-line character sheets and one or two dice? A game like that could cut complexity-hate in half.

The answer is "Yes."

A game can concentrate it's complexity in preparation while having a simple mechanical resolution mechanic. If a game does that, the player's have a one time investment in complexity, but after that their experience of play tends to be fairly smooth. Some proponents of the HERO system will make this claim, that all the complexity is front-loaded in the options and set up for the game, and once play begins (if it ever begins) then the complexity largely goes away. While I'm not an expert in HERO system, I think from my experiences with GURPS this is mostly the case for GURPS as well.

The problem is that if you concentrate your complexity investment in preparation, you can create a huge burden for GMs to prepare the game. As you note, GMs can avoid this by refusing to dot every 'i' and cross every 't', and game systems like GURPS explicitly call this out but then this can feel wrong for a GM that doesn't like to wing it and associates fiat rulings with lack of neutrality as a referee. Alternately, in a game like 3e, you could avoid most of the potential complexity of preparation by only using stock content - old school flipping to page of the monster manual when a monster was called for. But, if you do this, then as a GM you feel like you aren't getting the most out of the system and utilizing the creativity that the system allows or which you want to engage in.

The worst thing in 3e D&D is when you need to stat up a high level NPC, complete with spell selections and some sort of gear, and you are intending to hit some CR/EL/wealth by level standard to pace the game according to its default assumptions. At that point, all the complexity that exists to provide a rich experience to the players is working against the DM.

 

[Morrus]

Which makes me wonder - can a game be complex on one side of the GM screen, and simple on the other? If the players are character-optimizers, can the game still be simple for the GM

I like to think that's what I accomplished with my game.

 

[pemerton]

people still look for even lighter systems up to a point that for large parts of the you are freeforming with no mechanics at all.

This remark seems to rest on a mistaken presupposition, that light mechanics mean non-comprehensive mechanics.

It's possible to have a light system that is also comprehensive, in the sense that there is no effective limit on what action declarations can be resolved by application of the game's mechanics. Prince Valiant is one example. Ctuhluh Dark is another, much lighter, example.

 

[Morrus]

This remark seems to rest on a mistaken presupposition, that light mechanics mean non-comprehensive mechanics.

It's possible to have a light system that is also comprehensive, in the sense that there is no effective limit on what action declarations can be resolved by application of the game's mechanics. Prince Valiant is one example. Ctuhluh Dark is another, much lighter, example.

Sure. The coin toss game.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. The coin toss game.

Have you played Prince Valiant or Cthulhu Dark? Neither is a "coin toss" game. Prince Valiant is a standard dice pool game that can be played with coins because each die is 50/50 success/failure. Cthulhu Dark is different sort of dice pool game, in that only the highest die counts, and you can have between 1 and 3 dice in your pool depending on character and context.

Action resolution in Prince Valiant is more subtle than in 5e's non-combat framework; Cthulhu Dark is probably comparable to 5e's non-combat in terms of subtlety of resolution, but has more going on in determining how many dice to roll.

 

[Morrus]

Have you played Prince Valiant or Cthulhu Dark? Neither is a "coin toss" game.

I wasn't saying they were coin toss games. I was saying a coin toss game is an example of a light, yet comprehensive game.

 

[pemerton]

I wasn't saying they were coin toss games. I was saying a coin toss game is an example of a light, yet comprehensive game.

My apologies, then, for misreading.

I think a literal toin-coss game may be a bit weak for serious RPGing, because the outcomes of action resolution would seem not to be connected enough to the character. (Even allowing for the fact that the character will have some degree of expression in the player's choice of actions to declare.)

Of games I know, Cthulhu Dark is the closest to that "weak" edge while maintaining character differentation in mechanics as well as "concept". (Each PC has an occupation - not chosen from a list, but specified by the player based on his/her knowledge of real world occupations - so when I played we had an investigative reporter, a longshoreman and a legal secretary. If the action that is declared falls within occupational expertise then a die is added to the pool, thus increasing the odds of a good roll.)

Trying to relate this back to the OP: given that complexity isn't necessary for comprehensiveness, nor even for the effective expression of character, what is it for in RPG design. One answer could be: to bring the fiction to life via the experience of rolling dice and engaging with mechanics rather than via sheer narration.

I'm playing a fair bit of Traveller at the moment, and I think some of its subsystems probably fit this description.

I personally find it a weakness in 3E/PF design (based on reading as much as play, especially for PF) that its complexity doesn't seem to have any clear purpose other than serving as mechanical input into further mechanical processes. Its connection to the fiction - which is pretty crucial in a RPG - can often seem rather tenuous.

 

[Staffan]

There’s no game that takes twelve steps to resolve an attack. That’s as much an extremism as describing light games as just improv theatre.

I count 11 steps in Shadowrun, though you could argue that some of those steps are actually the same step (much like you can mush together different calculations on the same line in physics). I don't count the attacker's choice to attack and how, but I do count the defender's choice of defense.

1. Defender chooses how to defend.
2. Attacker rolls relevant combat skill + modifiers.
3. Defender rolls relevant defense.
4. Net successes = Attacker's successes - Defender's successes.
5. If Net successes <0, the attack misses. If >0, the attack hits. If =0, the attack is a grazing hit that does do direct damage but does connect, in case that's relevant for things like touch attacks.
6. Modified damage value = base damage + net successes.
7. Modified armor value = base armor - Armor Penetration (minimum 0).
8. If modified damage < Modified armor, the final damage will be Stun damage, otherwise it's Physical.
9. Defender rolls Body + modified armor value and reduce the damage taken by the number of successes.
10. Apply the reduced damage to the Condition Monitor.
11. If the damage taken > defender's Physical Limit, defender is knocked down.

There's also the previous version of the Swedish game Eon:
1. Attacker chooses whether to make a forceful attack (more damage but easier for the defender to gain initiative and thus become attacker the next round), quick attack (the opposite), or a regular attack.
2. Attacker secretly chooses whether they want to attack in a high, medium, or low position. This affects hit locations and possibly the defenders difficulty.
3. Defender chooses whether to ignore the attack (usually a bad move), counterattack (also usually a bad move unless you can rely on your armor), parry (with a weapon), block (with a shield, easier), or evade. There are also a number of other options, but those are usually not done in response to an attack.
4a. If the defender parries or blocks, they may secretly choose whether to defend in a high, medium, or low position. If they do, and choose the same one the attacker did, the defense becomes easier. If they choose wrong, the defense becomes harder.
4b. If the defender evades, they may choose to sidestep, back up, duck, or jump. If they do, the defense may become easier or harder depending on what sort of attack the attacker does (slash, pierce, crush) and/or what position they attack in (sidestep is good against piercing attacks, ducking is good against high attacks).
5. Both attacker and defender roll their relevant skills.
5a. If the attacker succeeds and the defender fails, the attack hits.
5b. If the attacker succeeds and the defender successfully parries or blocks, the attacker may damage the defender's weapon. Roll damage and compare it to the weapon's/shield's durability. If the durability is higher than or equal to the damage, nothing happens. Otherwise, reduce durability by 1 and roll a durability check (difficulty depending on how much higher the damage was) to see if the weapon breaks.
5c. If the attacker fails, or the attacker succeeds and the defender successfully evades, the attack misses.
6. Roll damage.
7. Check for knockback (even if the attack was blocked or parried).
8. Roll hit location (of which there are 26).
9. Reduce damage by the armor on that hit location.
10a. If remaining damage is less than 10, apply a small number of points of Pain, Trauma (=actual things that break), and Bleeding, depending on hit location and damage type.
10b. If remaining damage is 10 or more, roll a d10 to see what kind of critical injury you inflict. Check the critical injury table to see how many points of Pain, Trauma, and Bleeding you inflict (usually by multiplying/dividing the base damage by some number). Also see if there are any special effects from the critical injury (e.g. amputation, scarring, falling, etc.).
11. Apply any special effects from the critical injury, and potentially roll for them (e.g. an "Amputate" results means the defender needs to roll to see if the body part in question is chopped off, which then either adds more pain/trauma/bleeding or in some cases kills you outright). This can be multiple steps in some cases (e.g. if you both need to roll to see if you lose your limb, and then if you can remain standing).
12. If Trauma was inflicted, the defender rolls a Death check.
13. If Pain or Trauma was inflicted, the defender rolls a Consciousness check.