So I've defined what complexity in game design is, how an individual selects what degree of complexity is best for them, and how a gaming group relates to complexity.
In the process a number of thoughts occurred to me. Counter arguments as it were to some common assertions made online about RPGs. In each there is no doubt room for actual research and collection of data (that no one had done). That hasn't kept people from making the assertions, and it won't keep me from pointing out where they may have gone wrong.
1) What the hobby needs is a simple introductory game.
I consider this to be highly doubtful.
Given that successful game design must reach a state of Complexity Equilibrium with its players to be of long term interest- it's likely that a simple game will quicky bore most, and if that's their first experience- it may turn them off the hobby forever.
There might be room for a 'basic' set, 'advanced' set approach that meets this idea. However that was done by D&D- and then abandoned by D&D. Businesses are driven by costs and income, and that history stands strongly in the way of this concept.
Why would a Basic edition fail? I think the labeling of 'Basic' itself would be as much or more of a turn-off as it would be a suitable introduction. Add in the increased production costs, and it's just not worth it.
2) Splat books are nothing but an money grab from gaming companies.
I also consider this to be highly doubtful.
As a matter of fact, I consider Splat books to be the 'Advanced' with the core rules being the 'Basic' of concept number 2. But it's without the negative labeling, and without a watered down system to start.
The fact that they are released after the core rules also provides on on-going increase to system complexity needed by gamers who have mastered the core rules and are perhaps growing bored of them.
3) You can either role-play or roll-play
Often this is directed towards a specific game system.
This old bit of flame-bait can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes by someone who hasn't mastered a certain level of complexity. It is akin to a checkers players saying that those who play chess can't really play a game because they are so focused on the ways the different pieces move.
Not that one can't roll-play, but when viewed through the lens of Complexity Equilibrium it's clear that such play is a style choice- not a system one.
Finally, a bit of reflection.
If all this applies one would expect that the most successful games would be those who's complexity reached equilibrium with the largest number of players. That these games would have core rules and expansions them that are released over the life span of the edition.
And this is actually the case in the market.
I almost feel smart. If not for the fact that the major game companies figured this out back in the old days...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
It's not at all clear to me that the basic/advanced D&D approach was tried and found wanting; my understanding is that it was by far the most lucrative and successful D&D has ever been. Rather, other considerations involving the struggle for control over the company and a loss of focus,
led to TSR's later problems.
And yet later editions abandoned the Basic/Advanced model. An odd thing if it really was the most lucrative and successful...
More likely Advanced was the lucrative and successful, Basic was played up by the marketing of TSR at the time for obvious reasons.
That the following publishers, with full knowledge of past sales declined to repeat the model says about all that needs to be said.
Yeah, I really hate that role/roll-play dichotomy. Sometimes people need to feel clever.
~Adaen of Bridgewater
I would disagree that basic/advanced was the most lucrative and successful D&D. 3e was, if you look at sales and overall profit, considerably more lucrative and successful than Basic or Advanced. And it is light years of complexity ahead of Basic/Advanced.
I'm with Gleichman on this - looking at the industry over time, a pretty clear model for success is visible. Fairly complex rules, adding additional complexity with expansions seems to be the way to go. And leveling up to new versions sporadically seems to work to refresh sales as well.
Wickedmurph, you raise an interesting question.
Given the assertion that each edition of D&D was more complex than the one before- was this necessary to keep the current market, i.e. give them new rules to master?
And if this progression was necessary, what happens when it hits the point not just of diminishing returns- but the hard ceiling of being too complex?
Do we see it crash, to await a period of revival at a lower starting complexity level- and then a repeat of the cycle?
>a pretty clear model for success is visible. Fairly complex rules, adding additional complexity with expansions
Then why isn't Rolemaster, GURPS, or Palldium the dominant game systems? How come Space Opera wasn't a success? or Midnight?
Basic/advanced exists today, there's a boxed set of intro D&D, with a mini and a map I think. Currently the minis game is the basic, 4ed is the advanced.
Lots of companies have churned out a rules set and then tons of splat books. Not a lot of companies have thrived. That's not an "I haz success" button. Rather it is one of the most profitable methods of business. It occurs in fiction books, movies, computer games (sequels and merchandising). It also occurs in RPGs as well as board games. When you have a hit, you milk that for all it's worth. Biz 101.
The complexity stuff made sense, you went off the rails when you figured it as the cause of industry success.
Norman Harman: I think if anyone went off the rail here, it was likely you.
Unless you can point out where I said that following that line of thought was a "I am now the top of the heap". But you're going to have a difficult time.
The very thought is silly in fact, as I could present the greatest market plan of all time- and the condition you've tried to place on (all must be be #1) is flatly impossible.
The product lines you mention had varying degrees of success. They used the same model, so the answer is clearly in how well they used that model and other factors of market and game design.
If you want to dispute my thoughts here, show vast success for game lines that followed a different model. But really, all you'll find is flash in the pan failures.
Norman Harman: The minis game is no longer officially supported. The introductory game you're referring to is just as 4e as the PHB, DMG and MM. It does have fewer rules, but that's largely because it doesn't provide for leveling up past a certain point. The assumption is that you'll play the intro game and then purchase the rest of the game if you enjoy it, sort of like a demo.
Thanks Scott, I forgot to respond to the mini game/D&D 4th edition point.
In addition to your statement, I think that assertion is...
...obviously incorrect from the beginning.
One thing I've noticed since I started following the gamer blogging community is that among "bloggers" simplicity is favored. The rest of the community doesn't necessarily feel that way. Forumites are the opposite, they prefer complex systems that they can debate the minutae of, which is why on RPGnet Exalted rules, but among the RPGbloggers there's nary a peep on it.
Part of this is that I think bloggers have a lot of stuff on the go and don't have time to delve into a complex game whole heartedly, they're interested in something they can get a clear impression of in 20 minutes of skimming and then spend 20 minutes pumping out tomorrow's post talking about it. Blog readers want fresh content after all and they're not interested in day 5 of digging into a big system where today the topic is Poisons and Diseases. Unless that big system is D&D which a lot of people are interested in, in which case the wide demographic creates an effect similar to what happens in forums and interested parties find it.
So what I'm saying is, if you listened to just what the RPGbloggers are saying you would be swiftly convinced that a simple set of rules reaching back into old-school nostalgic settings will be the ultimate key to game-designer success.
The truth I think is something no blogger wants to admit though, complexity is preferable to the masses, but there's a better medium for it now. Why should anyone write a cool tabletop driving simulator when there are about to be 5 iterations of GranTorismo? Just about every genre of RPG is being served in some fashion by video games, and while that medium hasn't reached the sweet spot of human interaction and versatility of another human reacting in real-time to your actions, the user-interfaces to do so are improving all the time and soon there will be programs that will do everything the most complex game systems will do while still allowing the GM to have narrative control. That won't be the death toll for Pen and Paper RPG's, they'll still exist much as they do now, it's just that there will be a much wider demographic of gamers who are basically doing the same thing we are, only the majority might never have touched a d20 in their life.
Post a Comment