The Equilibrium of Complexity

RPGs run a wide range of mechanical complexity. Covering free-form styles (one could debate if these can be called rpgs at all) to games such as HERO System or GURPS.

Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.

It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.

That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.

How can this be?

If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.

However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.

Again, how can this be?

I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.

Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.

Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).

I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.

When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.

This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.

Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.

What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.

Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.

Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.

Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.