How complex do you like your RPG system?

[paddyfool]

I've been thinking about which RPGs I've enjoyed, and how well it correlates with complexity. On the whole, I'd rank the complexity of the ones I've played as follows:

1) (Very simple): Spirit of the century
2) (Shades of complexity): Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu (d100 version)
3) (Complex in parts): Exalted (1st ed), D&D 4th Ed
4) (Complex): D&D 3.5
5) (Very complex): Spycraft

Also, on the whole, I've preferred the simpler RPGs. They tend to lead to faster-paced action and story, vastly less searching-through-rulebooks, and just generally tend to be more fun. I suspect I might feel diffently if I played more - does less complexity lead to less gameplay variability, perhaps? However, I've generally just plain preferred those games that were a 1 to a 3 on this scale over those ranked any higher. Do you feel the same, or not really?

[Tengu_temp]

I like when a game offers a lot of options, both in character creation/advancement and in actual gameplay, but when the actual mechanics are fairly simple and (most importantly) fast-paced.

[Eldan]

About the same for me: simple underlying mechanics that apply to as many subsystems as possible, but a large variety of options enabling me to play the character I want. At least some strategy should be involved in fights, and the option to avoid them entirely has to be there.

[Raum]

Also, on the whole, I've preferred the simpler RPGs. They tend to lead to faster-paced action and story, vastly less searching-through-rulebooks, and just generally tend to be more fun. I suspect I might feel diffently if I played more - does less complexity lead to less gameplay variability, perhaps? However, I've generally just plain preferred those games that were a 1 to a 3 on this scale over those ranked any higher. Do you feel the same, or not really?I suspect available free time has a lot to do with preferences. Mine have changed over the years. I used to enjoy complex mechanics and spending hours just creating a character. Now I want to spend what prep time I have on plot and story - anything beyond a few minutes in character creation is a distraction and a time waster.

[Kaihaku]

I enjoy the whole range from Freeform to GURPS (though I haven't gotten to play this very much), the system is more determined by the game and the group than a predetermined preference on my part.

[JMobius]

I suspect available free time has a lot to do with preferences. Mine have changed over the years. I used to enjoy complex mechanics and spending hours just creating a character. Now I want to spend what prep time I have on plot and story - anything beyond a few minutes in character creation is a distraction and a time waster.

Available time is a definite factor. I have plenty of free time, but the duration of my actual playtimes are limited each. I have no problems with complex character generation, but gameplay itself always runs smoothly.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I like fairly complex systems--being a major math nerd with OCC syndrome (obsessive-compulsive customization), I like systems where you can take practically anything you can think of and stat it somehow and where different classes/builds/etc. have quite different mechanics so you can change up the mechanics of your characters every once in a while.

[Ecalsneerg]

I think MnM is the happy medium. It's granular enough to customise a lot, but not as fine-detailed as GURPS. I don't want to have to alter points values if my PC's personality changes a little in play.

[Lamech]

I like rolemaster and 3.5. So complex?

[Swordguy]

Complex enough that it allows me to reasonably accurately model the assumptions behind the game world, and not overly or needlessly complex simply for the sake of complexity itself. (*points to Rolemaster and Champions 5e and GURPS Vehicles*)

[potatocubed]

I like them simple, at least when it comes to scenario generation, since I'm always the GM and I have a limited amount of time that I'm willing to spend doing prep. Of course, some games which are simple in play are complex to prepare and vice versa.

[PLUN]

I liked the simplicity of Spycraft 1.0. Spycraft 2.0 i've thumbed through recently and it seems like meeting an old friend, an old friend hooked up a zany support chair with crap bolted on to it Ravenor style. It even says in the book it is not intended to be merely read, but used. So you know, enjoyment through just reading and studying the core material ist verboten. It's not the system I flirted with in my wild youth anymore.

I'd say I favour simplicity over customisability, as i'm happy to trade off players characters not matching their exact mechanics (and having to improvise, which is generally easier in a simpler system anyway) over the 'build' philosophy of a more advanced system.

[jmbrown]

I enjoy the systems that let you take parts away from it without losing the core values. GURPS has a butt ton of variant options that you can add or ignore to change the complexity of the game.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Horses for courses...

I like systems from all over the spectrum in terms of complexity - it depends on who I'm playing with and what the campaign is going to be like.

About the simplest, mechanically, that I've enjoyed - other than completely rule-free freeform roleplaying - is Over The Edge or Toon. The most complex is probably either Rolemaster or Living Steel.

[Umael]

Well, Amber is diceless, so I would say that's about a "1" on the complexity... and someone said Champions 5e is a "5"... the OP put D&D 4th as "3" and D&D 3.5 as "4"... and I would figure the Storyteller is a "2"... so I can't really say.

Complexity is something of a misnomer, I think. Having played Champions for many, many years, I don't find it daunting at all, just not appropriate for much besides the super-hero genre. On the other hand, I don't find Amber to be insulting in its simplicity. In general, I want a system that is easy to use, intuitive to understand the logic behind it, well-simulated for its effects, and involved enough to be interesting.

I acknowledge that a game that involves combat should be exciting when combat happens, and that a game should have a compelling plot behind it, but I also take a bit of delight in the tactics that can arise from the system itself, both in combat and within the role-playing aspects of the game.

Not the best of answers, I'm sure...

[Skorj]

On a scale where 3.5 is a "4", my last campaign was a "147". It was actually a lot of fun, and predictably in hindsight we used only a small portion of the rules more than once. I hope we've learned our lesson for the next campaign. :smallsmile:

[paddyfool]

Yeah, I had a feeling that the scale wasn't really complete enough, and might be missing a rung on the ladder here-or there, never mind stuff above and below. Maybe it should go from 0 (freeform) to 10 (real life, perhaps). And yes, I meant Spycraft 2.0, not having played 1.

[Mystic Muse]

I like a game that's simple to learn but complex to play. take chess for an example. it's pretty easy to learn however against some people it's dang near impossible to win. options are not necessarily synonymous to being too complex although sometimes it is.

[Micky Pain]

I likes me my simple base mechanics, mostly.
I used to play a custom D100 based game that was quite nonrestrictive in terms of character creation, development and playing style.

Off course, the fewer rules a system has, the more important it is to have a good and fair game master. If you have n-core books and companions, you can look up every fart up to a critical failure in zipping up your pants, but it bogs down the flow of the game, but also, if you have few rules and the game master has to0 be the judge you need a good one that ensures it all remains an enjoyable session....

I liked my system, and our GM was awesome and funny, and never pulled a "rocks fall everyone dies" on us even when we completely ignored his hooks and foiled his campaign plans.

[Xenogears]

I haven't had too much experience but the most fun I've ever had actually playing a game was the Warhammer RPG (not first edition. second maybe? It was a friends and all I know is he said that he still had the monster book from the older edition so I know what he had wasn't first...)

Although I've found character creation to be quite enjoyable in Savage Worlds. Nothing quite like my fat, peg-legged, hyper-fast, drop-dead gorgeous, stealthy, agile, sharpshooter...

[warmachine]

I like my systems very complex . I'm a tactician and I like an internal consistent system and a large bag of tricks to change the tide of battle. I often play Clerics in D&D. As a partial method actor, I like systems with comprehensive, point buy, character generation, so I can properly describe the character's capabilities and personality from a backstory. I particularly like GURPS, which gives bonus points for personality or social defects.

[bosssmiley]

As a player: Simple enough that I can see how attempting different things will affect the probability of success. I should need my dice, a character sheet, a pencil and maybe a mini. Nothing else.

As a DM: Simple enough that I can fit a cheatsheet on two sides of A4 paper (with another sheet for combat). Ideally I should be able to hold the system in my head and run a passable session entirely AFB.

I will play games that are system-heavier than this, but they must have a pretty compelling USP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition) (IMO Pendragon, Ars Magica, BRP, WFRP do; Vampire, GURPS, Rolemaster, Hackmaster do not).

@v: RISUS, TWERPS, B/X D&D... I literally am a creature of simple pleasures. :smallamused:

[The Rose Dragon]

As a DM: Simple enough that I can fit a cheatsheet on two sides of A4 paper (with another sheet for combat). Ideally I should be able to hold the system in my head and run a passable session entirely AFB.

Let me guess - Risus is your favorite system ever.

[Fixer]

Ah, my dream system.....

Characters are able to be described on the front and back of a single piece of paper. All their tricks, abilities, bonuses, and other mechanical gobbledygook all on one page with room for a basic description of each.

Abilities should always require a die roll (or similar mechanic) to pass or fail, and there is always a chance for either result. No auto-hit spells, no auto-fail causing skills or powers. It is always possible to overcome with a lucky roll of a die. (This is my opinion why spellcasters win in 3.5, they don't have to roll to overcome if they plan well, thereby reducing risk.)

The system shouldn't rely on combat to resolve conflict. Disabling, disarming, or just plain frustrating the crap out of an opponent can cause them to say, "I'll get you for this," and run away to fight another day without even a scratch on them. (No sane creature in the real world fights to the death unless they were going to die if they lose, so neither should they do so in an immersive game.)

Magic, if included, should be just as unreliable as swinging a sword.

[valadil]

I've enjoyed roleplaying at just about every complexity level. The exact complexity level where I'm happiest is where the game occupies exactly all of my brain space plus my character sheet. If I have to look up rules for mundane or trivial actions, the game is too complex. D&D wizards are more complex than I enjoy, but sorcerers have few enough spells that I can memorize them and play without a book. I want my RPing to be an immersive experience and looking up rules in a book always breaks immersion. On the contrary, having no rules at all bores me and I don't bother playing. For a game to be rules lite it has to be amazingly plot heavy.