Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 7578175" data-attributes="member: 1210">This is an interesting topic for me. I like a certain amount of complexity on a personal level, but I have a good head for math and can keep a bunch of complex parts in my head. Not lal players are like that. I have several people in my group who are really bad at math, several who tend to forget their character's abilities, etc. So even if I might enjoy some fiddly bits in the game- for instance, I really miss the old &quot;+1 to hit for higher ground&quot; modifier- not everyone else can keep all that fiddly stuff in mind.&nbsp; For a lot of players, the added complexity is added not-fun mental load. I think a lot of games, in the 3e era, tried for a simulationist approach, with rules describing every case that the pcs might be expected to face in the game. The low-complexity movement arose (I think) largely in response to this. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new wave of high-complexity games arising in the future; this back and forth might be one of those things that is periodic, like the swing of a pendulum. As with many elements of playstyle preference, I think that 'complex vs. simple ruleset' is a continuum that players move through. Nobody always wants to play the same type of game, and the choice isn't between a simple game and a complex game; some games are far simpler than others, even if both might be considered to be on the simple or complex end of the spectrum. For instance, GURPS is more complex than 3e, which is more complex than 5e, which is more complex than Top Secret, which is more complex than Amber Diceless. Two players who like complex games might still have different preferences as to just how complex they want it. But I think the basic answer to the OP is, &quot;Right now the pendulum is swung toward simple games&quot;. I'm pretty sure it will swing back.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 7578175, member: 1210"] This is an interesting topic for me. I like a certain amount of complexity on a personal level, but I have a good head for math and can keep a bunch of complex parts in my head. Not lal players are like that. I have several people in my group who are really bad at math, several who tend to forget their character's abilities, etc. So even if [i]I[/i] might enjoy some fiddly bits in the game- for instance, I [i]really[/i] miss the old "+1 to hit for higher ground" modifier- not everyone else can keep all that fiddly stuff in mind. For a lot of players, the added complexity is added not-fun mental load. I think a lot of games, in the 3e era, tried for a simulationist approach, with rules describing every case that the pcs might be expected to face in the game. The low-complexity movement arose (I think) largely in response to this. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new wave of high-complexity games arising in the future; this back and forth might be one of those things that is periodic, like the swing of a pendulum. As with many elements of playstyle preference, I think that 'complex vs. simple ruleset' is a continuum that players move through. Nobody always wants to play the same type of game, and the choice isn't between a simple game and a complex game; some games are far simpler than others, even if both might be considered to be on the simple or complex end of the spectrum. For instance, GURPS is more complex than 3e, which is more complex than 5e, which is more complex than Top Secret, which is more complex than Amber Diceless. Two players who like complex games might still have different preferences as to just how complex they want it. But I think the basic answer to the OP is, "Right now the pendulum is swung toward simple games". I'm pretty sure it will swing back. [/QUOTE]

Verification