PDA

View Full Version : Rules: Simplicity vs. Complexity



Tyger
2010-07-27, 09:47 AM
Put quite simply, I am wondering if people prefer their rule systems for RPGs to be simple (and by their very nature quite abstracted) or if they prefer a more complex (and thus striving for greater realism) sort of system.

I am working through some ideas in game design (note I do not profess to be either qualified nor skilled in this area) and was working out some ideas with a friend, when the discussion took a turn into the complexity discussion, and what people prefer.

Feel free to chime in with examples as well, as my experience is somewhat limited (D&D, AD&D, D&D 3.5 & 4e, Shadowrun versions 1 - 4, OWoD, Paranoia, Warhammer Fantasy, Dark Heresy, Cyberpunk 2020... yeah, I think that's it).

So, what's your favourite, and why?

Kurald Galain
2010-07-27, 10:03 AM
I prefer simple systems because they tend to be more flexible, and because they tend to encourage players to think in terms of character and story, rather than in terms of what they can do according to The Rules.

I don't think it's true that simple systems are "quite abstracted", nor that complex systems necessarily strive for "greater realism".

WarKitty
2010-07-27, 10:11 AM
Sort of depends on the person/group. I'm in the position of right now of writing prestige classes for my 6 players, and debating how to build them. It's a tossup here...I know 2 of my players will want simple classes with straightforward abilities and few to no choices. One of them doesn't really even want to spend time picking out feats. Whereas 2 of the others are heavy optimizers that will spend hours poring over feat and ability choices. The remaining 2 are somewhere in between.

Personally I prefer more complicated systems that let you do more customizing and optimizing. We actually have two different systems in play at my group...one full 3.5 that we use for most campaigns, and a homebrew "RPG lite" system for training newbies (no feats, no levels, total of 15 possible skills).

valadil
2010-07-27, 10:14 AM
Honestly I enjoy both types. However I am drawn more toward the complex systems.

When I play D&D I see other players with crazy characters whose mechanics I don't grasp. My reaction is "Ooooh, I wanna try that!"

In a simple game, I don't have that reaction. I can see how the mechanics work and they're not interesting enough to make me want them for my next character. A system based on simplicity is more likely to entertain me for a game or two, and then I move on to try something else.

What I really want is elegance. I want rules that work consistently. There can be a lot of rules, but they should function in a similar manner. This is what 4th ed does better than 3rd. The rules and powers are homogenized. They're internally consistent. A book might introduce something new like skill powers, but those are really just new powers. Contrast that with 3.5 where skill tricks existed for just one book and never really fit that well, even if they were conceptually neat.

Without actually writing a game system (well, finishing a system - I have the beginnings ready) I'm of the opinion that fewer rules will make for a more elegant game. It's not to say that additional rules break elegance, but additional rules will make elegance harder to achieve.

I'm also of the opinion that level of detail is important. This is something Dark Heresy does very well. It provides detail where necessary. It skims where it isn't. The fact that you have tables for how people get maimed in combat tells you that grievous injury is a important part of the game. I don't think any one system can provide detail everywhere and still be fun (even if GURPS begs to differ), so you have to decide what details your game is focusing in. Write complex rules around those. Write quick and simple rules elsewhere.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-27, 10:19 AM
I tend towards simple. Things like C&C are far preferable to me than 3.5 or 4e; I'll playing the more complex games, but I won't run them.

Earthwalker
2010-07-27, 10:21 AM
Like most people I have tried different systems with different levels of complexity from rules heavy to rules light.
As a player I don’t mind either rules heavy or rules light.
As a GM I have a lot more fun with rules light. I do GM Shadowrun which can be a bind but it is getting better with a simple core machanic that is used, but more books means more trouble. I also Gmed Torg which was very simple, one core mechanic and pretty much any character type available. I liked Torg was very simple and slightly insane with cards for tracking combat rounds.
If you are designing a system find a good machanic and try to keep things simple.
Only make things as complex as you think they need to be.

Coplantor
2010-07-27, 10:29 AM
Comlex mechanics are fun because the metagame aspect can be fun as well. I have a lot of fun creating a build and new characters in DnD.

Simple games are easier on the players because there are fewer ocassions in wich a player wants to do something reasonably within the character's capablities and the GM or another player calls out on him that he cannot do that because of "Da Rulez". (Note that good GMs and players know when to ignore a rule every now and then if doing so makes the game more enjoyable)

I'm not entirely a rules lawyer but I rarelybreak them when I'm a DM, and the first time I started questioning the system was when a friend of mine was invited to play for the first time, he rolled a ninja and wanted to do a flying kick, rules wise he was not allowed to do such a thing without making a good jump check plus having the improved unnarmed strike feat wich is quite weak.

I allowed the flying kick anyway.

9mm
2010-07-27, 10:32 AM
simple rules that can create complexity where wanted.

That's my ideal.

Ruinix
2010-07-27, 10:40 AM
i prefer complex and customizable but simple and customizable are fine too. the only mechanic i totally detest is middle (to up) random char creation systems like for example warhammer fantasy or hero unlimeted.

Coplantor
2010-07-27, 10:45 AM
Random character generation is alright with me, maybe because it was the first way I of creating a character I ever knew :smalltongue:

I think the best backstories I've written were for randomly generated characters.

valadil
2010-07-27, 10:45 AM
One other thing I forgot about before. Rules should be memorable. Simple rules will be easier to remember. If rules are complex they should be similar enough that you can easily remember the differences. D&D does this by providing similar bonuses throughout the game. There are a lot of +2s, +4s, and +5s floating around. It's pretty easy to remember those three values. If different circumstances provided bonuses between 1 and 10, it would be almost impossible to track which bonus was provided by which circumstance. You'd need a table or a cheat sheet.

Psyx
2010-07-27, 10:53 AM
I prefer elegance.

A realistic and fairly complex system doesn't need to be complex; it just needs to be well designed.

D&D is about the least realistic system there is, and is horribly abstract. And yet it's still complicated: The worst of both worlds.

I like systems that are 'gritty' rather than over-powered.
I prefer them to be realistic, yet elegant. I want a simulation to an extent, but not when it starts to seriously slow things down.

I want the complexity to be in the player's hands in order to create graphic and in-depth characters, and for there to be a minimum of record keeping on the GM-side. Players may want to know the location that they've been hit, but there's not need to track it for mooks and monsters.

Earthwalker
2010-07-27, 10:57 AM
I will add that I far and away prefer build point character creation then random dice rolling. I like to be able to build the character I want to play. Saying that I did enjoy dieing in character creation under old style traveler char gen.

arrowhen
2010-07-27, 11:59 AM
Put quite simply, I am wondering if people prefer their rule systems for RPGs to be simple (and by their very nature quite abstracted) or if they prefer a more complex (and thus striving for greater realism) sort of system.

I disagree that complex systems strive for greater realism. Some do (GURPS) and some don't (D&D). Personally, the only realism I care about in RPGs is genre appropriateness. I want my space opera system to "feel" like space opera, my gritty fantasy system to "feel" like gritty fantasy, and so on.

As far as simplicity vs. complexity, it depends on my mood. Sometimes I like really simple games (Risus, EZ20, the dozen or so rules-lite games I've homebrewed over the years), but I miss the "lonely fun" aspect of poring over rulebooks and daydreaming about what your next character is going to be, or spending a rainy afternoon statting up NPCs and encounters. Sometimes I like complex, crunchy systems (D&D, Mutants & Masterminds, etc.), but I miss being able to say, "Hey, let's play a game!" and ten minutes later everyone's characters are made and we're already rolling dice and talking in funny voices.

My ideal game would be somewhere between Microlite20 and D&D 3.x/4e in complexity. It would have enough crunch that I could enjoy paging through the book and thinking about different ways to combine powers/spells/feats/etc., but would be simple enough that I could GM a combat encounter completely on the fly if necessary. It would have enough character options that I could play the same type of character twice in a row without them feeling like carbon copies, but not so many that I needed 15 different books, several hours, and a calculator to walk a new player through making their first character.

While I'm wishing, it would also be able to handle tactically interesting fight scenes without minis or a map and have forum-friendly mechanics that didn't require a lot of posting back and forth between player and GM to resolve an action.

Also, no matter how simple or complex a set of rules is, those rules should be transparent. Rules should do what they claim to do, and their intent should be either self-evident or explicitly stated by the designers as part of the game text. If I want my character to be good at fighting, the class called "Fighter" should be the obvious and correct choice. If I want to make my character tough, the "Toughness" feat should do exactly that. "System mastery" can go die in a fire; there's no excuse for deliberately inserting lousy options in a game just so some people can feel good about themselves for finding the hidden, non-intuitive better options. It's immature, manipulative, just plain bad design.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-07-27, 12:02 PM
I like rules that are simple enough to not get in the way of game play, but complex enough that I can spend hours of my free time messing around with them.

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-27, 12:14 PM
I like my RPG's to be simple where it should be simple and complex where it should be complex. Whether simplicity or complexity is called for in a section of the rules largely depends on what genre the RPG claims to simulate and whether the mechanic being made simple or complex is fun in the first place.

valadil
2010-07-27, 12:19 PM
While I'm wishing, it would also be able to handle tactically interesting fight scenes without minis or a map

Have you ever seen such a system? I'm not opposed to ditching the map, but tactics usually come down to positioning and terrain, and it is damn hard to describe those things verbally so that everyone has a common understanding of them.

Project_Mayhem
2010-07-27, 12:37 PM
Have you ever seen such a system? I'm not opposed to ditching the map, but tactics usually come down to positioning and terrain, and it is damn hard to describe those things verbally so that everyone has a common understanding of them.

I've never really had this problem.

If the area is reasonably complex we sketch out a map, everyone has a look and then we just leave it as a reference

valadil
2010-07-27, 12:42 PM
I've never really had this problem.

If the area is reasonably complex we sketch out a map, everyone has a look and then we just leave it as a reference

That's still relying on a map though. If you're trying to run an encounter without a map at all, you're limited to a much less complex area.

balistafreak
2010-07-27, 12:48 PM
DEFINITION ALERT

You do not want realism. You want verisimilitude, the ability of a system to stay reliable and constant. Exalted, for example, is relatively complex, which allows it to have a lot of the latter. Note that Exalted has about none of the former. :smalltongue:

Greater complexity at the very least creates an illusion of verisimilitude if just by forcing you to work harder for greater gain. (Which is generally true as we know it.)

Project_Mayhem
2010-07-27, 12:50 PM
Yeah, but describing it is still 'mapping' it to an extent. I'm talking map as in:

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee139/billyadavies/Untitled.jpg

To steal a rough version of a recent conflict in our game. DM describes it, sketches in 5 secs, we put it down and don't use it unless we have to.

Edit:

Even if you instead just describe it as your on a road, you crashed your van into the hedge (that was my fault), and your blocked either side by two police cars with magically protected cops either side, you've still 'mapped' it

aje8
2010-07-27, 12:56 PM
Yeah.... generally I like to DM rules light systems, but play in systems that are more complex. I'm too lazy as a DM to prepare more than the plot and a few important characters so running something like DnD or Gurps seems daunting to me. Stuff like Fate and it's deratives though seem alot easier for me as the DM and are more perferred systems.

As a player though, when I have to build but one character, I'd rather play something complex as I love optimization and the feeling when a build comes toghether as a synergetic and cohesive whole. When I have time to focus on but a single character, I have time to flesh out both their complex mechanics and their personality.

Mike_G
2010-07-27, 12:58 PM
Also, no matter how simple or complex a set of rules is, those rules should be transparent. Rules should do what they claim to do, and their intent should be either self-evident or explicitly stated by the designers as part of the game text. If I want my character to be good at fighting, the class called "Fighter" should be the obvious and correct choice. If I want to make my character tough, the "Toughness" feat should do exactly that. "System mastery" can go die in a fire; there's no excuse for deliberately inserting lousy options in a game just so some people can feel good about themselves for finding the hidden, non-intuitive better options. It's immature, manipulative, just plain bad design.

Yeah!

What he said!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-27, 01:00 PM
Rules should be shallow for unimportant stuff and in-depth for important stuff. What is important or unimportant depends on your design goals when making a game - but be sure you identify them!
I shied away from "simple" and "complex" because of the connotations within this community. A "shallow" mechanic is one which does not have a lot of moving parts - 4e Skills, for example, are usually straight rolls against fixed DCs. An "in-depth" mechanic is one with a lot of moving parts - 4e Combat, for example, has equipment abilities, character abilities, powers, monster abilities, environmental effects, and status effects to consider for any given attack.

Shallow and In-Depth mechanics can both be complicated, but neither should be. If a rule is difficult to use, it is a poorly designed rule. Nor does shallowness or depth of a rule indicate its fidelity to "reality;" freeform RPGs have among the most shallow rules for conversation (i.e. none) and yet they are much closer to reality than any Diplomacy mechanic.
So no, I do not prefer either a "simple" nor "complex" rules system - I prefer an elegant (that is to say, uncomplicated) system that has in-depth rules for the areas that are important to it and shallow ones for things that are not.

To whit, D&D4 is my favorite mainstream RPG and Bliss Stage is my favorite Indie.
D&D4 has elegant in-depth mechanics for character building and combat, with elegant shallow mechanics for skill usage and no mechanics for things that are unimportant to being High Fantasy adventurers.

Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage) has elegant and in-depth mechanics for structuring a cooperative story and running missions and elegant shallow mechanics for relationships and running scenes. It has no mechanics for for things that are unimportant to the game: skills, crafting, physical combat, etc.

I also enjoy Shadowrun, oWoD, Mountain Witch and AD&D - but they either lack the elegance of the above or waste too much time on mechanics that are either less important or unimportant for the game.
Burning Wheel is also supposed to be an elegant system but one I've not had the chance to play. It's mechanics look less-elegant than Bliss Stage, but perhaps in play it is as good.

EDIT: I'll second the post regarding System Mastery. System Mastery has a place in competitive games; more experienced players need a way to have an edge over less experienced ones. However, RPGs are not (or should not be) competitive games; they are cooperative storytelling exercises with gaming elements. No matter how much of a given system is made up of "gaming elements" it should still be a cooperative storytelling exercise. If it isn't, it should say so on the tin - see Hackmaster.

oxybe
2010-07-27, 01:01 PM
i prefer games with simple task resolution & overall simple mechanics that have potential for greater complexity. the less subsystems, the better.

Theodoriph
2010-07-27, 01:01 PM
Put quite simply, I am wondering if people prefer their rule systems for RPGs to be simple (and by their very nature quite abstracted) or if they prefer a more complex (and thus striving for greater realism) sort of system.

I am working through some ideas in game design (note I do not profess to be either qualified nor skilled in this area) and was working out some ideas with a friend, when the discussion took a turn into the complexity discussion, and what people prefer.

Feel free to chime in with examples as well, as my experience is somewhat limited (D&D, AD&D, D&D 3.5 & 4e, Shadowrun versions 1 - 4, OWoD, Paranoia, Warhammer Fantasy, Dark Heresy, Cyberpunk 2020... yeah, I think that's it).

So, what's your favourite, and why?



Both. It depends on what facet of the game we're talking about. I like combat to be fairly simple since combat usually takes a large chunk of time to begin with (that doesn't mean there should be lack of options necessarily) and is probably the most boring aspect of the game. I prefer more roleplay oriented things (e.g. skills) to be more complex.

In terms of combat, D&D 3.5 is slightly too complex for my liking. Even core alone becomes somewhat absurf at times. Though all in all, I prefer it to the other system I've played.

In terms of skills, D&D 3.5 is slightly too simple (don't even get me started on 4.0) at times. While the skill selection is nice (and the double armor check penalty for swimming is nice), diplomacy, intimidate and bluff need serious work. Those three skills are probably the most important because they're a chance for a character to do more roleplay-wise and D&D 3.5 royally screwed them up.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-27, 01:40 PM
I want flexibility. Sometimes a simple system makes that possible (Mage: The Ascension 1st Edition) and sometimes not so much (Mage: The Ascension 2nd Edition). Sometimes a complex system affords flexibility (D&D 3.5) and sometimes not (D&D 4e).

arrowhen
2010-07-27, 01:42 PM
That's still relying on a map though. If you're trying to run an encounter without a map at all, you're limited to a much less complex area.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't necessarily mean no map at all, I meant a battlemat with minis on it or the electronic equivalent, where the exact position of every character on the map is important each round.

In Red Box Hack (http://livingfree.wikidot.com/redbox-hack), for example, instead of having a detailed grid map, you have five different kinds of "arenas" -- broad categories of areas that give bonuses to different types of weapons. "Open" arenas, for example, give a bonus to ranged weapons (there's nothing to block your aim), while "Hazardous" arenas give a bonus to reach weapons (because the footing is bad, the advantage goes to the combatant who doesn't have to move around as much).

Positioning is abstracted to the point where all that matters is whether or not your opponent is in the same arena as you, and movement is just a matter of going from one arena to the next -- sometimes with an ability check if there's a barrier between the two.

In a system like that, a map would be handy visual reference, but minis wouldn't be required. Especially in a forum game where you could just append each character's current arena after their name, i.e, "The Kobold (on the North Rooftop)", or "Redgar (in the Alleyway)".

The Big Dice
2010-07-27, 02:25 PM
I want elegance, ease of use, flexibility and verisimilitude from a system. All things I don't get from WotC editions of D&D. Or from AD&D, come to mention it. BECMI D&D comes close, especially with the Rules Cyclopedia. But personally I find the system that hits the most right notes is AEG's R&K system. I prefer L5R to Seventh Sea, but that's just a matter of taste as the sytems are more or less the same.

It's got a good balance between enough complexity to reward system mastery and enough simplicity for it to be easy for new players to make effective characters. And there's more flexibility than just about any other system I've come across. The nature of the roll-and-keep mechanic means that skill use isn't tied to any specific trait. Outside of combat, that is.

Tyger
2010-07-27, 02:38 PM
OK, that's a great set of opinions... and they are as varied as I expected, but also some common themes as well.

So, that said, what is everyone's favorite system? Note, not talking about the world, or the theme, or anything like that. Purely a rules and gameplay question.

Satyr
2010-07-27, 02:42 PM
I think simplicity in game design should be seen as a mean to an end - flexibility, a quick game flow, a system that's easy to learn, something like that - and not as an end in itself. A game doesn't get better or worse because it is simpler or more complex; it gets better or worse because it can or cannot capture the feeling it tries to transport or it becomes counterintuitive.

There are usually two kinds of simple games - those that don't bother much with rules because the rules do not matter as much as other aspects like the acting of the players, or the narrative description is much more important and meant to supersede the rules anyway, so that simple, reserved rules are more appropriate.
The other kind of simple rules achieve simplicity through a lack of depth or substance; games which don't offer much options, variation or just depth, but just simplicity for simplicity's sake. These games often tend to suck.

The danger of the second kind of simple games lies in a high degree of abstraction, which in the worst case means that the presented actions within the game and their representation representation through the rules become two separate entities with little to no interconnection; at this point, the rules stop making sense, as soon as you start to question them. That's usually a bad sign.

The games I enjoy the most are those which offer a high degree of complexity but are so streamlined and intuitive that the use of the rules in all their options and variations is intuitive and based on a strong inherent logic.

Coplantor
2010-07-27, 02:42 PM
I'd say that Alternity is probably my favourite, though I only got to play it once.
The rules follow the same order for everything, things are rated in the same way for everything (illumination, damage, skills, everything was rated using the same criteria).
And the dice rolling was a lot of fun

valadil
2010-07-27, 02:51 PM
So, that said, what is everyone's favorite system? Note, not talking about the world, or the theme, or anything like that. Purely a rules and gameplay question.

I mostly play D&D, but that's because of the setting and my particular group of friends.

I think WoD is the most beautiful game system I've seen. It's simple to grasp and it's consistent throughout. But the way attributes and skills can be combined depending on the situation gives it plenty of adaptability. Too bad I'm not into WoD as a setting.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-27, 03:21 PM
Favorite system? Almost impossible for me to say. Castles and Crusades is great. I really like Hackmaster Basic, but am not sure how I'd like running it (it's a touch crunchy). CineUni is good.... and any number of other systems that I like for various relationships.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-27, 03:27 PM
So, that said, what is everyone's favorite system? Note, not talking about the world, or the theme, or anything like that. Purely a rules and gameplay question.
A bit awkward, as a good rules system must be tied into the world (or at least, themes) as well.

Anyhow: D&D4 has the most elegant rules system I have seen for a system of its complexity. Bliss Stage has an elegant rules system that is singularly devoted to its purpose and addresses gameplay concepts in a fashion I had not thought possible.

Bliss Stage turns Munchkins into RPers. It is astounding :smalleek:

Prodan
2010-07-27, 03:30 PM
Digital watches are practical, pocket watches are beautiful.

oxybe
2010-07-27, 04:02 PM
fav system? hard to say.

for a point buy type system, it's GURPS. on the player end, unless you're counting really high points, the game doesn't really become too difficult complex maybe but pretty simple. 3d6 roll under stat +/- modifier for virtually all actions. it can potentially be pretty complicated but several of the more complicated rules are in the combat section or outside the core book/books and the game advises the GM to remove whatever he doesn't want either for ease of play/speed or for thematic reasons. on the gm end it's a bit more complex but once you've parsed out the rules you want to use, it's pretty easy.

for a class-based game, D&D 4th ed. a small list of skills focused on adventuring rather then an extensive list there for no real reason, a good mix of abstraction & crunch with the game accepting and emphasizing reflavoring abilities, the core system is easy to understand and the structure of the classes and powers are similar in structure across the board while maintaining diversity through it's abilities.

i can't properly judge which one i like more though, mainly because they don't strive to do the same things or work in the same way. it's kinda like asking if i prefer a car or a boat. both are vehicles, but you don't use a boat in times you would rather want a car and vice versa.

either way, unless it's trying to be a toolbox game like gurps, i would much rather play a game made for the genres & conventions of the type of game i'm trying to run rather then one that wants to be a genre but tries to fit as much as possible into it. if i want a game of pulp-action & exploration in a fantasy milieu, 4th ed D&D hands down. if i want a game of intrigue and mystery, WoD. ect... i play a game for it's strengths.

Project_Mayhem
2010-07-27, 05:07 PM
I have a tendency to use the actual system as a jumping point and not get bogged down in mechanics too much. That said I tend to use nWoD and Call of Cthulhu more than anything else.

aje8
2010-07-27, 09:59 PM
Favorite System? DnD 3.5 with a few house rules and far more Gentleman's Agreements. (We're all optimizers who've been around the block so we self-nerf to a large degree)

Grommen
2010-07-27, 10:47 PM
Check out some of the Open source D6 stuff from the now defunct West End

In talking to all my gaming friends we liked the D6 system the best. It's very flexible, simple, but complicated enough to generate vastly different characters.

My opinion. I just want a system that works. I have found complicated games systems that lend to players making super power nasty monstrosities, and simple game systems that create hours of arguing at the game table over abstract rules. Fact is that no system I've ever seen can cover every possible situation of real life, and the ones that try the hardest to be real. Fail the most at actually being real.

Serenity RPG is a good example of a simple game that just plain sucks. And it's realistic. The fact that pretty much at any time your character can roll "2" on a dodge roll, get shot and die horribly is very real. Also sucks big time.

Role Master was another one that was horribly complex. I think I had like six pages of stuff for my 1st level character. And I died at least once in character generation. If you made an attack you would spend like two years resolving it too.

arrowhen
2010-07-28, 02:40 AM
So, that said, what is everyone's favorite system? Note, not talking about the world, or the theme, or anything like that. Purely a rules and gameplay question.

None of them.

I've been playing roleplaying games for 27 years and I can't think of a single rules system I liked. Of course, part of the problem is that if the ruleset isn't the latest version of Dungeons & Dragons (or the last version of Dungeons & Dragons, these days), I can't properly evaluate it to see whether I like it or not because that would mean finding people to actually play it with.

Basing the question on the rules I've read, rather than the ones I've actually been able to talk people into playing, my two favorite systems would have to be Dogs in the Vineyard or In a Wicked Age, but let's face it, trying to pitch a game as either "Mormon paladins in a wild west that never was" or "a swords and sorcery game that works like an actual swords and sorcery novel, not a cheesy adolescent power fantasy" isn't exactly going to get players knocking down my door... especially in an area where I can't even find people to play D&D with.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-28, 02:45 AM
Put quite simply, I am wondering if people prefer their rule systems for RPGs to be simple (and by their very nature quite abstracted) or if they prefer a more complex (and thus striving for greater realism) sort of system.

Simplicity and Complexity have only a casual relationship to realism, imo.

I enjoy both realistic and unrealistic games, both simple and complex. It depends on who Im playing with, my mood, etc. This doesn't mean all systems are equally good...poor writing is one way to kill a system. Complexity that doesn't serve a purpose is another one.

Psyx
2010-07-28, 03:05 AM
DEFINITION ALERT

You do not want realism. You want verisimilitude,

No; I want realism when I play certain systems, such as Mil. end, for example.

Thajocoth
2010-07-28, 03:13 AM
Simple. This way there's more time spent roleplaying and less time spent looking up rules.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-28, 04:28 AM
Role Master was another one that was horribly complex. I think I had like six pages of stuff for my 1st level character. And I died at least once in character generation. If you made an attack you would spend like two years resolving it too.

Are you sure you're not thinking of another game? (Like Traveller, or something life paths or something?) Because is utterly impossible to die in character generation in Rolemaster in any edition, because there aren't any events of anything, any more than you can die in D&D during character generaion.

If not, your DM was having you on.

Rolemaster gets an unfair rap for complexity in task resolution. It is, as far as the player's end goes, identical to D&D. The only difference is you're adding numbers that are higher. (And instead of rolling for damage, you roll for criticals).

Now, I'll grant you, looking things up on the tables takes more time (mainly from having to flick to the correct table) and it's a bit more work for the DM; but it isn't actually any more complex for the players in task resolution. (Unless you consider the same levels of maths as going to the shops complex; which is an honest and genuine problem some people seem to have; it's all about perception. 15+5 is fine, but ask them to do 23+57 and they fall apart.)

(With an experienced DM, Rolemaster is not really any slower than D&D. Also worth noting that the enitre set of my Rolemaster rulebooks does not take more space than my entire D&D 3.5 rulebooks...)



On topic, my favourite systems of choice are D&D 3.5 (heavily modifed) and Rolemaster (heavily modified). I prefer systems with plenty of mechanical options (e.g. D&D) or with plenty of choice (Rolemaster). However, they also have to be reasonably grounded in "realism" i.e. at the base level, they must not function on "rule of cool". I want a level of realism for the fantasy or sci-fi to jump off from. D&D 3.5 is not very real, but it is far better grounded than 4E in that regard. But I find the character mechanics and spells and powers and manouvers and all the rest sufficiently fun - and marginally less hassle than Rolemaster to run - that I can live with the problems (assuming I don't fix them, which I usually do).

It is also worth noting that in twenty years of gaming, there is no set of rules in wargames or roleplaying (including those I've written myself!) that I have not moderately to heavily houseruled.

Matthew
2010-07-28, 07:51 AM
Not sure I have a favourite system, as some are good for one thing and others good for another, so it depends on what is desired at a particular time. Last few months I have been playing on and off in a D20/4e game and then running AD&D afterwards. I enjoy both games for what they are, though on the whole it is true that I prefer AD&D it is not to the exclusion of D20/4e or any other games. Probably easier to list adventure role-playing games that I would refuse to play, and that list would probably be rather short (and mainly limited to vanity press affairs). As other posters have mentioned, though, I do prefer "lighter" games when in the role of game master, as it reduces the preparation workload. That is not such a big deal when running pre-written modules, of course.

The Big Dice
2010-07-28, 05:06 PM
Simplicity and Complexity have only a casual relationship to realism, imo.

I enjoy both realistic and unrealistic games, both simple and complex. It depends on who Im playing with, my mood, etc. This doesn't mean all systems are equally good...poor writing is one way to kill a system. Complexity that doesn't serve a purpose is another one.

I'd agree with this. Personally, I don't mind a simle game as long as it's consistent. And when it comes to realism, that's as much about things like how people react in a situation as it is about how dead someone is when they get hit by a bazooka or an axe or something.

Project_Mayhem
2010-07-28, 05:14 PM
On the realism note, I like a game to realistic where and when it is supposed to be. For example,I am fine with game based on OTT action heroes and such (say Mutants and Master minds) allowing characters to shrug off bullets. However, something like World of Darkness, which purports to be realistic (aside from the supernatural elements) should have realistic injury's and such. In our mage game, a shot in the head is normally going to insta-kill you no matter your health dots.

Ozymandias9
2010-07-28, 05:31 PM
On the matter of simplicity versus complexity: I generally prefer it this-- the fundamental mechanics of a system should be as simple as reasonable. I prefer complexity to be added to higher level design elements, such as the magic and combat system options. And if possible, it should be added in a manner that reduces to the fundamental mechanics.

From my perspective, this highlights one of the more fundamental issues with the D20 system. The basic mechanics aren't necessarily uniform. Ostensibly, this is suppose to be 1d20 (or rather, 1d20+Bonus+rank), but outside of the skill system and BAB, it's not particularly prominent. The power systems only uses the mechanic sparingly outside savings throws.

Granted, a great deal of the design was caught up in D&D legacy issues, but a base system for powers that focused primarily on opposed rolls would likely be easier to balance and adjudicate.