Quote from: gleichman;628212Which designation? That average people are average and thus capable of average complexity and less capable of above average complexity?

You really believe that statement to be false?

What is average complexity?  The term "average" implies that it's measurable.

Quote from: Piestrio;628168Perfectly reasonable point for discussion...



Aaaaaaaaand dickhead.

LOL!  I had the EXACT same thought!  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;628215What is average complexity?  The term "average" implies that it's measurable.

Oh I get it, an attempt at the  classic post-modern deconstruction. Beat about the bush, ask for things unrelated to the core point, and end up claiming nothing useful can be said about the original subject.

Bite me.

Quote from: gleichman;628212Which designation? That average people are average and thus capable of average complexity and less capable of above average complexity?

You really believe that statement to be false?

It's too general to be of any use.

Consider that 'average people' have differing ideas on what they like to do.  Some are detail oriented and LOVE to dive into fiddly bits.  These folks will seek out 'above average complexity' on a regular basis, if even only for short bursts, because it feeds them tasty dopamine, even when they fail.  They could be dumb as posts and still enjoy immersing themselves in layer upon layer of detail and complexity.

It's all about what you 'like' to do, seeing as this is an entertainment exercise, and is completely optional.  It also runs into stiff competition from other entertainment exercises.

So while you have some data (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) about 'average capability', I'm not so sure you can predict what portion of those people select entertainment options that they are likely to fail at, because they're wired that way.

AND, and, and even if they do 'fail at RPG' - whatever that would look like - you're assuming that they wouldn't then just buy another splat book, and/or another company's book, and try again.  You're assuming they'd recognize the complexity was the issue and adapt accordingly.

Again, if you have data, even if it is just from shitty, bad-science studies, we can address my use of the word 'assume'.

Quote from: gleichman;628228Oh I get it, an attempt at the  classic post-modern at deconstruction. Beat about the bush, ask for things unrelated to the core point, and end up claiming nothing useful can be said about the original subject.

Bite me.

so, no then?  You can't back up your claims with any sort of methodology.  And what do you mean by "ask for things unrelated to the core point."  The core point is you saying that average people can't handle anything but average complexity,and I'm asking to you to define what average is.  That IS the core point, dumbass.


Look, let me break it down for you in really simple terms that clearly shows you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Every single RPG I can think of over the past 30+ years I've played relies only on grade school math and reading comprehension skills.  Every one.  Maybe occasional basic algebra here and there, but I don't recall any specific example.

According to you and your bizarro logic, role-players can't do basic math.  If the most complex RPG out there is still using basic math, but only 10% of role-players play it, that means 90% can't do basic math.

That's what you're saying.  And that's why you're so wrong on this.  Complexity has jack shit to do with a preferred system.  Some people prefer a very simple and non complex system because the best part of an rpg for them is actual role-playing and not solving systems of equations.  I'm honestly surpised that you can't figure this out.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;628237Complexity has jack shit to do with a preferred system.  Some people prefer a very simple and non complex system because the best part of an rpg for them is actual role-playing and not solving systems of equations.

Designers should build systems so that they are the ones who have to do the heavy math. Well designed stats and dice mechanics can hide a lot of complexity.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;628242Designers should build systems so that they are the ones who have to do the heavy math. Well designed stats and dice mechanics can hide a lot of complexity.

Exactly.  The players don't need, nor should they have to, worry that the bell curve of probabilities works.  And they sure as hell shouldn't have to do all that math themselves.

Play the fucking game and have fun with your friends.  Something GM can't seem to understand.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;628242Designers should build systems so that they are the ones who have to do the heavy math. Well designed stats and dice mechanics can hide a lot of complexity.

Not the type of complexity I'm talking about actually, but it's related as not all the math can or should be hidden from the user. Thus it must be accounted for in overall complexity.

What do I mean by "not all can be hidden"?

Well first, I'm not claiming an absolute- but am claiming that the cure might be worse than the original problem. So in answer- two questions: How would you hide the math in HERO systems construction system? How would you hide the math for combat Age in Heroes". Do both while meeting the design requirements of both.

I actually hope you can succeed on that point. It would be cool.

What do I mean by "not all should be hidden"?

Hiding all the detail produces a game of black boxes where the player doesn't know the inputs or at least the effects of those inputs. This turns the game into one of trial and error and given the fact that there's typically a random element involved- the player may end up with incorrect information from said trial and error.

We see this effect with dice pools and their far from transparent probabilities.

It's clear (as these systems sell and are played) that some players are good with this result. Others (such as myself) are not. I won't play a game that uses dice pools.

Quote from: gleichman;628205That's a nice dream in a way, and given my own age I almost wish it was true. But three simple facts tell me that it's a delusion to think that way.

First it's rather well established that raw capability both physical and mental declines with age. It's a problem somewhat offset by experience (which has it's own advantages) but it's still a simple fact of life.

Second, there's also the fact that youth carries with it the excess energy and free time (in our culture) to punch above one's weight class, i.e. put the extra effort in to deal with a level of complexity too great for oneself.

And lastly the truth of 'promotion to one's level of incompetence'. This a person keeps trying more complex systems until they become too complex for him. Rather than admit failure, they hang in there until they can no longer justify the effort and then drop back to where they belong.

I love how in Gleichman's head, being obsessed with super-complex rules is some kind of mark of moral superiority or a personal achievement, and not just the sign of someone with too much time on their hands or limited ability for any kind of creativity outside of working with rigid systems.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;628259I love how in Gleichman's head, being obsessed with super-complex rules is some kind of mark of moral superiority or a personal achievement, and not just the sign of someone with too much time on their hands or limited ability for any kind of creativity outside of working with rigid systems.

Superiority complexes can be welded to any set of preferences. The problem is the superiority complex not the preference.

I try to be very careful in my sandbox material and Majestic Wilderlands to make it clear I don't my way is the best for anything. Only that I think there stuff that other may find useful.

What I don't get is how he earned any type of good reputation with his attitude.

QuoteA gaming group will find a level of difficultly in each area of play that they can master and seldom attempt to exceed or press the matter any further. This is true for a simple reason, the group wishes to continue play. Thus there is a built in bias to win.

Therefore play will focus on what the group is good at, and reduce or ignore that which they aren't.

Quote from: gleichman;628188As one defines it for RPGs in general, whatever the players in the specific game say it is. This can easily include every PC dying in horrible way or going insane for CoC campaigns.

Well... I guess that's a bit less interesting than where I thought you were going with this.

I'm sort of interested in the particulars of win/lose states in games (particularly those games that must eventually be lost, like some arcade games), but if winning is just doing what you find fun, there's not much else to say about it as it applies to RPGs.

Quote from: beejazz;628286Well... I guess that's a bit less interesting than where I thought you were going with this.

Yeah, I got nothing.

The concept of winning has been devalued in our culture to the degree where there's really not much to say about it except as to how it applies to your personally. As an example, it's interesting point is that even saying you're trying to win in a RPG will bring out howls of protest from sites like this one.


More globally, why it's been devalued and what people see in (what would be traditionally called) losing is not just a good question but an important one that transcends RPGs. It has wider implications than the hobby.

Quote from: gleichman;628296Yeah, I got nothing.

The concept of winning has been devalued in our culture to the degree where there's really not much to say about it except as to how it applies to your personally. As an example, it's interesting point is that even saying you're trying to win in a RPG will bring out howls of protest from sites like this one.

I think the confusion would arise more from the fact that for most people non-boolean and non-game-ending win/loss states aren't winning or losing. Again, in a lot of arcade games the dichotomy is more "more points/end of play" and people will recognize the latter as loss but will not recognize the former as a win.

QuoteMore globally, why it's been devalued and what people see in (what would be traditionally called) losing is not just a good question but an important one that transcends RPGs. It has wider implications than the hobby.

Why people want a game they can lose is an important question.

Do you value the possibility of failure in a game? And if so, have you given any thought as to why?

Quote from: beejazz;628317Again, in a lot of arcade games the dichotomy is more "more points/end of play" and people will recognize the latter as loss but will not recognize the former as a win.

It's been a long time since I did aracade play, but most considered hitting the top 5 all time scores 'a win' back in those days.

Quote from: beejazz;628317Why people want a game they can lose is an important question.

Do you value the possibility of failure in a game? And if so, have you given any thought as to why?

Hitting the high points...

My general view on losing is that it's something to learn from, and a marker for what needs to be improved. Attempting things with a chance of loss is important, otherwise you're just repeating doing what you know can be done- you may as well watch TV instead.

In gaming, conditions that could be a loss for the PC might be a win in the bigger picture. Other PCs or NPCs would have been saved for example. What this comes down to is that a meaningful sacrifice should be valued.

And sometimes you lose, but put up such a good fight that it's 'worthy of song' just because it was awesome.

That's quite odd because one of the things I thought was revolutionary from the beinging with RPGs was that it was a game with no winners.
The whole aim was that the players cooperate to achive goals. It's why I used to think Tournament play was such an odd idea.

Now we all know that people set their own agendas and human nature is such that in any group there will be people that want to win, usually the sort of people that like to min-max and so they win by creating the most powerful character. There are those that like the team element and so consider it a win if the players "beat" the scenario.
Also as RPGS have developed and as we have players have tried more and more things games where the PCs are antagonistic and actively out to defeat each other have become more common place.  

Now in relation to an RPG I would have thought that a failure can be as interesting as a success a lot of the time. Each challenge creates a branch and the GM should try to see to it that there is excitement down each branch. One of the failures of a lot of investigation games as I see them is that the only path open to the PCs is the one that sees them solve every clue. There should be an equally engaging story to explore through the failure to find all the clues or any of them, or to misinterpret them and end up someplace else.
 
Obviously PC death is a risk and some challenges lead to that outcome and that is required in some genres to give the world reality and make the adventure more meaningful. However death in and of itself is not always the failure outcome. If for example through a PC death Cthulu was held at bay or the Alien Menance was repelled and the world was not enslaved by the Zombie armies of darkness then the death was a win condition.


Back to the OP and challenges I am torn because I both want challenges to be in game and apply to PCs but I understand its a game so we also need to challenge players.One of the things I have mentioned as a pet gripe before is the way in certain types of old school play there are standard techniques that experienced players use, and they use them regardless of what PC they are playing. These are good player techniques, be they exploration, combat tactics, ways of defeating traps etc but they aren't good character challenges because the behaviour and mind set they exhibit is one of RPG players not of in a certain instance.
I think setting the balance between these two the gamist and the immersion-ist components is really hard.