I remember, as 3rd Edition D&D was in its last stages of development, I looked at the long list of modifiers based on situation that would appear in the Player’s Handbook.
I get where this is coming from, but as a "predominently" GM, I always get a little irked at the blame all falling on the GM. Players love complexity when it comes to them getting to show off their deep game knowledge in days long character construction, or describing their character's actions in intricate rule and "realism" detail so they can show off their knowledge of sabre fencing or whatever. Players love complexity when it comes to their own solipsistic little world of character crunch.
I think a lot of complexity is in the character creation and development, to try to make them all feel less "samey" because their sheets all list different stats and skills and abilites and whatever... yet it sucks if surface differences all boil down to the same "samey" thing, which is "Here is how the Fighter gets +2 damage, and here is how the Thief gets +2 damage..." etc.
Even if the simulation comes down to a few bonuses or penalties... as a player I do want the GM to have actually THOUGHT about these things in depth. As a player, if I'm fighting on the edge of a volcano, I expect that my actions should reflect that, and I expect to be clever enough to try and take advantage (He's in plate, and I'm in leather... I'm going to maneuver to stay close to the edge and he should heat up and become incapacitated way before I do...") and the GM better have thought through how to rule on that. Simple rule implementation or not, I want to see the logical thought process on the part of the GM, otherwise, why bother putting us on the edge of a volcano in the first place?
The trap can be trying to mechanize every aspect of that logical thought process... which as you point out, isn't necessary.
That's why I always carefully state that different games have different needs. Sometimes, a bit of complexity and accurate simulation is exactly what the players and GM want. Another reason why it's so good to be a gamer right now--enough choices so that you can get the game experience you're looking for.
And you know, I agree cmpletely with the sentiment that it gets boring if everything just boils down to a bonus or a penalty. It all feels, as you say, very "samey." I much prefer more descriptive mods, like, "while you're balancing on the volcano's edge, you can't use your big heavy sword or you'll tip yourself into the caldera--you have to use your dagger." Or something like that. In fact, I think you've given me a nudge toward an upcoming column.
Your "must use your dagger" scenario makes me think of something... which is when descriptive mods are actually supported by game mechanics. In this instance, you made me think of 2d20 Conan (Mephidross or whatever... can't spell the company's name). This is a rather wonderful sword and sorcery sim, buried under terrible layout, confusing language and clearly "written by committee"confusion. If you take the time to really fight through and figure out how the game works, it is pretty sweet, but boy is it a slog getting there.
Anyway, one of the mechanics is "Reach" which is basically weapon length. Shorter weapons have greater difficulty against longer reach weapons until you break guard (get in close) and then your advantage shifts... and there are currency spends and maneuvers to do this. Gives a great amount of flavor to sword fights, which is a primary reason to play a Conan pastiche, right?
In your "must use your dagger" scenario... it would not only be flavorful and descriptive, but would have a cool mechanical basis of "Must use a weapon with a Reach of 1... anything longer, and every attack risks throwing you over the edge." Now you have a cool puzzle, dramatic choice for the player. Continue using my bastard sword which is a better weapon and gives me an advantage against my opponent, at the risk of death by lava... or switch to my dagger, which I'm not as good with, and we have a bloody little knife fight on the edge."
THAT becomes dramatic as hell, and the kind of scenario I play RPGs for. There is player choice and investment, there is character choice and palm sweating tension, and there are core mechanical repercussions for those choices.
I would argue that, at least in my experience, a lot of the rules clutter can happen in a legitimate attempt to create a core set of axiomatic rules... from which you (the GM/plyaer, play group) can base your decision making. All RPG play comes down to making a decision on what happens next... the question is, how many criteria do you need to consider in order to feel you made the right choice?
(And if you'd ever like to discuss "How Much SIM is enough SIM?" I'd be here all day!)
I still remember struggling with that mountain of modifiers is 3rd Ed. I'm sitting there trying to calculate my chance to hit. The DM is nagging me because I'm taking so long. Finally I just threw down my pencil and said, "Look, [expletive deleted], you can either have a complicated game, or you can have one that moves fast. You can't have both."
There was a real push to make 3E into a game where if the GM didn't want to make any judgment calls, they didn't have to. So everything within reason was laid out in detail. That's why it was nice, in the DMG, that I was able to present ideas on how to "wing it" as that's always been my style anyway.
Can we have a discussion around "If you can't make judgment calls, you shouldn't be a GM."?? 'cause damn, it is no wonder I've despised D&D since like 1981, if that was truly the design mentality.
Complex rules are little gravity wells. They draw players in and time dilates around them. Combat is a huge time sink for many games because most of their fiiddly rule bits are about combat simulation. I've been thinking about this as I work on my own designs and try to really hone in on what parts of the game I want to give the spotlight to. That's where I try to focus the complexity, not just of rules, but also lore, descriptions, flavor, etc.
We shouldn't be trying to simulate reality. We should be trying to simulate the cinematic universe of our favorite novels, comics, and films. A fight at the edge of a volcano needs no special rules at all.
You've nailed something important about game design. A beautiful rule means nothing in isolation. And your suggestion that complexity is currency seems dead on. You spend a bit here and there on a finely crafted rule, and suddenly, you're in a bad state. The game is too complex, at least at some points, to be playable.
What did you think of your time working on Rolemaster? I think it's the most brilliant game ever designed. When I encountered RM, the only thing I had really played was AD&D. My mind was blown. I saw just how bizarre AD&D was. D20, high roll for this; D20, low roll for that; d100 high/low, etc. What a mishmash of stuff. Rolemaster is complex but elegant. But few games can get that complexity to work.
Excellent post. I ran into this on my game design project. I don't dislike the original concept, but I had to back off and rethink the game. There's no reason to try and make a rule for everything that could possibly happen. It's not necessary, and it bogs down play. At least for what I'm trying to accomplish.
"complexity is a currency, and you only have a limited amount to spend."
Really like that. I did SENTINELS OF THE MULTIVERSE with a board game group this week. 2/10 people seemed to like the fiddly bits and the optimization. A couple seemed to earnestly struggle. The others just laid back and had side conversations until it was time for me to walk them through their turn.
Great post.
I get where this is coming from, but as a "predominently" GM, I always get a little irked at the blame all falling on the GM. Players love complexity when it comes to them getting to show off their deep game knowledge in days long character construction, or describing their character's actions in intricate rule and "realism" detail so they can show off their knowledge of sabre fencing or whatever. Players love complexity when it comes to their own solipsistic little world of character crunch.
I think a lot of complexity is in the character creation and development, to try to make them all feel less "samey" because their sheets all list different stats and skills and abilites and whatever... yet it sucks if surface differences all boil down to the same "samey" thing, which is "Here is how the Fighter gets +2 damage, and here is how the Thief gets +2 damage..." etc.
Even if the simulation comes down to a few bonuses or penalties... as a player I do want the GM to have actually THOUGHT about these things in depth. As a player, if I'm fighting on the edge of a volcano, I expect that my actions should reflect that, and I expect to be clever enough to try and take advantage (He's in plate, and I'm in leather... I'm going to maneuver to stay close to the edge and he should heat up and become incapacitated way before I do...") and the GM better have thought through how to rule on that. Simple rule implementation or not, I want to see the logical thought process on the part of the GM, otherwise, why bother putting us on the edge of a volcano in the first place?
The trap can be trying to mechanize every aspect of that logical thought process... which as you point out, isn't necessary.
That's why I always carefully state that different games have different needs. Sometimes, a bit of complexity and accurate simulation is exactly what the players and GM want. Another reason why it's so good to be a gamer right now--enough choices so that you can get the game experience you're looking for.
And you know, I agree cmpletely with the sentiment that it gets boring if everything just boils down to a bonus or a penalty. It all feels, as you say, very "samey." I much prefer more descriptive mods, like, "while you're balancing on the volcano's edge, you can't use your big heavy sword or you'll tip yourself into the caldera--you have to use your dagger." Or something like that. In fact, I think you've given me a nudge toward an upcoming column.
Your "must use your dagger" scenario makes me think of something... which is when descriptive mods are actually supported by game mechanics. In this instance, you made me think of 2d20 Conan (Mephidross or whatever... can't spell the company's name). This is a rather wonderful sword and sorcery sim, buried under terrible layout, confusing language and clearly "written by committee"confusion. If you take the time to really fight through and figure out how the game works, it is pretty sweet, but boy is it a slog getting there.
Anyway, one of the mechanics is "Reach" which is basically weapon length. Shorter weapons have greater difficulty against longer reach weapons until you break guard (get in close) and then your advantage shifts... and there are currency spends and maneuvers to do this. Gives a great amount of flavor to sword fights, which is a primary reason to play a Conan pastiche, right?
In your "must use your dagger" scenario... it would not only be flavorful and descriptive, but would have a cool mechanical basis of "Must use a weapon with a Reach of 1... anything longer, and every attack risks throwing you over the edge." Now you have a cool puzzle, dramatic choice for the player. Continue using my bastard sword which is a better weapon and gives me an advantage against my opponent, at the risk of death by lava... or switch to my dagger, which I'm not as good with, and we have a bloody little knife fight on the edge."
THAT becomes dramatic as hell, and the kind of scenario I play RPGs for. There is player choice and investment, there is character choice and palm sweating tension, and there are core mechanical repercussions for those choices.
I would argue that, at least in my experience, a lot of the rules clutter can happen in a legitimate attempt to create a core set of axiomatic rules... from which you (the GM/plyaer, play group) can base your decision making. All RPG play comes down to making a decision on what happens next... the question is, how many criteria do you need to consider in order to feel you made the right choice?
(And if you'd ever like to discuss "How Much SIM is enough SIM?" I'd be here all day!)
I still remember struggling with that mountain of modifiers is 3rd Ed. I'm sitting there trying to calculate my chance to hit. The DM is nagging me because I'm taking so long. Finally I just threw down my pencil and said, "Look, [expletive deleted], you can either have a complicated game, or you can have one that moves fast. You can't have both."
There was a real push to make 3E into a game where if the GM didn't want to make any judgment calls, they didn't have to. So everything within reason was laid out in detail. That's why it was nice, in the DMG, that I was able to present ideas on how to "wing it" as that's always been my style anyway.
Can we have a discussion around "If you can't make judgment calls, you shouldn't be a GM."?? 'cause damn, it is no wonder I've despised D&D since like 1981, if that was truly the design mentality.
Complex rules are little gravity wells. They draw players in and time dilates around them. Combat is a huge time sink for many games because most of their fiiddly rule bits are about combat simulation. I've been thinking about this as I work on my own designs and try to really hone in on what parts of the game I want to give the spotlight to. That's where I try to focus the complexity, not just of rules, but also lore, descriptions, flavor, etc.
We shouldn't be trying to simulate reality. We should be trying to simulate the cinematic universe of our favorite novels, comics, and films. A fight at the edge of a volcano needs no special rules at all.
You've nailed something important about game design. A beautiful rule means nothing in isolation. And your suggestion that complexity is currency seems dead on. You spend a bit here and there on a finely crafted rule, and suddenly, you're in a bad state. The game is too complex, at least at some points, to be playable.
What did you think of your time working on Rolemaster? I think it's the most brilliant game ever designed. When I encountered RM, the only thing I had really played was AD&D. My mind was blown. I saw just how bizarre AD&D was. D20, high roll for this; D20, low roll for that; d100 high/low, etc. What a mishmash of stuff. Rolemaster is complex but elegant. But few games can get that complexity to work.
Excellent post. I ran into this on my game design project. I don't dislike the original concept, but I had to back off and rethink the game. There's no reason to try and make a rule for everything that could possibly happen. It's not necessary, and it bogs down play. At least for what I'm trying to accomplish.
"complexity is a currency, and you only have a limited amount to spend."
Really like that. I did SENTINELS OF THE MULTIVERSE with a board game group this week. 2/10 people seemed to like the fiddly bits and the optimization. A couple seemed to earnestly struggle. The others just laid back and had side conversations until it was time for me to walk them through their turn.