This has popped up in at least two recent thread over at the Main Forum:

The Traveller 5 thread, in this post I've made.

The "myth of nostalgia" thread, in this post by Premier.

My own feelings on this matter are, as with so many things in gaming, ambiguous. While I adore toolkit games, I can't quite subscribe to the idea that a bigger toolkit is a better toolkit. Hell, a toolkit I can't be arsed to use is not really a good one for me.

There are several games out there which offer all sorts of amazing options both for players and GMs, which I've written off because mounting complexity (to the detriment of expediency) was a concern. GURPS 4e, Hero 6e and FantasyCraft spring to mind, and I swear to God, Eclipse Phase is halfway there. Those aren't really clumsy games; they work well enough when the rubber hits the road, but they all seem to take forever to get there; they are "front-loaded" to use a common idiom. While I'm sure familiarity speeds up things, these games seem to demand a relatively big investment in time, upfront.

T5 specifically does seem to present the reader with a veritable smorgasboard of option in everything. My interest is actually quite piqued, but I'm just wary that it might be overwhelming; and wondering whether I'm better off with Mongoose and a few choice supplements (itself not too shabby a toolkit for my purposes, maybe not as comprehensive but more manageable).

On the other hand, ACKS is a big, complex toolkit, but most of the complexity isn't front-loaded; and being a TSR-era D&D variant, it also has familiarity in its favor. These two things have made the game incredibly accessible to me, and the result is that I consider it my absolute favorite iteration of D&D to date.

Other toolkit games sitting squarely on my complexity x expediency sweet spot are Runequest 6, SWN, Savage Worlds and nWoD.

Sorry if the above came across as rambling. I'd like other posters to chime in on their preferences, and hopefully share what they've gleaned about complexity vs. expediency, learning curves and time investment for front-loaded rulesets, and their own and their group's preferences. I've seen groups gleefully abandon very granular, front-loaded systems for quicker stuff, but I seldom hear the contrary -- a group dissatisfied with a quick and simple system revelling in the complexity of a heavy-duty toolkit. What are your experiences?

and...?

In my experience, it's easier to ignore the stuff you don't want or need than to make up stuff that's not there. Both, however, are viable options.

Quote from: flyingmice;649544and...?

Aw crap. Going back and editing.

This is a good thread, figuring out the right balance between complexity and playability is a constant headache for any designer. Beloved but too-complex mechanics must be discarded or morphed into tables if they are important enough, and if that's even possible. The front loading concept ties into a thread I started earlier as well about accounting versus overhead.

My own experience is that once off or rarely used complexity can be okay as long as it's not a show stopper. Too much complexity entering into play on a regular basis is a bad design choice.

A couple of addendums: GURPs is the classic example of a game that expects the GM to become a mini designer before play ever starts, and to a certain extent the players too, which is unreasonable, it's chronically front loaded with complexity despite being an otherwise decent system. Secondly and somewhat related, the learning curve is seperate from all other considerations. If a designer gives weird or non intuitive names to aspects of the system, sets up an elaborate, illogical structure to the rules, or otherwise goes out of their way to make things hard for people to grasp the flow of play, they are setting themselves up at a disadvantage from the starting line.

I recently read and was struck by the simplicity of SWN, not just in the system but the particulars of the setting, it felt warm and comfortable like a tool often used, and I haven't ever played OSR D&D derivatives, but here's a question: does it sacrifice too many options for the sake of simplicity, does it need a very experienced GM to get the best out of it and leave starting groups struggling with unexpected situations?

I normally hate the sorts of conversation where you have to define terms at the start, but I'm not sure how far we'll get here without deciding what is meant by 'complexity'.
There are games where just routine processes are complicated (I suppose Rolemaster, via frontloading results into charts), there are games which are just comprehensive in regard to edge case, there are games which are complicated because there are reasonable numbers of choices which will probably end up badly if not thought through; GURPS is sometimes described as being that, same with 3E D&D when you get to the character-building minigame.
Complexity giving you extra options adds to toolkitness, while more detailed rules can detract by making it harder to 're-skin' or adjust things.

I think you'll get different perspectives whether you ask this question to a player or a GM, too.
When I'm playing, I'm generally quite happy with a complex ruleset - I don't mind spending a couple of hours putting together a character - and I like having the options to customize my character and whatnot. GMing though, I'll prefer a simpler system since there's less overhead and messing around required. I enjoyed GMing Savage Worlds from the simplicity, playing it not as much; I enjoy playing 3.5 D&D but not GMing it so much.

Other than that, certainly familiarity does make a system easier to use. FantasyCraft say looks reasonably horrifying to me, but I expect it'd mainly be that its just something that takes awhile to get used to (because of the way all the decisions interconnect and require rules knowledge, making character creation rules at the front a joke) and after that is more straightforward. Its a bit of a mess because it combines 'extra options' and 'more detailed rules' and the two things work at cross-purposes.

Quote from: The Traveller;649598This is a good thread, figuring out the right balance between complexity and playability is a constant headache for any designer.

Agreed.

I don't think there is a right answer that will appease all gamers, but its a key issue for designers to think about and choose where on the Complexity vs. Playability chart they want their game to fall.

Quote from: The Traveller;649598I recently read and was struck by the simplicity of SWN, not just in the system but the particulars of the setting, it felt warm and comfortable like a tool often used, and I haven't ever played OSR D&D derivatives, but here's a question: does it sacrifice too many options for the sake of simplicity, does it need a very experienced GM to get the best out of it and leave starting groups struggling with unexpected situations?

I don't know.

I enjoy running SWN, but it was initially disconcerting for my D20 players and my Traveller players because its a hybrid. Sometimes you roll D20, sometimes 2D6 and that has been a brain hurdle during my demos. Neither group was thrilled having to remember WTF dice do I roll for this action?

From the GM side with SWN, I don't feel like I am missing options. I really wanted to enjoy Star Siege which was a great toolbox, but FOR ME it felt like I ordered a pizza and somebody delivered me a seeds and gardening tools.

My platonic ideal for a game has two systems for each and every thing in the game.

One super abstract and simple system.

And one 3,438 page flowchart system.

And each one would work in tandem with every other system and I could freely flip between the two on any given task without fucking anything up.

Cause sometimes I want one and sometimes the other, often times in the same session.

Quote from: Piestrio;649661My platonic ideal for a game has two systems for each and every thing in the game.

One super abstract and simple system.

And one 3,438 page flowchart system.

And each one would work in tandem with every other system and I could freely flip between the two on any given task without fucking anything up.

Cause sometimes I want one and sometimes the other, often times in the same session.

Why not at the same time, with the same non-player character, as it interacts with different other players who have different preferences? Dude, you're too easy going.

Quote from: taustin;649562In my experience, it's easier to ignore the stuff you don't want or need than to make up stuff that's not there. Both, however, are viable options.

Often, though, it's not a matter of ignoring the stuff you dislike, and more a matter of finding the stuff you like... amidst the 576 pages. This is tedious.

As well, being a player or GM in a roleplaying game is all about making up stuff that's not there. So it should not be too onerous a burden to do a bit of it for a roleplaying game.

Thus, err on the side of simplicity.

Quote from: taustin;649562In my experience, it's easier to ignore the stuff you don't want or need than to make up stuff that's not there. Both, however, are viable options.

This is true

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;649721Often, though, it's not a matter of ignoring the stuff you dislike, and more a matter of finding the stuff you like... amidst the 576 pages. This is tedious.

And so is this.

I can only speak for myself, but as a game designer, here is my philosophy:

The rulebook is a toolkit to help achieve a certain type of game style.  Some people prefer a simpler kit, like a 1968 Camaro, while others prefer a lot of complexity, like a 2007 Subaru WRX modified with racing options.  As a game designer, you really can't do one kit that works perfectly for both groups.  You need to decide what kind of game you feel most passionate about playing, and hope that others like it to.  You can't cater to everyone, and if you're making compromises in your design for things that you really wish you didn't, then people can tell.  You get a half-assed rule that just screams, "Here's your compromise, but I didn't really want to do it."

I typically land on the very detail heavy side when I'm first designing a game.  Rules for tons of scenarios, and options aplenty.  However, during actual playtesting, I always end up tossing aside 75% of them because they either don't flow right or slow things down too much.  Such is the way it is.

For example, in my current game (% based), I has a "to Hit" %, a Defense % (reduce to hit roll by this amount), and a damage absorption value (how much damage is reduced by from each hit).  What we found during playtest is that either the players or GM needing to account for Defense every attack (a subtraction step with double digit numbers) was sort of a pain.  A lot of people don't like subtracting double digit numbers.  This system may have been more accurate in representing factors, but was no good.  So now there is just a to hit roll and a defense value.  Roll under your to hit value to succeed, and subtract defense from damage.  The defense value now accounts not only for things like armor, but also for things like dodging ability into one value that hardly ever reaches into double digits.

Simpler, but does the job just like the more complex way.  And it's been around for a long time (IIRC, WFRP 1e does something just like it)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;649721Often, though, it's not a matter of ignoring the stuff you dislike, and more a matter of finding the stuff you like... amidst the 576 pages. This is tedious.

As well, being a player or GM in a roleplaying game is all about making up stuff that's not there. So it should not be too onerous a burden to do a bit of it for a roleplaying game.

Thus, err on the side of simplicity.

A valid position to take. Easier isn't always better. Just easier.

Once you're out of university and you don't have all weekend to game, your time's limited - and thus easier is better, because with only a certain amount of time to game, you don't want to spend half of it looking up rules.

If you've a complex game and a long-term game group and are all super-familiar with it, great. But most people don't have that, they have a core group of 2-3 people they play with over a few years, then another 2-3 who change constantly... and 5 or so years later, that core group itself has changed.

The makeup of your game group affects what game designs are interesting and viable for you. Game designers do well to remember that not everyone has a game group exactly like theirs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;649862Game designers do well to remember that not everyone has a game group exactly like theirs.

Yup.

I view complexity as a "budget" — you have to decide how complex your system will be, and spend it wisely. Is ombat important? Make those rules more complex.

Or is your game about spies and intrigue, where combat is infrequent, and usually an inferior option? Then you spend complexity on rules for spying and subornation, and make the combat system simple but lethal.

All design involves tradeoffs, and designers have to make tough calls. No one design will appeal to everyone, or suit all situations.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;649862Once you're out of university and you don't have all weekend to game, your time's limited - and thus easier is better, because with only a certain amount of time to game, you don't want to spend half of it looking up rules.

If you've a complex game and a long-term game group and are all super-familiar with it, great. But most people don't have that, they have a core group of 2-3 people they play with over a few years, then another 2-3 who change constantly... and 5 or so years later, that core group itself has changed.

The makeup of your game group affects what game designs are interesting and viable for you. Game designers do well to remember that not everyone has a game group exactly like theirs.

This +1000.