Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 7581193" data-attributes="member: 23240">Complexity is always a cost. It requires mental effort and time spent handling it during play.This, in itself, does not make complexity bad. It makes it a budget. The question is, how well it is spent. How much value does the game offer in exchange for the complexity? Or, in other words, how well do the complex rules support and direct the process of play, compared to what simpler ones would do?Unfortunately, RPGs tend to waste their complexity budget. We still have to learn what creators of board and card games already did - how to get the most return in exchange for the least amount of complexity. In a lot of cases, rules are made complex in the name of &quot;realism&quot; or &quot;simulation&quot; that really isn't. They replace common sense with processes that produce absurd results and need to be moderated by the GM to work, thus turning their supposed gain into a loss. In a similar way, offering a lot of options that are wildly unbalanced wastes complexity, as many of them will never be used (or, when used, will result in frustration), while others can easily break the game, requiring additional effort to avoid that.Another example of wasted complexity is making rules (often complicated ones) for things that are not a part of the core experience. The frequently given explanation is that, as such rules are rarely used, they do not add much complexity. The truth is that because they are rarely used, nobody remembers them, so when they would be useful either the group ignores them or wastes time looking them up.So it's not that I don't like complex rules. It's that I like well-written rules, ones that pull their weight. And they are currently much easier to find in rules-light games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steenan, post: 7581193, member: 23240"] Complexity is always a cost. It requires mental effort and time spent handling it during play. This, in itself, does not make complexity bad. It makes it a budget. The question is, how well it is spent. How much value does the game offer in exchange for the complexity? Or, in other words, how well do the complex rules support and direct the process of play, compared to what simpler ones would do? Unfortunately, RPGs tend to waste their complexity budget. We still have to learn what creators of board and card games already did - how to get the most return in exchange for the least amount of complexity. In a lot of cases, rules are made complex in the name of "realism" or "simulation" that really isn't. They replace common sense with processes that produce absurd results and need to be moderated by the GM to work, thus turning their supposed gain into a loss. In a similar way, offering a lot of options that are wildly unbalanced wastes complexity, as many of them will never be used (or, when used, will result in frustration), while others can easily break the game, requiring additional effort to avoid that. Another example of wasted complexity is making rules (often complicated ones) for things that are not a part of the core experience. The frequently given explanation is that, as such rules are rarely used, they do not add much complexity. The truth is that because they are rarely used, nobody remembers them, so when they would be useful either the group ignores them or wastes time looking them up. So it's not that I don't like complex rules. It's that I like well-written rules, ones that pull their weight. And they are currently much easier to find in rules-light games. [/QUOTE]

Verification