Every time i see a rpg review or something talking about a new rpg they always make a statement that is something like simple = good or complex = bad.It's that some kinda of pushback for 5e and is shitstorm of rules or new people in the hobby just don't wanna read any book that is longer then 20 pages?
>>93413675>pushback for 5e5e is vastly simplified compared to previous wotc editions.
>>93413675Shit like Critical Role and Stranger Things gets retard normies thinking DnD is just improv theater, then they get mad when they find out they have to learn rules, yes. Never underestimate the absolute retardation of DnD 5e's playerbase.
>>93413675The problem roots from people making judgements based solely on how they feel about it.Does simple addition between two single digit numbers take too long for them? Well, that's a slog.Are they incapable of remembering the resource cost of an action and the effects it applies? Well, that's too bookkeepy.Are the skills/actions you can perform codified for something consistent you could perhaps copy to a notecard, instead of something vaguely defined you have to beg the DM to do? Obviously that's a video game.It's very evocative of that old tale about the fox and the grapes; he couldn't reach them, so clearly they must be sour.
>>934136755e has the simplest rules, but you can have simple and still complicated rules when the bookkeeping and tracking of conditions and taking into account every triggering element starts to pile up.Rules can also be complex (not complicated) but once you learn them the application of the rules is fast and smooth.I prefer rules that require some homework and learning, but once mastered the actual gameplay is smooth and it doesn't feel like you are playing the rules themselves all the time.
I was remiss to mention in >>93413929 that there is some validity to not making things too complex, but often times people will argue more in favor of how they feel, rather than judging something for what it is.I'll use verticality as an example.In example one, every space has its own height, and being in the air is a status with its own magnitude; so if a character is 30 feet off the ground, they would have the status "airborne 3". Every upkeep step and end step of a character's turn causes that to count down by 1, assuming they don't have a way to maintain airborne status. They are still considered as occupying a space on the two-dimensional plane.In example two, being airborne is still a status, but without consideration for actual height and they are no longer on the two-dimensional plane. Assuming they can't or don't maintain aerial status, it ends on their next upkeep step, and they either land on any space of their choice in the "room", or of the choice of whatever launched them into the air.The first example is clearly more complex than the second, especially for the purpose of factoring in fall damage or attacks enhanced by falling, but these are both methods I have used, and both of them work for me.They work for me just fine, but I know even the simplified second example would still pose problems for other people who try to engage with it; I've had all sorts of people cry to me about counting beans and video games because they personally wouldn't be able to handle these mechanics.I would never say that a set of mechanics are good or bad, only that they work or don't work for me.
>>93413675when complexity was no longer at a premium anymore. back in the day when everything wasnt super easy to find you'd prefer one thing with a lot of meat. but now when there is 6 gorillian choices at your fingertips, its just a fucking slog to look at some 200 page tome, while there is an ease of consumption ticktock appeal of having a things whole shtick on one easy to get a feeling for page.
>>93414132Mechanics quality-wise it's probably fair to measure how well they achieve their stated aim. A detective game which has more GM tips about combat encounters than building satisfying mysteries is either doing something wrong or not advertising according to its strengths. Whether a given aim is "good" or not falls back on the "what does/n't work for me" standard of course.
>>93413675This is partially just derived from natural trends in RPG design, which have steadily pushed back from the 80s simulationist peak where crunch ruled the roost. The Forge and its offshoots in the early 2000s really spiked the popularity of rules-light storytelling games, where rules themselves were seen as a burden to good gaming.A big impetus was the OSR, which originally liked to talk about how simple it was compared to then current 3rd and 4th ed D&D, and then by a game of Telephone for Retards that became a sacred principle where simpler was always better. This memeing of the OSR occurred at the same time that the OSR as a whole mutated into an abstract set of principles that designers felt they could apply to any game instead of just a niche thing about an obscure corner of D&D, so people were making "OSR" games where OSR = the smallest page count possible and that's about it, completely divorced from what it started out as.I'm hoping for a swing back to crunch, but I think other social forces are generally working against people to have that much patience / an attention span.
Because in theory simple means less time spent studying/doing prep and more time actually playing, as well as being faster and easier to get in new people or replacements.
>>93414878>Do you want to play this game? You should read this book and go through the 20 step character creation process.vs>Do you want to play this game? You roll these dice and then I tell you what happens.I like simulationist games, but I sure as shit wouldn't advertise playing one to someone who didn't already like RPGs.
>more people in the hobby are interested in the idea of rpgs than actual rpgs, and for them complexity is purely a burden>many complex rulesets don't actually do much that simple ones do so it's often largely pointless>the nature of rpgs means no rules can cover everything, and a 20 page book that covers 80% of your game situations is often more tempting than a 200 page book that covers 90% of them>most rule books are poorly written so the rules seem more complex than they actually are>inexperienced GMs just want to get to playing quickly; experienced GMs are used to improvising anyway>it's far easier to produce a 2 page micro rpg than a 200 page rpg
I think it started out from people getting tired of complexity that adds nothing to the actual game and doesn't actually add anything to exploring a fictional consistent world. Now it's more or less a kneejerk thing. I find that rules lite shit that doesn't help you play in a setting as objectionable as I find minigame-y charop bullshit, it's just as much of a waste of my time despite the smaller page count.
You aren't in the audience. Why are you throwing a fit over that?
>>93413675I wanted to make a simple homebrew for my friends to run an Adventure-Time-like campaign, but as a result mow I am making a crunchy unisystem...The thing is when rules don't cover what or how players can do a lot of PCs features and choice doesn't matter and players win just when GM finally let them after some negotiation and waiting for a right mood and a right moment. It is ok, but becomes old quickly. That is why you can have a gorillion of one-page TTRPGs but all of them are disposables.I've realized that the most important thing that makes TTRPG interesting is limits. Limits is what makes a game of pretend interesting for adults by giving them feel of achivement and feel that their choice matters, that there are stakes. And when somethin finally breaks the limit it feels truly wonderful unlike the total freeform freedom from the get-go.
>>93413675If the complexity is adding flavour, it's good up to the point where you can still onboard newbies to the game.
>>93413675I don't understand this game. Why not choose the best number for the stat that you want and just not do any of the actions that require the opposite stat? Under what condition that isn't arbitrary targeted punishing would you ever use the stat you're bad at instead of the one you're good at? This makes no sense.
Simple doesn’t mean better, however many prefer a simpler system. I know with my group if it’s not simple there is no interest to try it.
>>93413675>Every time i see a rpg review or something talking about a new rpg they always make a statement that is something like simple = good or complex = bad.Yeah, it's not. It's more like:>simple = marketable to suckers; complex = only marketable to informed consumersIdeally, we'd evaluate a system, or parts of a system, on a basis of "gamism or simulationism per degree of complexity", so we can evaluate how much game or simulation intellectual investment in that complexity gets you.
>>93415936the good games are the one where complexity is tied into combat, like 13th age and ICON
>>93417736Most people aren't rollplayers, you braindead charop goon.
>>93419383>Be a cold and logical Lasers person>So good at Lasers you never fail, also only do Lasers things because it fits your personality and your skillset>AKSHUALLY YOU SHOULD ARBITRARILY USE FEELINGS SOMETIMES YOU ROLLPLAYING MIN MAXERNo, dummy.
Are there any index-card systems that are actually worth a shit?
>>93413873Critical Role annoys me for exactly this reason. There's nothing wrong with the show; it's entertaining at times.But it's done by a bunch of professional actors, using a script. It bears the same resemblance to real TTRPGs as WWE bears to real fighting.
>>93413675Fast = Good has given rise to the false dichotomy that Fast = Simple = Good
>>93420046NTA but if you're playing Data, sure. But odds are you're not playing Data. You'll be Riker, or Picard, or Geordi; characters who all are primarily logical but who frequently make decisions based on their gut feelings. Shit, going with the Trek simile then half the good Data episodes are about how he, despite being an automaton, tries to act in accordance with his feelings. 'The Most Toys' is a perfect example where he acts according to his programming the entire episode, until he is pushed to the breaking point at the very end and makes a purely emotional decision which he tries to justify rationally.You know, making decisions that aren't optimal for the sake of making the game more interesting.
>>93413675If you saw people getting into 3eD&D you would have seen this coming. Lots of people want to make-believe as elves but then you show them the race list, the class list, the skill list and the feat list and their eyes glaze. Hobby has been moving this way for a long time, it may or may not be bouncing back, I can't tell.Anyone played Lasers&Feelings? I don't usually like ultralight systems but this one actually sounds fun. I just worry that I wouldn't really know how to play it, because my background isn't improv, my background is wargames.
>>93417736> Under what condition that isn't arbitrary targeted punishing would you ever use the stat you're badNever, because you've already decided, any situation which targets your weakness is an 'arbitrary punishment'. I think you're wrong about that, I think that the gamemaster is supposed to target your weakness, go watch Star Trek and see all the contrived situations targeting a character's weakness. I don't think it's quite fair for anon to call you a minmaxer, I think you have a point, but I also think anon has a point by calling you a minmaxer. The crux of the issue is that this is not a robust tactical wargame. Go ahead and make the character that you think is most likely to win, that's part of the game, but your 'minmaxed' character won't make as much of a difference as you think it should, and you'll have no right to complain about it. This isn't the kind of game that you play because you want to earn victory based on your system mastery, this is the kind of game that you play because you want to recreate an episode of Star Trek.>>93420226I think it was logical and ethical for him to try to kill the collector at that point. But his ethical subroutines are a bit of a black box used to justify behavior that would otherwise seem emotional and un-machine-like. If I were running this for data, I would probably say that data has some ability to make ethical conclusions and present ethical arguments to others using lasers (with 5), but when pursuing that kind of plot he inevitably stumbles onto the human side of the equation (THAT'S NOT WATER IT'S BLOOD AND SWEAT) and has to go back to rolling feelings, which he's bad at.
>>93420284>This isn't the kind of game that you play because you want to earn victory based on your system mastery, this is the kind of game that you play because you want to recreate an episode of Star Trek.I agree wholeheartedly, but that slug will never understand this basic premise.
>>93420474I think you're being kinda dumb about it. The fact that there are so few mechanics calls that-much-more attention to the central mechanic and the central mechanic heavily rewards specialization. Good advice on how to handle this as a GM (allowing people to accel in their specializations, as intended, while sometimes forcing min-maxers to occasionally face their weakness in a dramatically appropriate way) would take a whole second page. Ideally the perfect 3-man party would be 1 laser guy, one feelings guy (more likely a woman) and 1 guy in the middle. And the guy in the middle would be better at going solo and dealing with the unexpected because the whole story of venturing-into-the-unknown will seem to naturally probe your characters for weakness. On the bridge, you get to do what you're best at and trust your allies to do the rest, but when you deal with the unknown you'll have enemies who will try to hit you where you're weakest. A great L&F GM will have a natural grasp of that basic dichotomy, but to be fair this is just something that I'm saying as a theorycrafting observer, it's not something that the rules actually tell you.
>>93413675Complexity is not depth, and slows down the game and often leaves a lot of weird edge cases and exploits that ruin the game for everyone else. Look at all the people who go on about "bugs" in 5e when any DM with a brain will say "I don't care what the rules say, that's not how it's going to work at this table."
>>93414614I think OSR is just a bunch of shit, anyway. None of the NuSR stuff is any good. At this point it's a lifestyle brand for a bunch of pretentious sheep-shaggers to think they're better than other roleplayers, the fucking hipster scum. Just play Basic D&D you fucking cowards.
>>93413675around the time 5e blew up and every redditor had to get in on it
>>93413675It is an appeal to the lowest common denominator.
>>93420137>>93420228I've played a few index card-style games, including Lasers & Feelings. They were fun enough for a short session, when one of our players wasn't available or we were cooling off between proper campaigns. But my experience with "index card games" and "bespoke micro-RPGs" and "itch.io roleplaying exercise booklets" is that they don't have longevity. My group could have recurring tales about our Lasers & Feelings crew, but we'd soon long for some manner of progression, or more mechanical depth. And we are not short of options in that regard.
>>93420284>This isn't the kind of game that you play because you want to earn victory based on your system mastery, this is the kind of game that you play because you want to recreate an episode of Star Trek.Well said.
being easy to run is better than being a boring slog that puts your players to sleep.
>>93413929The fox was right.
>>93414132How you feel about a game is all that matters. If you don't enjoy playing it, no amount of reason will change that. You can't argue someone into changing their preferences.
>>93414132Both of those are objectively bad and you're really bad at design.
>>93414228Simplicity is better than complexity. The best rules are those you never notice.
>>93414614You don't actually enjoy crunch, you just associate social value with the appearance of enjoying crunch.
>>93415936Simple games are more fun.
>>93418181lol
>>93420189That isn't a dichotomy.
>>93421355>is that they don't have longevityhttps://itch.io/physical-games/tag-lasers-and-feelingsThey exist for fucking around.
>>93420652I'd rather use a system where I don't immediately have to throw out 90% of the rules I paid for, personally
I think it's less that simplicity = good, but analyzing what complex rules are really adding to games and whether their removal actually negatively affects the experience of playing the game.
>>93422660I was like this for an embarrassingly long amount of time. It took a while to realise I was better off and more productive just studying maths instead of trying to do the arithmetic in the most pants-shttingly complicated system I could find and harass people into playing with me.On the other hand, some of the stuff that's come out post-OSR is just too rules-lite for me. As an example, I don't like systems where all weapons are treated exactly the same, or where the GM has a little blurb of what's going on and just makes shit up on the spot. Thanks for reading my blogpost.
>>93413675This hobby has taught me that getting people to read is like asking them to bash an infant brain out with a rock. It just isn't going to happen for the majority of people unless you literally sit there and force them to read out loud word by word to you.
>>93413675It's from so many games in the past having rules seemingly for the sake of rules. Theres nothing wrong with complexity if it adds something to the game but so many systems, a lot of of them from the late 80s and 90s, have an array of subsystems and minute modifiers and exceptions and hyper specific abilities. While this sort of thing can be fun it means you have to have a group of entirely rules autists or you have to to handwave the rules. Since I only have a few hours for any given session I really want the rules to fade into the background so the focus can be on the action. I still want rules but they need to arranged in a way that serves the game. If I have to do some number crunching the result should be meaningful to the game. Complexity is fun when it has a purpose, but for shit like basic task resolution and core mechanics I do want something robust and functional.
>>93413675It's more that meaningful simplicity trumps meaningless complexity.A lot of older systems are complex because people hadn't figured out ways to make those mechanics more straightforward and understandable. If you can make something more simple, you probably should unless that complexity has a tangible benefit to the way the game is run or played.I would argue things like HERO system have needless complexity; there's a lot of skills and stats, and I would argue that you could cut several of them by condensing them into other stats/skills without losing much, if anything, and making the GM's job way easier.Hell, I'd say the same for almost every edition of D&D. Anything 3e or later at least. Wisdom and Strength could be rolled into Intelligence (as Mental) and Constitution (as Body), you could easily take the more modern D&D split of persuasion/deception/intimidation and merge them into SPeechcraft, Perception and Investigation could be one skill. So what's my point? My point is that it's better to have a simple system where everything has a function than it is to have tons of mechanics that you don't need. Complexity is a thing that should be used sparingly in TTRPGs, and only when it is absolutely required (this is usually in Combat or character creation, where you either need to think tactically or you have several options that have different synergies). You don't need 30 pages of rules on how to do a social interaction, that's bloat, a simple check will do the job.
>>93423080Top kek, nice bait. Here is your (you)
To address the core question in the original post, no it's not due to 5e. Rules lite systems have been a thing way before that. Not everything revolves around 5e despite many thinking so. As to the validity of rules lite systems:It's always depending on what you want from a game. After 1-3 short session of playing a two page system the table will probably have seen everything the rules have to offer and want to either play something different since progression won't offer much more without heavy GM homebrewing.If the purpose is to get some breathing room during a long campaign or test the grounds with a new group then that's good. If it's supposed to be something longer running then it sucks ass. This applies to all systems. Also to make this post a little bit less of a lukewarm between the chairs slop I can add that rules lite games are fucking gay and if a player can't be bothered to at least skim a 50-100 page document for the essential parts, he should kill himself. Core combat resolution mechanics are usually pretty straight forward and not more than 20 pages. If that plus some semblance of character creation process that is usually guided through is too much to ask then I also won't put in any work as GM who has to remember the full rules for anything to function. Also they always look like the most generic gay shit ever. Looking at the Risus rules makes my blood boil.
>>93413675Reviews are largely written by veterans: aged players who lost their fire a while ago but lack reflection to change hobbies or cling to social aspect (their rpg buddies).They notice they are not interested in games, that something is off - and assume that's because of some fucking tables."I played shit out of ADnD but 5e is tiresome, probaby that's because there are too many tables!"And they try to solve their motivation issue by searching The Sytem, one which will be fast and fun like in good old days.But it's not about the system and their quest continues on and on. They are easily swindled by systems which promise ease (and those are frequently made by similiar types, "the less RPG system countains the better") but after hooneymon phase (actually just time they to get single game going with dad-of-two schedule and 40+ energy) they are back at square one.May be if that sytem had less tables...
>>93422660I always wonder at this style of tg post>I like a thing>Actually, you do not like a thing>Okay?
>>93424020Oh it's you again. Gotten that autism diagnoses yet?
>>93424139First time I wrote something on /tg/ in two or three years (after I stopped actively playing Infinity) and my first visit in half a year. It's nice to hear someone also noticed same thing.
Simple and Interesting = ElegantSimple and Uninteresting = BraindeadComplex and Interesting = DeepComplex and Uninteresting= FiddlySimple and complex are both fine as long as it holds attention and has a purpose. If it has neither, people will still enjoy braindead things for a time, but only the most clerical of people will enjoy fiddly things.
>>93422745
>>93424083actually, you do not wonder at this style of /tg/ post. You just think you wonder at this style of /tg/ post.
>>93420652>Complexity is not depthIt's true that complexity is not inherently depth, but there comes a point where you don't get more depth without more complexity. And, while there certainly can be diminishing returns for what that gets you, it's supposed to be a carefully considered game design choice, and not just written off as "not fun" by Narrativist or Gameist morons, who eschew anything that limits the potential for story, or any mechanic that isn't itself entertaining.>"bugs" in 5eThat's what happens when all your rules are written by gameist morons. Simulationist rules work better over a wider variety of circumstances; they will have their edge cases, where they break too, but fewer and farther between. Once you have your realism base, you add non-realism genre rules on top of it.
>>93422609Being an easy to run boring slog that puts your players to sleep isn't better than a hard to run boring slog that puts your players to sleep. Better to play something where they can apply their entire brain to a problem, and not be stuck behind your inability to comprehend the full complexity of the consequences of the potential outcomes of that problem; because at least then you have good rules to fall back on when you can't reason it all out yourself.Simulationist rules are for players that like to think their way through in-game problems, even if they have GMs that can't keep up with them. And no, I don't mean gameist trash Rules Lawyers, who only play gameist trash game systems; I mean systems that start from a base of simulationism, and build genre mechanics on top of that base. Being able to build a Trebuchet because you took Carpentry Skill and have been lugging a Carpentry Kit around only because you figured you'd be the one to keep the Party's horse-drawn wagon going, and saving a town from an army of Orcs in a way the GM never expected, is very rewarding.
>>93422652The best rules are the ones that save the Player or the GM from a GM or a Player that doesn't understand the relevant math or science. No amount of "making shit up" is going to save a good plan that hinges on obscure facts from a poorly informed GM without rules there to keep it safe; by that same token, no amount of "making shit up" is going to save a bad plan from a poorly informed GM when he has rules that make explicitly clear how bad the plan is.Properly constructed rules serve everyone at the table, and don't even necessarily have to be understood, so long as they can be executed correctly. And, by God, you will notice them, when your plan depends on that rule being noticed; and so will your GM.
>>93422660Not that guy, but I don't give a rat's ass about whatever "social value" is derived from the appearance of enjoying crunch.What I enjoy is being able to formulate a plan, maybe one that depends on some complicated physics, or some other complicated mechanical interaction, and be able to know that the underlying game system isn't going to get those details wrong, because, unlike other games, it isn't some gameist narrativist drivel, and, therefore, it doesn't matter whether the GM understands my plan or not, and the myriad of potential consequences if he misunderstands this piece or that; the rules just plain execute those details, and so I succeed and fail only as often as my plan deserves, no more and no less.You can't get that with simple games; not without a GM that isn't a genuine math and science genius; at which point, he wants those rules just so that you know your more cockamamie plans won't work soon enough not to bother him with it.
>>93424083It's pretty straightforward. Reflect on the truth and stop lying about your preferences to fit in.
>>93427430Fortunately, I don't use systems that are easy to run boring slogs. I use systems that are easy to run and that result in fun, interesting games that keep the players engaged.
>>93427523No rules can save you from the GM. Stop playing with people you don't trust.
>>93427598Yes you do. Stop lying.
>>93427598A simple rules system will support your plan better.
>>93427598Why are you playing with a GM that wants you to fail?
>>93430090Why are you lying about this?
>>93430157I'm not, you are. Try to keep up.
>>93427598>What I enjoy is being able to formulate a planYou mean a procedure. A plan implies that you're doing something original (unforeseen by the game's designers), which would require you to communicate with your GM, no matter how detailed the system was. What you want is to do complicated things that were foreseen and intended by the game's designers.
>>93413675TL;DR It's the industry over-correcting for decades of shitty RPG's bloated to the gills with mechanics and rules that don't meaningfully contribute to the game experience. I'm sure in 5-10 years the pendulum will swing back the other way.A game should be as complex as it needs to be to evoke its intended genre and play style, no more and no less.
>>93430258Sounds like something a lying liar who lies would say.
>>93430101You missed the point. I wasn't talking about saving the Player from the GM intentionally being a jackass, but from the GM that's too dumb to keep up with a galaxy-brained mastermind of a Player's well-crafted but fragilely intricate plan, that, without Rules to rely on, can only go as well as the GM themselves can comprehend it.This isn't a matter of trusting the GM; without Rules, this is a matter of the GM's comprehension; with Rules, it's only a matter of trusting the GM to follow the Rules.Rules are a requirement for Players that rely on realistic outcomes in order to successfully execute a viable Plan. By that same token, they are also a requirement for GMs to justify slapping down a Plan built on unrealistic tropey nonsense they saw in some movie, that would never play out that way in real life. As such, Rules are crucial for Simulationist, and, to some extent, Gameist play.
>>93430108It absolutely would not. See:>>93431760A simple Rules System would require the GM to comprehend the math or science at play as well or better than the Player in order for the Player's Plan to succeed only as well as it should; no more due to misunderstanding it, and no less due to misunderstanding it. Whereas, a Rules system that merely embodies that math and science allows the GM to default to the Rules, no matter what their supposedly genius Players are doing, and they'll succeed and fail only as often as they're meant to, whether they ever understand it or not.What's more, with a simple Rules System, even a well-meaning GM can screw things up by allowing this or that to succeed in a way that is so wholely unrealistic that it screws up the entire Plan, because the Player never considered such a dubious potential result.Simple Rules Systems are outright murder to an intelligent Player's approach to TTRPGs. They're only fit for shenanigans (which, to be fair, can still be fun, but is hardly intelligent play).
>>93430111Again, see:>>93431760and:>>93431857It's not about the GM wanting us to fail or succeed. It's about us succeeding only when we're supposed to, and failing only when we're supposed to. When a Player is relying on the natural laws of the universe being in effect, that's the job of Rules, so the GM doesn't have to be smart enough to guess at those laws correctly, or risk ruining the game just by accident. What a GM that is incapable of fully comprehending every and all natural laws of the universe (literally everyone) wants out of a session at that point is completely irrelevant, because they themselves don't know how to get "there" from "here".
>>93430352>You mean a procedure.No, I sincerely do not.What a "procedure" implies is that each and every step is more or less guaranteed to work under normal circumstances. And that is not what I'm talking about.When a Realism/Simulationist-minded Player evaluates a potential Plan, he's considering the potential for failure at every step to the extent to which it would realistically play out. As such, in principle, the plan should only succeed or fail to the extent that it realistically would.Is it the GM's job to actually comprehend any and all possible probabilities of success or failure at every step in the Plan? Fuck no; that's what Rules are for; he's just there to make sure the Rules are followed. It's the Game Designer's job to make Rules that embody the natural laws of the world, realistic or not (and those rules should be judged accordingly).>A plan implies that you're doing something original (unforeseen by the game's designers), which would require you to communicate with your GM, no matter how detailed the system was.First, this implication is nonsensical bullshit; "Plan" means nothing of the sort. So let's just outright ignore that. What I want from a Game System is for it to minimize the extent to which things unforeseen by the Game's Designer happen, so that the GM never has to guess as to what should happen when improbable action A happens in improbable circumstance C. Because, when it comes to TTRPGs, human beings guessing at what is plausible is just about the worst thing in the world.>What you want is to do complicated things that were foreseen and intended by the game's designers.No, what I want is for the complicated things I want to do to have BEEN foreseen and intended by the game's designers. Which means efficient and effective Rules that plausibly cover a wide scope of possible uses. Because, otherwise, the GM is just going to turn gold into lead on me, even if only by accident.
>>93430369>A game should be as complex as it needs to be to evoke its intended genre and play style, no more and no less.Here, let me fix that for you:>A game should be as complex as it needs to be to execute its intended genre and play style, no more and no less.There, that's better. "Evoke" my ass; if the Rules don't Execute its intended genre and play style, then the game in question is nearly useless.I ran across this PbtA crap called, "The Spirit of '77". The setting was definitely interesting; lots of late '70s funk, with cop show and blacksploitation vibes. But the Rules... god, the Rules. How am I supposed to play in a car chase without difficulty modifiers for aiming at a tire to shoot it out based on its size, range, and with car chase jostle? The Rules absolutely did not execute the genre it was supposed to! It sucks having to walk away from a game because the lack of Rules will get in between you and your GM, just because you wanted to earn having done something cool.
Complexity is fun for me until I have to deal with players counting on their fingers. I liked WFRP but having to wait 60 seconds for a player to sum up their modifiers and SL, then tell me the hit location pissed me off so much I just took a copy of their character sheet and had them tell me their roll since I could calculate it myself in 5 seconds. Since those days I have avoided games with computational complexity since now I know that my friends are morons and can't handle basic arithmetic. OSR, as in just plain old BX, has worked better since now they still just tell me their rolls and I also don't have to get annoyed at them forgetting lore and setting details since it's now just "The Town", "The Dungeon", "The Knight", "The Red Dragon", etc.
>>93432061>>93432061o.k., it sounds like you're just agreeing with me repeatedly but in a confrontational way, while also emphasizing the (hilarious) notion that the game designers and the GM should necessarily always be on the same-page as the player without any prior communication. You are hilarious. Have you ever been satisfied with a game system? Which one was it?
>>93413675When they realized +sales = +money. Simpler things sell more because there are more simple people who won't buy complex things but people who can understand complex things will still buy simple things. Marketing figured this out with the single button blender in the 70s or some shit, apple figured it out in the 90s. Try and keep up.
>>93413929you wanna spend all day fucking trying to climb a tree or you wanna eat some fucking grapes before sundown? simplicity can be fun, want proof, try tugging your dick.The taller the tree doesn't mean the sweeter the grapes. And just because the grapes come from the most popular and widely recognized vineyard, doesn't mean they can't make bitter wine. and what you're describing with people enjoying simple rpgs is not like a lazy fox giving up eating out of reach fruit because he "can't into" D&D-- it's somebody willing to attempt growing something lower to the ground(rules light rpgs) or building a fucking ladder to make what they want to eat easier to reach (homebrew hacks, etc.)-- because they are so hungry for that kind of meal.If nobody can reach those grapes, people stop trying to eat those grapes, and they rot on the vine. be glad people still want to eat grapes that bad, means they'll be planting more for years to come.
>>93432472>you wanna spend all day fucking trying to climb a tree or you wanna eat some fucking grapes before sundown?>simplicity can be fun, want proof, try tugging your dickPure comedy.But the rest of your post was fairly reasonable so thanks for sharing. you just got a little too caught up in this fox-and-grapes things, my experience is that foxes want to eat eggs and not grapes so really you need a whole new analogy.
>>93431760As I said, no rules can save you from the GM. Do not make me repeat myself again.
>>93431857It certainly would. Stop arguing.
>>93431913Doesn't require complex rules.
>>93432061Yes, you do. I know your mind better than you do.
>>93432130You just make an attack roll against the car's defense, obviously. When its health reaches zero, you describe shooting out its tires. You don't need all that fiddly garbage.
simple rules better, last post
>>93433675Absolutely wrong. It's a called shot. Maybe it has some defense from the fenders to prevent near-misses from hitting the tire, but that's it. Thinking that some abstract general purpose defense value is asinine.You sound like you've never played anything that isn't d20-based. What a gamist trash response.
>>93432295>o.k., it sounds like you're just agreeing with me repeatedly but in a confrontational wayNo, you misunderstood the scenario I described, and the impact good or bad game design had on that scenario, and then, presumably mistakenly, tried to paint what I was talking about as something else.>while also emphasizing the (hilarious) notion that the game designers and the GM should necessarily always be on the same-page as the player without any prior communication.Being "on the same page" isn't the relevant part. It shouldn't matter whether the Player, GM, and Game System are all on the same page. A GM shouldn't have to fully understand a scenario in order to execute it, only know which parts of the Game System cover that, and how to execute those parts when they come up. A Player shouldn't have to understand which parts of the Game System cover the elements in his Plan; only be able to trust that, between the GM and the Game System, only plausible results will happen (unless something legitimately unusual happens). It's the Game System's job to provide functional bits and pieces for the GM to use that cover genuinely everything that is reasonably in-Genre and in-Setting to the game, and it's the Game Designer's job to make those parts and put them in.And a game that doesn't have the bits and pieces to execute its own genre is just a bad game; period.
>>93433675Fucking retardIn Pbta you'd do something like roll your Funky, Outta Sight Brotha!! to do a difficult move like shooting out the tire.
>>93433614Way to TLDR my post for the second time.Scenario 1 - The GM is intentionally sabotaging your plan because he's a jackass:Yes, nothing the game system does will ever save you from this. You need to find a new GM. But I explicitly made clear I was never talking about this to begin with.Scenario 2 - The GM misunderstood your plan, and mis-executes it according to the rules, but is not a jackass:You point out the Rule that the GM mis-executes, and, again, because he's not a jackass, he does it right this time, and your Plan is preserved long enough to continue to succeed or fail on its own actual merits.Rules will never save you from a GM that's a dishonest jackass; true. But they will save you from a GM that doesn't know squat about how to execute realism at the gaming table, because they never understood the math of any of it to begin with, much less how to gameify it sometime later in life. In that case, all you have to do is point at the Rule, and the GM will respect the fact that you're both trying to play the game as intended.
>>93433640A simple Rules system CANNOT protect you from a GM that doesn't understand math, physics, and other natural laws stuff because you'd have to waste game table time proving to him that his ruling is wrong, which he's probably too stupid to understand anyway, otherwise he would have never gotten it wrong to begin with. Instead, it's better to be able to use the Game System as a neutral third party to point out that he simply executed the Rules wrong, and get on with playing the actual game, instead of whatever mindless schlock the GM was about to accidentally impose.
>>93433650The Rules only need to be as complex as the phenomena they are intended to model; no more, no less. Every simplification, however, opens the door to the game potentially producing contextually wrong results, and has to be considered carefully, for that reason. So some complexity is inevitably required. Period.
>>93433675I can't imagine anything more underwhelming than that being the solution.>>93413675If all other things are equal then simple is better but some kinds of simple cannot compete with options that a (good) complex game can offer. >OPs picrelLasers and feelings isn't a game it's an improv tool.
>>93413675I blame d20 system(s), possibly legitimately. Before this most games retained action segmentation in a mechanically clear way. D20 simply slams the level and roll together and chucks it at the opponents. All game choices are deliberately reduced into this format of hurling math feces at all opposition.
>>93435493No. Called shots aren't necessary. My method is the correct one.
>>93413873I know a guy who I've played with since the mid-00s. He really invested himself in D&D 5e and somehow he underwent total brainrot in understanding any other game system including the ones he played before 5e.
>>93435841No, they won't. Final warning.
>>93435959False.
>>93438097It's the correct solution.
>>93438580All rules systems are based on math.
>>93414228I like how WoD was just a KS bonus for DW but it actually shows a better job than DW.
>>93420137FKR + Zettelkasten.
>>93432130Combat stunt agility + weapon bonus vs vehicle's Control.1 or 2 successes : The shots go wide, but a few strays force the driver to duck down. -1d penalty to challenge rolls for the chase contest for one page.3 or 4 : tire is punctured, but the vehicle can continue for some distance with reduced speed and manueverability. -2d for the rest of the contest.5 or more : catastrophic blowout, vehicle loses control and may strike an ally's vehicle, if any.
>>93413675Same reason /v/fags talk about performance. We physically admin games. Stack enough bullshit and it makes the equivalent of bullshit loading times.
>>93435343Not an airport, don't have to announce your departure.
>>93435343>GM can I try and reach level 20 this session can I try to so that>sure flip a coin and if it's heads you collect enough xp to hit level 20>mfw simple is better
lmao he's so close to getting it
>>93424289Not bad, anon.I like the way you think
When I got tired of spending an hour on prep and two hours of game time resolving stupid rules questions or grinding through HP.
simple better last post
>>93413675The genetic memory of RPGs goes back further than that. Previous editions were even more complex and often plagued with incompatible systems trying to do the same thing, or endless tables you had to roll on that were not laid out well or indicated in an index. Famously, in AD&D 1e, the table you had to consult to determine whether an attack hit was buried in the middle of the DMG; it wasn't in the PHB at all and THAC0 hadn't been invented yet. Palladium games often had items in almost-alphabetical order. Because they were the last company in the universe to throw away their linotype machine and adopt digital prepress, every book had to be laid out physically on pieces of cellophane. If Kevin thought of a new item to add to a book, he would often just throw it at the end rather than manually change the layout of everything after it alphabetically. So yeah, I, for one, welcome our new microgame overlords. It's better than what came before.
