Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[Parmandur]

Are you sure that isn't a function of your players not bothering to learn their abilities?

It matches my experience, and I play with people who have Master's degrees. D&D 5E is, for most people, pretty complex.

 

[Parmandur]

Fate Core is a 310 page rulebook. The rules are challenging to teach to new players, investing new player options is difficult, and the rules aren't something I retain in my head at all times. Just because Fate doesn't have a lot of crunchy little bits does not make it simple. It requires players to understand scene control, it has a specialized vocabulary, it requires the GM to be really alert to using the game's mechanics to create dynamic play. IMO, and this is not scientifically supported, most people who think Fate is simple had a really good Fate GM who hid the hard work for them. Out of ten, I would give GURPS a 7, and Fate an 8.

...

What???

 

[Umbran]

And, by the way, in speaking about the whole pendulum swing thing...

Fate Core (and Fate Accelerated, which hasn't been part of the discussion) came out in 2013, and Fate in general is even older.

 

[Cergorach]

Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

I honestly think that's a bad analysis of the situation, both are available and supported in the market. You mentioned PF2e, but also things like Shadowrun are crunch heavy. A lot of the crunch heavy games are older, GURPS, WFRP, The Dark Eye, etc. But I would also call Lancer crunch heavy, which is pretty new.

Pnp RPGs are a product, when making them you look at supply and demand, you also look at a cost/benefit analysis. As Morrus already mentioned, crunch heavy games are more expensive to make (including way more play-testing). So the cost is high, is there enough demand to justify actually making it? There is enough supply in the market already in many different niches/settings, so why bother if it will cost more then it probably will ever make?

With low level crunch systems the cost is lower, so the point where it becomes profitable is far sooner. This allows for far more pnp RPGs to be made that are easier to produce (cost) and often also have a smaller scope. Thus allowing the filling of smaller niches. This lower cost also opens up the door to far too many vanity press publications, but at a cost of maybe a car, instead of their house and savings...

I also wonder if MMOs have not curbed a lot of the demand for more complex pnp RPGs, it's not for nothing that WotC felt the need to compete with WoW when they made D&D 4e... Back in the day, the amount of MMOs were either non-existent (no public Internet yet) or were quite limited and didn't have a wide appeal. That has changed. I could get my 'complexity' meter filled by playing something like EVE Online (spreadsheet warrior!) and wouldn't need to do complex stuff with pnp RPGs anymore either.

I also wonder if D&D 3.5e with just the PHB/DMG/MM was so much more crunchy then D&D 5e with just the PHB/DMG/MM? A little, sure, but with D&D 3.5e most of the crunch came from expansions imho. Something WotC hasn't done a lot with D&D 5e. But third parties have, just as in the D20 age... And if someone wants to do something crunch heavy they can often hitch a ride on an 'open license' without having to reinvent the wheel. Like make something that works with PF2e or SF2e...

 

[Agamon]

As a VTT user, I find that automation doesn't help a lot with complexity, it only really helps with speed of play. It might help with elegant vs unwieldy games, but I think that's a different discussion.

 

[Parmandur]

I honestly think that's a bad analysis of the situation, both are available and supported in the market. You mentioned PF2e, but also things like Shadowrun are crunch heavy. A lot of the crunch heavy games are older, GURPS, WFRP, The Dark Eye, etc. But I would also call Lancer crunch heavy, which is pretty new.

Pnp RPGs are a product, when making them you look at supply and demand, you also look at a cost/benefit analysis. As Morrus already mentioned, crunch heavy games are more expensive to make (including way more play-testing). So the cost is high, is there enough demand to justify actually making it? There is enough supply in the market already in many different niches/settings, so why bother if it will cost more then it probably will ever make?

With low level crunch systems the cost is lower, so the point where it becomes profitable is far sooner. This allows for far more pnp RPGs to be made that are easier to produce (cost) and often also have a smaller scope. Thus allowing the filling of smaller niches. This lower cost also opens up the door to far too many vanity press publications, but at a cost of maybe a car, instead of their house and savings...

I also wonder if MMOs have not curbed a lot of the demand for more complex pnp RPGs, it's not for nothing that WotC felt the need to compete with WoW when they made D&D 4e... Back in the day, the amount of MMOs were either non-existent (no public Internet yet) or were quite limited and didn't have a wide appeal. That has changed. I could get my 'complexity' meter filled by playing something like EVE Online (spreadsheet warrior!) and wouldn't need to do complex stuff with pnp RPGs anymore either.

I also wonder if D&D 3.5e with just the PHB/DMG/MM was so much more crunchy then D&D 5e with just the PHB/DMG/MM? A little, sure, but with D&D 3.5e most of the crunch came from expansions imho. Something WotC hasn't done a lot with D&D 5e. But third parties have, just as in the D20 age... And if someone wants to do something crunch heavy they can often hitch a ride on an 'open license' without having to reinvent the wheel. Like make something that works with PF2e or SF2e...

3.5 had significantly more paperwork on the player side (Skill Plints, derived defenses, BAB, etc.), and massively more paperwork on the DM side.

 

[Morrus]

As Morrus already mentioned, crunch heavy games are more expensive to make (including way more play-testing).

Having published both light and crunchy games, I’d also venture that rules heavy games are difficult to make (in terms of effort, not cleverness). I’ve personally written and published multiple light and heavy games, and the latter are very challenging. The light games I’ve produced were much easier for me to write.

The combined barriers of difficulty, cost, and the sheer time it takes are what makes heavy games less common than light games.

Plus, of course, the demand for light games is higher for various reasons well outlined by other folks in this thread already.

 

[Cergorach]

Having published both light and crunchy games, I’d also venture that rules heavy games are difficult to make (in terms of effort, not cleverness). I’ve personally written and published multiple light and heavy games, and the latter are very challenging. The light games I’ve produced were much easier for me to write.

The combined barriers of difficulty, cost, and the sheer time it takes are what makes heavy games less common than light games.

Plus, of course, the demand for light games is higher for various reasons well outlined by other folks in this thread already.

But doesn't difficulty directly translate into more effort and time? Thus more cost by needing a more skilled person who requires more time. While more brainpower required doesn't by itself translate into more time, in other fields (like IT) it translates to more 'moving parts' that do require more time to document and test.

For me difficulty = time = cost. Or do you see that differently from a publisher perspective? And while you might not directly pay yourself per hour worked (you should), most companies do. Still your time is worth x amount of money.

 

[Morrus]

But doesn't difficulty directly translate into more effort and time?

I thought that's what I said.

And while you might not directly pay yourself per hour worked (you should), most companies do. Still your time is worth x amount of money.

Thanks for the pep talk, but don't worry. It's my full time job. I have a salary.

 

[Eric V]

Folks seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying here, which suggests I have not explained it well.

By allowing the VTT to do the math in play, you can have a lot of modifiers and knock on effects that are consequential. You aren't ignoring those things. You are ostensibly still examining your choices in downtime/between sessions. It is just that the resolution of that particular action (an attack, say) doesn't take any longer than a less complex game would because the hard work of choosing has already been done by the player and the tedious work of rolling six nested tables is done instantly by the VTT.

Does that make sense?

It does.

Using a VTT allows for a bunch of modifiers without trying to remember every single one. For example, my dhampir investigator had a racial feat that allowed her to do +x damage to undead, and +2x to vampires...Foundry took care of all of that without me worrying about remembering to ask "Is it undead? Is it a vampire?"