"One thing I've noticed since I started following the gamer blogging community is that among "bloggers" simplicity is favored.", Helmsman
I've noticed much the same thing. Love of simple systems seems overwhelming online, and that doesn't match the larger market or my offline experiences. Not even close.
To be honest, I don't really know how to explain this. But here are two possible reasons:
- People are really bad at game design, either doing or understanding. Thus those gamers driven to write sort of have to be those who favor simple systems because they'd end up looking like fools when they screwed up talking about complex ones.
- Fans of complex systems stick to writing about them on forums for those complex system. Enworld for D&D, Steve Jackson boards, or the HERO System boards are examples.
Helmsman second point that I wanted to comment on:
"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?", Helmsman
I'm going to have to disagree markly here.
Computer/Console games by nature aren't complex. Sure, they are from a programmer's viewpoint- but not the players. There they are little more than learning the pattern and mastering a handful of controls. The real complexity of mass and implementation has all but been removed and is handled by the computer.
The real complexity of mass and These types of games also suffer in other ways when compared to PnP RPGs. The player doesn't 'own' the system, house rules are limited to mods and those are very restrained as they must always operate under the core program's constraints.
The players also don't own the world. The day (back in the 90s) when Wing Commander killed Angel was the day that I realized that computer games would never allow me to play out a story the way I wanted to play them out. They were in the end little better than watching TV.
These factors, ownership and ability to control the game system (and interact with it direct), world, and story are things computer games are still very far away from. And I doubt they'll get there in the next 10-20 years.
So no, there is not a better medium for complexity. They is however certainly a more popular one.
Posts
14 comments:
I don't blog, but I comment a lot, and I would like to posit a 3rd reason why bloggers seem to prefer simpler systems:
3. They are house rule hobbyists. This leads them to prefer games that give them skeletal rules to customize and build off of without having to start completely from scratch.
James V: That almost sounds reasonable, but IME such people continue to keep their rules very simple.
So while they may use them as a skeletal starting point- they don't take them very far.
Meanwhile, out in the real world people are taking fully extended games (like D&D with many supplements) and *adding* to that.
Needless to say I am basing it off my own experiences.
In a way, my point is a sort of corallary to your point 1. I know I have some facility with RPG rules, but I am also well aware of my own shortcomings, so I prefer to build off simpler rules. It gives me a solid start and it's easier to keep track of and spot my own mistakes before play.
When I'm done, I rarely come up with reams of new rules, but it can vary from new game to new game and what kind of complexity I think the players will be comfortable with, and what might be fun to try.
James V: No doubt, and it's a valid way of doing things.
Another possible thought- those running complex rules are too busy running complex rules to be worried about posting stuff online...
A slight remix of a r.g.f.a thought put forth by Warren to explain why so few Gamists were found online- that Gamists are playing games instead.
One issue I'm not sure you've emphasized enough is the difference between complex systems (rules) and complex play. Simple rules may allow for much more complex play...complex rules are often constraining. So you have the phenomena of simple play in a complex game (dungeon crawls in D&D as one example) vs the much more complex or tactical play in some of the comparatively simpler games (FATE and Savage Worlds come to mind).
You see similarities in board games. For example, compare Axis and Allies to Go. Go is the simpler set of rules yet it's also the only board game I'm aware of where computers still can't beat the best human players.
It's about the ramifications of choices...and complex rule sets often narrow choices.
Shawn: Completely and totally disagree. That view is nothing but another version of role-play vs. roll-play and is false.
Simple counter example- no one claims chess has simpler play than checkers, yet it has the more complex rules.
That's not to say that poorly designed complex rules won't have the effect you claim, but well done ones don't.
The average RPG player isn't in high school or college anymore. They are working adults with family and responsibilities that cut into available free time.
Simple rules are faster to master and easier to convey to players. You don't have to go through a one inch thick brick of a rulebook in order play. This means more time playing and less non-play prep work.
JJ Kahrs: That's just another way of saying what I said in my first article.
Some games are too complex for people and they seek what suits them.
I do however think your way of saying it reflects sour grapes more than anything. I don't do 'X' because I don't don't have the time is an excuse.
No one was asking for an excuse.
A few miscellaneous comments, from someone who enjoys both lightweight systems (e.g., Fudge) and complicated systems (e.g., Hero, D&D 3.5).
Designing a good lightweight set of rules that don't produce nonsensical or predictable results in play or rely on too much GM assessment is not that easy. It's related to there are so few timeless board games like Chess and Go (or even something along the level of Risk or Stratego) available and so many board games that quickly get boring. So I suspect anyone attracted to light systems because of your first reason won't produce anything good or memorable (and that may be why some of the small press games are duds or get old very quickly).
To James V's point about rule hobbyists, I'd add people who like skeletal rules because it allows the GM to more easily control the game in systems where rule complexity is replaced with a lot assessment that lets the GM get the results that they want.
I also think that the relationship between the complexity of the system and the complexity of the game depends on the group. For the people I've played with, complex rules seem to increase the tactical sophistication of the players' decisions because the details matter more. On the other hand, there is sometimes more "out of the box" thinking with the rules light games.
Finally, despite the judgement inherent in the role-play vs. roll-play dichotomy, the different ways in which I enjoy a simple system like Fudge and a complicated system like Hero is described pretty well by that divide. When I'm playing a light system and get deeply into character, I play by intuition and want the rules to be as unobtrusive as possible. When I'm playing a heavy system and get deeply into the tactics, I adopt an analytical style of thinking that's closer to how I approach a board game or war game. As such, I'm either immersed in a "roll" or I'm calculating the "rolls" and I find it very difficult to do both at the same time.
John Morrow: I think John that when you state that:
"I'm either immersed in a "roll" or I'm calculating the "rolls"
I must assume that the first 'roll' there was intended to be role...
...and that you've proved my point. If you're unable to role-play while you're 'calcualting'- the game you've selected is too complex for you to use as a rpg.
So you're not really one who enjoys light and complex rpgs. Rather by defintion and your own statement- you're one who enjoys light *rpgs* and complex *games*.
Oooh. Recognition!
I'll admit that you got me on the phrasing, more popular is not synonymous with better, you're quite right there. However I don't share the belief that computer systems will never be able to do what tabletop RPG's do because I know that computers can do exactly that already. All it takes is a PDF book, an online dice roller, and a communication program like Skype or Vent. There are many many character generators out there that allow players to utilize the strengths of computers build their characters faster. So there the computers are cutting the work-load down.
The next step is creating avatars and animating them within a world that the GM can create and alter as quickly as he could describe a scene. That's simply a user-interface issue and UI improvements are occurring all the time. I don't see it as being that far off. I was actually hoping Dragon Age Origins would offer a multiplayer mod kit along those lines, and they still might, but it didn't seem to be in the cards for the initial release.
I've never said that computers will ever be able to tell a story that the players own, I honestly don't believe that's possible... MMO's can create action/reaction/response algorithms that could have interesting repercussions to actions but that's not quite the same as a fluid interactive story. However from a mechanical perspective, computers are very close to providing a framework for play that draws in players with no geographical boundaries, creates a more immersive medium than 90% of GM's can with only verbal descriptions around a tabletop, and does all the mechanical referencing and resolution of the game in real time.
If that doesn't constitute as "better" then the word probably should be removed from the English language as being irrelevant.
'better' is fine in the english language, and isn't at fault for people using it incorrectly.
No, your 'off-load' of game mechanics is not better. The disconnect that causes in players is very visible in MMORPGs, all it does is create stupid and lazy players.
"No, your 'off-load' of game mechanics is not better. The disconnect that causes in players is very visible in MMORPGs, all it does is create stupid and lazy players."
That response does you no credit. I'm fine with keeping it at personal preference and there are points made for basic human interaction being superior to people chatting on the internet, but beyond that your response is no different than a crotchety old man complaining that mechanized labor is destroying good old fashioned work ethic.
Plus there's the fact that I've heard (and admittedly said a few times) game X [X = Rifts, D&D (choose your edition) Storyteller, MMO's, Magic, Warhammer MUDs, MUX's FPS's, Exalted and many more...] creates stupid gamers.
So I'm just going to discount what you said there as a bit of over-enthusiasm getting away from your usually smart and well thought-out dialog.
Brian: I think your assessment of my statement is generally correct (and, yes, the first "roll" should have been "role") but I do think there are role-playing benefits to having complex rules. For me, there is such a thing as "too simple", which is why my group tried but rejected playing with only one hard rule ("high rolls on a d20 are good and low rolls are bad").
The challenge to a good set of light rules, in my opinion, is to have enough complexity that every roll doesn't rely entirely on the GM to modify and interpret (which not only puts a lot of burden on the GM but can cause problems if there is a disconnect between player and GM assumptions) or wind up being essentially identical to every other roll (which means that the details of a situation don't matter).
In practice, for my group, that has meant including some complexity where we care and trimming it out where we don't. It also helps to keep the numbers small, the modifiers broad, and rule interactions simple to resolve.
For example, in combat, my group cares about position and timing (which adds quite a bit of tactical flavor) but not so much about the nuance between each individual weapon, so the light systems we use tend to use map boards, movement rates, and some sort of timing structure like rounds but might not differentiate much between weapons and classify them into broad categories.
This is not unlike the priorities Chess, where position and timing are important but each piece attacks and defeats another piece the same way. And like Chess, the goal is to capture tactical complexity with simple rules. But unlike Chess, those rules have to represent character choices rather than abstract rules.
One way to make complicated rules play more like light rules is through the use of character sheets that pre-calculate a lot of the mathematical complexity or make details easy to look up. For example, the list of attacks on the Hero System character sheet that put the OCV, DCV and damage values for each attack in an easy to use chart is helpful. The OCV, DCV, and ECV in the Hero system are a good example of abstracting a lot of complexity into some simple values and rules. Another example is pre-calculating various AC values on the D&D 3.5 character sheet -- full AC, touch AC, and flat-footed AC.
Post a Comment