Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[Argyle King]

Only if you only distinguish them by their ability score adjustments and nothing else.

As @Neonchameleon said above, sure, there are traits such as dark vision and whatnot.

And I would also agree with the premise that there can be other ways to differentiate physical differences than ability scores. GURPS has traits such as Born Biter, Claws, Extra Limbs, and so forth.

Though, again, those are things that I can see and perceive. They are tangible.

Likewise, strength in GURPS tends to be in some way visible: large size, bulging muscles, etc. (Though, that might be different in a Supers game or if a character selects an enhancement that makes their advantage less obvious.)

In contrast, what do I see in D&D when looking at an Orc or looking at a Halfling?

Does what I am able to see or perceive match up with the idea that both are (according to default assumptions) physical forms that are equally capable of the same physical tasks?

To be fair, some editions of D&D did a better job of that. The previous edition had racial powers and things other than physical attributes that might be used to show that the physical form of one species had inherent advantages over another. Edit: I think that was good, and those were things that someone living in that world would know.

I prefer WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) design. If what I see isn't what I get, I prefer some reason for that: i.e. Supers genre; Supernatural or Magical enhancements.

In D&D, often the explanation is self-referential. By that I mean that it makes sense within the context of D&D because that's how D&D says that it works inside of D&D.

Needing to learn to think in a context that may be at odds with what would be naturally intuitive to think when presented with a situation or a challenge is an added complexity that exists, even if it requires less dice rolls.

I've mostly encountered that when trying to teach games to new players.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Isn't there another thread today about how amazingly popular 1E is/was? A poll? Dealing with the flaws and pointless minutiae didn't stop that train.

Was. And mostly through the basic box which didn't deal with much of that nonsense.

Also the bar was much lower back then. And modern narrative games didn't exist (the first is generally agreed to be 2003's My Life With Master)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Likewise, strength in GURPS tends to be in some way visible: large size, bulging muscles, etc.

And this tends to be but is not necessarily the case in 5e and IME moreso than 5e. Goliaths, who are beefy, have Powerful Build.

Honestly the only real problem is that small characters break the pattern by having the same carrying capacity as medium characters.

In contrast, what do I see in D&D when looking at an Orc or looking at a Halfling?

Orcs are more sturdy and aggressive than strong these days and I'm fine with that. Adrenaline Rush + Relentless Endurance is much more interesting than mere muscles.

Halflings are ... not hobbits. Instead they are sneaky and slippery (and have too much carrying capacity). Small but no longer chubby.

Does what I am able to see or perceive match up with the idea that both are (according to default assumptions) physical forms that are equally capable of the same physical tasks?

Except they aren't. Orcs are faster (dash as a bonus action) and hardier (able to keep going when reduced to 0hp 1/day). Orcs are fit and tough. Meanwhile halflings can go where others can't and hide where they can't.

To be fair, some editions of D&D did a better job of that. The previous edition had racial powers and things other than physical attributes that might be used to show that the physical form of one species had inherent advantages over another.

So does the current one!

 

[Argyle King]

And this tends to be but is not necessarily the case in 5e and IME moreso than 5e. Goliaths, who are beefy, have Powerful Build.

Honestly the only real problem is that small characters break the pattern by having the same carrying capacity as medium characters.

Orcs are more sturdy and aggressive than strong these days and I'm fine with that. Adrenaline Rush + Relentless Endurance is much more interesting than mere muscles.

Halflings are ... not hobbits. Instead they are sneaky and slippery (and have too much carrying capacity). Small but no longer chubby.

Except they aren't. Orcs are faster (dash as a bonus action) and hardier (able to keep going when reduced to 0hp 1/day). Orcs are fit and tough. Meanwhile halflings can go where others can't and hide where they can't.

So does the current one!

In that case, I would say that's an improvement, and I stand corrected on that particular detail.

Even so, I still feel overall the same. Generally, I find that GURPS works in a way that I find to be intuitive. So, despite the extra rolls for some things, I haven't found it to be overly complex or slow by default.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In that case, I would say that's an improvement, and I stand corrected on that particular detail.

Even so, I still feel overall the same. Generally, I find that GURPS works in a way that I find to be intuitive. So, despite the extra rolls for some things, I haven't found it to be overly complex or slow by default.

As I've said Teenage me would agree with you on GURPS - and if you were to force me to only play games that were at least 20 years old I'd pick GURPS as my mainstay (and own more books for it than any other system if we separate the WotC D&D editions).

 

[Argyle King]

As I've said Teenage me would agree with you on GURPS - and if you were to force me to only play games that were at least 20 years old I'd pick GURPS as my mainstay (and own more books for it than any other system if we separate the WotC D&D editions).

Just trying to give more insight through what I think may be a better example.

•In 3rd Edition (the edition that I started with,) one of the memories that sticks out is learning that how I thought the Leadership feat should work and interact with the game world turned out to be very different from what was best in actual play.

I liked the idea of having an army, building a castle, and the various things that a hero might do in a fantasy novel or movie. However, I very quickly learned that even an entire army would still likely still lose (and lose badly) if put up against challenges that were an appropriate challenge for my character.

So, instead of being a hero courageously leading an army, taking the feat instead turned into having a team of NPCs working like a cross between a sweatshop and a NASCAR pit crew to help build my character items and resources.

That was very much at odds with what I expected. I think it's even at odds with how the game itself presented the option. How that relates to complexity and my previous comment is that I had to learn how to play the game in a way that was neither intuitive for how I thought something would work nor was it obvious to understand from how the game itself advertised itself to work.

In contrast, if a GURPS character has Allies, Patrons, a mount, or whatever; it doesn't seem to break the assumptions of a setting or a playstyle. It works pretty much exactly how it tells me that it works. And how it works is within the ballpark of how I would already assume that it should work.

There are still things that I houserule. no game is perfect. But, for me personally, my experience with it has been that it's not nearly as complicated as it has a reputation for being. For me, I think that's because a lot of it works how it seems like it should work.

The exceptions to that (for me) have been rules for spaceships, jumping, and collisions. Jumping and collisions aren't particularly difficult to figure out, but the Basic Set way of doing them is indeed slow. There are quicker versions that can be found in later products that are better.

 

[kermit4karate]

And modern narrative games didn't exist...

Ah, the good old days...

Kidding! I jest.

 

[Agamon]

Ah, the good old days...

Kidding! I jest.

To be fair, modern tactical games didn't exist in the old days either lol

 

[Campbell]

So one of the interesting the form of more moderate crunch games in the last 10 or so years. Games like GURPS, Champions, Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Pathfinder et al are highly granular games that leave no stone unturned. No detail is too small to consider. Games like Lancer, Draw Steel, The Stormlight Archive RPG, Fabula Ultima, Warhammer - The Old World and Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition are for the most part even less granular than 5e, unless its something they care about and then they really care about it in exacting detail but will absolutely not sweat the things they do not care about.

Pathfinder Second Edition is interesting because in many ways it bucks that trend. Although to be fair it is still far less granular than Pathfinder First Edition.

 

[Reynard]

To be fair, modern tactical games didn't exist in the old days either lol

What makes a game a modern tactical game?