Opt-in Complexity

[AceOfFools]

I recently came to a conclusion about one of the keys to d20 system & derivatives success: it has very significant opt-in complexity. I.e. some classes are much simpler to play than others.

People complain frequently that fighters have far fewer options than casters. While they certainly do, but this is a virtue for some players.

I'm not saying that it is too hard for these players to go through long lists of spells, decide which spell they want use now or keep track of spent vs unspent resources. I'm saying doing all that isn't fun for people, they just don't want to play the resource management game.

Obviously for others, this is resource management is the most fun part of the game.

The beauty of (most editions) of D&D is that people who can't stand complexity and those that find find multiple and having interrelated options interesting can sit down at the same table, play the same game and both have fun.

This is something that is lost when going to systems that have more uniform character creation rules, such as point-buys, D&D 4e and FATE. One set gets to have more fun, and the other less, unless you end up in that happy situation where everyone has the same preference.

The problem with this system, as been discussed at length, is that D&D fairly strongly ties power to complexity (assuming even minimally optimized play).

They gave all the powerful options to the casters. Almost all the immunities and effective immunities, all the defense bypasses, all the ability to recover from persistent debilities--almost all of theses that are available to players come from spells. The ones that are the most encounter-changing and campaign-changing are high level (as they probably should be), which means they are only available to people who pursue the high-complexity options exclusively.

We can (and have) spent a large amount of time on why this is. Doing so again has little value.

What I want to know is how the home-brewed system I am designing can preserve this opt-in complexity to allow a group of players with diverse preferences (i.e. my actual players) without significantly penalizing anyone for playing their preference.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

[Mr. Bitter]

I like the idea of allowing people to opt in or out of complexity. I think that, at least for character design, it is a good idea to make that tied to power level. The disparity shouldn't be so large, is all. If a baseline non-complex character is the baseline, an optimized complex character should be maybe 50% more powerful, tops. Instead of an order of magnitude more powerful. Design your system so that there are simple answers and complex answers. Put the simple answers in front. Maybe have sub-systems that only matter to the people who have them.

For example, my simple fighter might have flat values for their meaningful stats: attack bonus of +4, AC of 14, initiative of +3. But a complex fighter might choose a martial combat style that modifies this by -2 AC, +4 initiative. The complex fighter also modifies their sword to be barbed, inflicting +2 damage but botching on a natural 2 as well as 1. The complex fighter also chooses the near-sighted character drawback, penalizing attacks against non-adjacent creatures, but receiving a +1 attack bonus as compensation. The complex fighter still uses the same values as the simple fighter, but how they arrive at them is more baroque. And that is hopefully more rewarding to players that enjoy systems mastery and complexity.

As an aside, I ran a couple campaigns with opt-in death penalties, with choices ranging from temporary incapacitation to permadeath. Players that found lethality stressful could choose one of the nicer options, while players with other options gained experience at a slightly faster rate. It didn't make a huge difference, but the players willing to risk permanent character death had a couple sessions where they were a level higher than they would otherwise have been. It seemed to work well. One could as easily have an opt-in "damage location chart" for specific injuries. Or any other sub-system that you liked.

[goto124]

Should opt-in complexity be 'you choose to play a wizard for greater complexity' or 'you choose to play this system for greater complexity'?

Is it necessarily a bad thing if the complexity gap between the fighter and the wizard is so huge, playing either one is like playing completely different systems?

Should there be an incentive to play a wizard over the fighter? How large should the advantage be, such that the wizard doesn't overshadow the fighter?

[huttj509]

Should opt-in complexity be 'you choose to play a wizard for greater complexity' or 'you choose to play this system for greater complexity'?

Is it necessarily a bad thing if the complexity gap between the fighter and the wizard is so huge, playing either one is like playing completely different systems?

Should there be an incentive to play a wizard over the fighter? How large should the advantage be, such that the wizard doesn't overshadow the fighter?

I think it's more that, ideally, there should be complex and simple options for each archetype, and it should be a matter of preference rather than "if you choose this you're weaker in every way."

If the complex character build is its own reward, let it be its own reward.

[Vitruviansquid]

What I want to know is how the home-brewed system I am designing can preserve this opt-in complexity to allow a group of players with diverse preferences (i.e. my actual players) without significantly penalizing anyone for playing their preference.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Since I don't have very much information about your home-brewed system, I would only say you should look into MOBA games like League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm. They all feature heroes that can roughly be analogous to an RPG class (if, indeed, your system has classes), and are all supposed to be balanced to the same power, but have differing levels of complexity.

[Slipperychicken]

If complexity is supposed to be "opt-in", then it should be a playstyle choice, not an inflexible decision made at the start of the game. Also, higher complexity should mean tradeoffs, not making one player's in-game performance overwhelmingly better than the others.

The simple options should be roughly on par with the complex options (or at least not totally outclassed by them), and each PC should have access to both levels of play. If someone wants to go from "I shoot center mass every turn" to thinking a little more tactically, or vice versa, then the game system should enable that transition. Making a player discard his entire character over that, or wait multiple sessions (easily months of RL time) to change between levels of play, is not necessarily a good thing.

[Inevitability]

The 5th edition PHB has three subclasses for Fighters.

The first is the Champion, which adds only passive abilities and flat bonuses. It is a class for people who want to charge an enemy and hit him, no tricky business.

Then there is the Battlemaster, which lets you use several maneuvers, all of which have an interesting effect.

Finally, there is the Eldritch Knight, which gives you spells and several magic-related class features.


Every class is a viable option, but depending on how complex a character you want to build you should either choose Champion or opt for Battlemaster/Eldritch Knight. Even within those two classes, there is still room for several levels of complexity (an Eldritch Knight focusing on out-of-combat abjurations is possible).

[Lord Raziere]

the problem with opt-in complexity is that the ones most likely to master the system and make things unbalanced are going to be the ones who go for the complexity, because its a greater challenge.

the complexity also has a bigger chance of being unbalanced by design, as more moving parts means these parts can be possibly combined in a way that can lead to broken builds that completely out class any simpler design.

thus you have the ones most likely to make something unbalanced going for the parts most likely to create something unbalanced. the ones most likely to hate something unbalanced are the ones who want to go for something simple, immediately understandable and is assured that won't make a broken build.

there is no way to reconcile these. different playstyles are simply not compatible. opt-in complexity only assures that that these people will conflict. the only possible way such a thing could satisfy me is if you came up with a way for me without any optimization knowledge or need for complexity to match the other complexity person with my preference for simpler mechanics. the player who likes complexity and optimization will see that as ruining his fun, why? because he worked for his power and why bother with all that he did if I equal him with a far easier, simple mechanic that bypasses all that he did to get where he got to?

thus by satisfying me, you displease the other.

unless you can come up a way for this to actually work, it is better for both players to separate systems with people who share their preferences. this seems to be a nice ideal, but one that probably will never be achieved.

[Kamai]

In my thoughts, for these types of characters to coexist (within a subclass), low complexity characters need to be good at something that a high complexity character would have to invest too much in to be good at to gain any benefit from the extra complexity. It goes without saying that what the low complexity character is good at has to actually be useful.

[Quertus]

I played a video game where the wizard was far more complex than the fighter, had far more options, but the fighter was just plain stronger.

I enjoyed the feel of playing the wizard more, so, even though it was the clearly weaker option, I stuck with it.

I've also played several RPGs where the casters were both more complex and weaker. Some, I liked the feel of casters in the game, and continued playing them. Some had other options I also liked, so I played those rather than suffer through complexity for no benefit. Others had nothing I cared for, so I just stopped playing.

Since you have a specific playgroup in mind, i would suggest focusing on the feel of the character, and the type of agency the player(s) in question desire.

[Slipperychicken]

In my thoughts, for these types of characters to coexist (within a subclass), low complexity characters need to be good at something that a high complexity character would have to invest too much in to be good at to gain any benefit from the extra complexity. It goes without saying that what the low complexity character is good at has to actually be useful.

I think it's possible with tradeoffs. The simpler option might be the best at its specialty, but the complex option would exchange much of that competency for having a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Your fighter might dominate the damage scene, while the bard would be worse at damage and use utility powers make the fighter's job easier.


A decent example of this kind of tradeoff is in the core fighter archetypes. Champion is obviously the simplest option; it doesn't manage any extra resources, but its power is "always on", and it has some of the best sustained and burst damage in the game. It is strong, reliable, and will bring that full force to bear as long as it has hit points. The others (battlemaster, EK) are not as good in terms of sustained damage, but they gain a few minor utility powers, and some dailies that impact areas other than damage. They are somewhat less reliable, but can briefly go slightly outside their specialty.

[Fizban]

If the complex character build is its own reward, let it be its own reward.
As a complex leaning person, I can say that I would be quite offended if suddenly all the simple stuff was as much or more powerful than the builds I spent time working on. It happens a lot in extreme homebrewing around here actually: supposedly mundane martial types that gain immunity to almost every status effect 24/7 because "it's their job to be tough" and somehow the fact that a complex build only gains those sort of things in more measured quantities for limited periods of time is never considered. Even if it's hours/level that's still a level of complexity (and vulnerability) that should be rewarded beyond that of abilities that never ever fail.

So I'd say sure, simple classes shouldn't suck, but there should absolutely be a cieling on how high you reach without trying.

[Lord Raziere]

As a complex leaning person, I can say that I would be quite offended if suddenly all the simple stuff was as much or more powerful than the builds I spent time working on. It happens a lot in extreme homebrewing around here actually: supposedly mundane martial types that gain immunity to almost every status effect 24/7 because "it's their job to be tough" and somehow the fact that a complex build only gains those sort of things in more measured quantities for limited periods of time is never considered. Even if it's hours/level that's still a level of complexity (and vulnerability) that should be rewarded beyond that of abilities that never ever fail.

So I'd say sure, simple classes shouldn't suck, but there should absolutely be a cieling on how high you reach without trying.

See? my point has been proven. as soon as you suggest any sort of equality between a simple-mechanics playstyle and a complex mechanics playstyle, the complex one wants a reward for being able to put a bunch of little parts together just because they are willing to do so. that they should be better simply because they like to work more.

the differences between the person who just wants a +10 and the person who wants to cobble together various things to get a +10 are too great, and I'd rather just not play any system with opt-in complexity at all if it leads to thinking like this. it presumes that roleplaying is a competition- that one should be awarded more just because they've worked more. it is not. it is cooperation. the fun is that of the group. in what you share, not what way you win more than others. or it forces others to play outside their playstyle just to keep up for no reason other than the fact that the others don't think that he doesn't deserve it.

and to that I say: what right does anyone have to judge how deserving another player is to be allowed to be effective in relation to themselves? None at all. All players should have the right to be equally effective and vital to the group in the way they desire. Having to resort to specific builds or fall into newbie traps because they don't have system mastery, goes against such a principle.

[LtPowers]

As a complex leaning person, I can say that I would be quite offended if suddenly all the simple stuff was as much or more powerful than the builds I spent time working on.

Yes, because you value the complexity. Can you see why someone who doesn't value complexity might object when you take offense to this?


Powers &8^]

[Cluedrew]

I don't know how your home-brew system works but I would say for this to work you are actually going to have to make the complex and the simple characters differ in at least one other regard as well. Such as damage vs. utility or generalist vs. specialist. Because the only "true" way to balance two numbers is to have those two numbers be equal, +6 in one and half a dozen +1 in the other. Which basically means you have to choose between the complex characters requiring a lot of work to be as good as a simple character or simple characters never being able to match a well put together complex character. However other types of options and differences are not as easily comparable and so are easier to balance against. So make the characters differ in those ways as well.

[Fizban]

See? my point has been proven. as soon as you suggest any sort of equality between a simple-mechanics playstyle and a complex mechanics playstyle, the complex one wants a reward for being able to put a bunch of little parts together just because they are willing to do so. that they should be better simply because they like to work more.
You do realize there are more power levels than "equal" and "unbalanced," right?

the differences between the person who just wants a +10 and the person who wants to cobble together various things to get a +10 are too great, and I'd rather just not play any system with opt-in complexity at all if it leads to thinking like this. it presumes that roleplaying is a competition- that one should be awarded more just because they've worked more. it is not. it is cooperation. the fun is that of the group. in what you share, not what way you win more than others. or it forces others to play outside their playstyle just to keep up for no reason other than the fact that the others don't think that he doesn't deserve it.
Honestly I hardly even care about flat numbers, by all means keep those nice and even. Who said anything about it being a competition between players? If I go running every day I deserve the ability to run faster than the guy who doesn't, and it doesn't change the fact that we're both needed to finish the relay race (vs the monsters). If he feels inadequate then I would gladly train him, and if the coach takes his leg of the race and cuts it in half that's not really fair. If I spend hours crafting DnD builds I deserve to see them be awesome (as long as I'm not hogging the baton) and if the DM decides to change the game by adding less-complex options I should get as much say as anyone else in the group about them.

and to that I say: what right does anyone have to judge how deserving another player is to be allowed to be effective in relation to themselves? None at all. All players should have the right to be equally effective and vital to the group in the way they desire. Having to resort to specific builds or fall into newbie traps because they don't have system mastery, goes against such a principle.
All players have the right to be effective and vital to the group in the way they desire. Those who put in more effort will naturally be more effective, and those who put in less will be less, just like any other hobby.

If you reject opt-in complexity then you're demanding either rigidly high or rigidly low complexity (no, there is no perfect medium). Either route will reduce your pool of interested players, but opt-in complexity allows flexible groups of people the opportunity to try playing together even if their interests are different, which is the OP's whole point: opt-in complexity increases player base and thus franchise success. I specifically said that low-complexity players have the right to not suck after all, and they should recognize that I have the right to be awesome. DnD is a social game where you negotiate the width of that gap between the players, not the system.

Yes, because you value the complexity. Can you see why someone who doesn't value complexity might object when you take offense to this?
First: "value the complexity" is misleading. Complexity for it's own sake it a waste of time, which is why I rebutted hutt above. Can I see why they'd be offended? Sure, but that's because they're making an assumption of the game I consider to be false. The correlation here is between complexity and let's call it prep-time. The player of the low complexity class has less prep time, and I would posit they probably consider just showing up to game sessions to be enough. The DM cannot simply show up to sessions unprepared, so no, just showing up to the game is not the baseline, it is in fact below baseline. Showing up counts for a lot, but no so much that it negates the extra work the DM puts in, or the extra work a complex player puts in. That said, there are plenty of players that might be willing to show up for sessions but not to put in extra prep-time, and once again that's where opt-in complexity put DnD ahead of other games. The catch is that both parties have to be willing to accept some difference in prep-time/power ratio compared to their expectations. The low-complexity player expects full power for zero prep-time, and I expect minimal power for zero-prep time, so we have to meet in the middle. And once again I'll point out that I'm not the one saying there's no wiggle room: that would be Raizere and maybe hutt demanding equal power for unequal effort.

Advice for the OP: well first I'd talk with the group and figure out where they fall on the issue. Ask the question directly and be adult about it: if the complex folk think that should be reflected in the mechanics and the less complex folk disagree, figure out where you're going to compromise (if everyone's fine playing a rigid game then you might consider dropping the issue for that instead). It would probably be easier to do as others have suggested and limit the effects of increased complexity to a particular axis, but choosing what axis will again be based on the group. DPS is a fairly touchy number, but options either in or out of combat can be just as touchy, as can survivability or literally any other game element, so you'll need to find what your complex guys like/less complex guys are okay with being objectively worse at. Don't forget how tactics can change the game: "glass cannons" are a common idea that highlight how tactics can completely invalidate a supposed balancing factor, and if your players/yourself have differing levels of tactical ability this will also come into play.

Actually, let me take that tactical point and expand it further: players capable of complex plans put in an environment without complex mechanics can make their own complexity and do more damage to the game than they would have otherwise. In a system not balanced for tactical combat, adding rules for simple tactics introduces a level of complexity which disadvantages those who ignore it (by the way, tactics are opt-in complexity!*), making those who bother to understand flanking and cover unbalanced. Some people say they don't care about the system at all because no matter what it is they'll find a way to do crazy things, usually in ways that are obviously outside of what's supposed to be doable which the DM allows simply because there aren't rules. They make their own complexity by forcing the invention of new mechanics, and then exploit them to become more powerful than the system itself. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone any more than the false assumption that all complex builders are out to break the game, but I think people of this stripe are less aware of what they're doing, and the result is far more harmful than mechanics which started on paper.

*Also re-illustrates the point that the whole group should be playing/prepping on roughly the same level. Have you ever had a game where one guy refused to learn basic tactics and just ran around like an idiot? Not very fun when party success is tied to that guy. That's what it feels like for someone who learns the system being stuck with a guy that expect to just roll dice and win.

[Drynwyn]

Well, the thing about ultra-complex classes with lots of options is, the more character options they have to pick from, the more powerful, on average, they will become- even if they can only pick one option, and cannot access the others.

The reason for this is simple: You, as the designer, are not omniscient, and the options you create will vary in power. By sheer statistics, the more options you create, the more powerful the strongest of these options will be- and these will be the options that see the most play, because they are the strongest.

The best way to minimize the effect of this is to limit the availability of options in conjunction with each other.

I'm going to unpack the above sentence a little and give some examples. What you're doing is putting options into a number of "sets", then either forcing the player to use options from a limited number of sets, pay an increased cost for options outside a given set, or make it difficult to move between sets. Then, you can focus on making sure that there aren't horribly overpowered combinations within the sets, rather than trying to examine the effects of every option in conjunction with every other option. (The character class system itself is an example of this, but more complex classes require subsets.)

Hearthstone does this with it's class system- the limited pool of options available to players, based on class, allows the designers more leeway. Imagine how powerful a Hearthstone deck you could build with access to the best cards from every class! (Unrelated, can this please be a tavern brawl mode?)

For an RPG example, Burning Wheel's lifepath system also does this. Players can only select lifepaths in a given sub-setting, and are limited in their ability to move from sub-setting to sub-setting, preventing you from merely taking the best couple lifepaths and calling it a day.

[goto124]

Imagine how powerful a Hearthstone deck you could build with access to the best cards from every class! (Unrelated, can this please be a tavern brawl mode?

Fight broken with broken!

[Quertus]

The best way to minimize the effect of this is to limit the availability of options in conjunction with each other.

"I want to be selfless, intelligent, and honest and kind. Well, I'm still working on kind." Four would disagree.

And so would I.

Any kind of arbitrary grouping of abilities to limit the players will (correctly) feel limiting, and diminish the fun for certain groups of players - exactly what the OP was trying to avoid.

Part of the draw of 3.x (and MtG, IMO) is the sheer number of options available to the players.

Different people want and expect different things.

My brother lost interest in the Star Wars CCG when he realized that the simplest deck build with commons was stronger than the complex decks build with cool rare cards. I lost interest with some games when the complex "mage" characters were inherently significantly weaker than the simple "fighters". Some people want their pursuit of complexity to be rewarded.

Yet there is the "same game" argument. People who have the D&D fighter can't get that class to do anything near what the wizard can do (no matter how much complexity they are willing to add?), so they claim that the fighter and the wizard aren't playing the same game. Some people want the same agency from a simple character as a complex character has.

And, even though I abandoned *some* games with underwhelming "wizards", I did thoroughly enjoy at least one game where the complex wizard character was straight-out inferior to the simple fighter. Why? Well, it was a video game, and I enjoyed thinking my way through problems, finding out what the monsters were strong or weak against, etc. I enjoyed the challenge of finding out how to deal 90% of the fighter's damage more than I enjoyed wading through the monsters at 100% efficiency with only a single tactic at my disposal. Some people enjoy variety, even at the expense of power. Or, to varying degrees, Some people find complexity to be its own reward. For me, something that makes me think is good, but not worth losing significant agency over.

As a thought experiment... let's say we have a game with 5 base character sheets. We'll call them "Erudite", "Dauntless", "Abnegation", "Amity", and "Candor". If you want to play the game, photocopy one of these 5 character sheets, and you are ready to play, with a character carefully play tested and balanced to be at 100% efficiency.

But there is also some opt-in complexity in character creation. Each component on the sheet has a listed value. You can exchange pieces of this character sheet for one or more components in some master list whose total value is equal to or less than the value of the component you are removing. The pieces you are removing may or may not exist anywhere on that master list; if they do, they may or may not have the same cost as their listed value on your sheet. Use of components from the master list is not guaranteed to produce a character balanced at 100% efficiency - they may be more or less efficient than the pre-built characters. Use of opt-in complexity in character creation is an optional rule.

When they get the system, some GMs will play "core only", allowing no trade-ins, to guarantee game balance. Some may allow only a single trade-in, or only trade-ins at reduced value. Others will build complex tables for the cost of each component based on your initial faction, or otherwise add complex house rules on top of the system.

Knowing this, would you tend to build a table in which opt-in complexity drives characters above 100% efficiency, or which only produces characters below 100% efficiency? Why?


As a complex leaning person, I can say that I would be quite offended if suddenly all the simple stuff was as much or more powerful than the builds I spent time working on. It happens a lot in extreme homebrewing around here actually: supposedly mundane martial types that gain immunity to almost every status effect 24/7 because "it's their job to be tough" and somehow the fact that a complex build only gains those sort of things in more measured quantities for limited periods of time is never considered. Even if it's hours/level that's still a level of complexity (and vulnerability) that should be rewarded beyond that of abilities that never ever fail.

So I'd say sure, simple classes shouldn't suck, but there should absolutely be a cieling on how high you reach without trying.

Clearly, you fall into the "want your effort to be rewarded" camp. :smallwink:

Funny thing - I have 3.x fighter builds whose job it is to be tough, who have racial abilities, items, etc that give them 24/7 immunity to many kinds of status effects (and damage types). They would score 100% on the "same game" test, probably even on a many-levels-higher same game test (I know they would if I put the builds together). They were complex to build, but simple to play. Which kind of complexity should be rewarded?

[Flickerdart]

The issue with complexity is it introduces the floor and ceiling problem.

Take the fighter and the barbarian of 3.5 fame. The barbarian is a fairly balanced, very simple class - you either rage or don't rage (hint: you should rage) and then you beat face in with your muscles. The fighter...has problems, because it's deceptively complex. A player used to the simple barbarian hops over to a fighter, and sees that he has ten different feat options. If he picks the feats well, he can be better than the barbarian, but if he picks feats poorly (as is likely for a newbie), he will be much worse. This is exacerbated even further with spellcasters, where a bad sorcerer is leagues behind poorly built barbarians.

However, not all is lost - in a good game, there is more than one problem to be solved. This is especially true of a custom system, where you can slough off the laser-guided focus on murder simulation and drum up other kinds of challenges the PCs can resolve with a satisfactory level of engagement. I will provide three examples (rogue, incarnate, and archivist), and three challenges for them to face.

The rogue is a comparatively simple character - he picks a couple of skills (stealth, perception, legerdemain), a combat style, and proceeds into the wild green yonder. He has a very low level of complexity because his skills never change, but it is difficult for him to adapt (wasted gold on wands and scrolls to UMD) and he has a limited amount of ability when it comes to things outside of his specialization. It often doesn't matter that the rogue can't do some things, because the rogue's player isn't interested in playing that kind of character.

The incarnate's complexity is a notch above - instead of picking his specialty once, he essentially does so every day. The advantage is that he can adapt in a coarse way to the demands of the adventure. If the party is negotiating in a city, that calls for a different set of soulmelds than a romp through the wilderness. He can probably get bonuses that are as good as the rogue in stealth, perception, and legerdemain, but not all at once (because of his limited essentia) so he has to choose how good he wants to be at a specific thing at any given time.

The archivist's complexity is way past the others - he has, in his prayer book, the widest variety of spells that anyone could have. Every day, he has to prepare these spells off a list that may very well be thousands of items long. But unlike the incarnate, the morning is only the start of his decisions. Every spell he has is one-and-done, and he has to choose when to pop them. He can be as good or almost as good as the rogue or the incarnate, but only for minutes or rounds in the day.

While the classes each attain a roughly even level of competence, they make the decision at different times - the rogue only once, the incarnate every day, and the archivist every encounter. As a result, the rogue will be less suited to some encounters, but more to others.


Situation 1: The party is walking through orc-infested woods. The rogue is excellent here - his keen senses and stealth mean that he can scout ahead, and he can keep scouting all day long. The archivist provides some help thanks to his high Wisdom, but without a cause to cast his spells, he prefers to conserve them. The incarnate moves some essentia to sense melds, so he's more useful than the archivist but still less than the rogue.

Situation 2: The rogue discovers an orc camp and the party decides to ambush the enemy. The archivist buffs up for battle. The incarnate shuffles essentia into his natural attacks. The rogue doesn't really have anything to do except get into position. In battle, the rogue is happy to plink away with his bow, getting in a sneak attack on the first round and thereafter operating on his baseline competence. Everyone else wrecks faces because they invested more into combat.

Situation 3: After the battle, the party loots the orc camp. The rogue's lockpicking and searching skills help here, while the archivist quickly runs out of detect secret doors spells. The incarnate's melds are of limited use in this situation, but he is able to climb up to hard-to-reach places where the rogue spotted something.


Notice the trend - while each class had something to do, they all had moments when they were unable or unwilling to expend resources, and were operating on the baseline efficiency of the game. If you want to make simplex and complex classes stand on even footing, you need to ensure this always rings true - everyone is able to contribute something in any situation, and the fewer times a class makes choices, the more it needs to be good at the thing it chooses, and useful outside of that thing.

[JoeJ]

Mutants & Masterminds succeeds in having large differences in complexity without corresponding differences in raw power, in part by doing away with the class/level structure. If you want a lot of complexity, you can create a Batman or Tony Stark or Green Lantern type character able to do almost anything you can imagine. At the simple end you've got your basic bricks, the "big guns" of the superhero genre who are second to none at laying down the smack but don't have nearly the flexibility. Or you can build something in between.

The difference is not only, or even mainly, which character is more complicated to build, because you only have to build the character once (for players who don't like a lot of between game work, that's an advantage of not having levels). It's a huge difference in play style. At any given moment, a crimefighter or shapeshifter character has dozens of options, while a powerhouse has only a few. But those few are pretty darn awesome.

[Necroticplague]

Mutants & Masterminds succeeds in having large differences in complexity without corresponding differences in raw power, in part by doing away with the class/level structure. If you want a lot of complexity, you can create a Batman or Tony Stark or Green Lantern type character able to do almost anything you can imagine. At the simple end you've got your basic bricks, the "big guns" of the superhero genre who are second to none at laying down the smack but don't have nearly the flexibility. Or you can build something in between.

The difference is not only, or even mainly, which character is more complicated to build, because you only have to build the character once (for players who don't like a lot of between game work, that's an advantage of not having levels). It's a huge difference in play style. At any given moment, a crimefighter or shapeshifter character has dozens of options, while a powerhouse has only a few. But those few are pretty darn awesome.

.....You're kidding, right? MnM has balance about as sturdy as a soaked cracker. And the more powerful characters are almost always the more complex ones. Cramming things into various Arrays and Containers makes the character more complex and often objectively increases their stregnth. Combined with the fact everything has a cap, so you can't make up for lack of breadth with increased stregnth in your specialization. Especially considering actions costs, which means basically everything active with the same action cost may as well be crammed in the same array, since they're mutually exclusive anyway. Or anything where you couldn't use them all at the same time anyway. Teleport 10 affliction 10 strike 10 cost more than strike 10 (alternative powers: dazzle, teleport), while having the same effects (just as an example, don't have exact numbers in front of me). Thus, the more complex one is more powerful.

[Quertus]

.....You're kidding, right? MnM has balance about as sturdy as a soaked cracker. And the more powerful characters are almost always the more complex ones. Cramming things into various Arrays and Containers makes the character more complex and often objectively increases their stregnth. Combined with the fact everything has a cap, so you can't make up for lack of breadth with increased stregnth in your specialization. Especially considering actions costs, which means basically everything active with the same action cost may as well be crammed in the same array, since they're mutually exclusive anyway. Or anything where you couldn't use them all at the same time anyway. Teleport 10 affliction 10 strike 10 cost more than strike 10 (alternative powers: dazzle, teleport), while having the same effects (just as an example, don't have exact numbers in front of me). Thus, the more complex one is more powerful.

There is a certain level of... cheese? build skill? complexity?... at which there is the type of balance between the powerful simple and the toolkit weak complex in M&M. That is, for a fairly simple, straightforward build, the character whose game play is simple will have more power than the straightforward-build, game-play-complex toolkit. Both are, of course, sub-optimal, but I believe they are what was being compared.

[JoeJ]

.....You're kidding, right? MnM has balance about as sturdy as a soaked cracker. And the more powerful characters are almost always the more complex ones. Cramming things into various Arrays and Containers makes the character more complex and often objectively increases their stregnth. Combined with the fact everything has a cap, so you can't make up for lack of breadth with increased stregnth in your specialization. Especially considering actions costs, which means basically everything active with the same action cost may as well be crammed in the same array, since they're mutually exclusive anyway. Or anything where you couldn't use them all at the same time anyway. Teleport 10 affliction 10 strike 10 cost more than strike 10 (alternative powers: dazzle, teleport), while having the same effects (just as an example, don't have exact numbers in front of me). Thus, the more complex one is more powerful.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Ranged Damage 9 with 2 dynamic AEs costs the same as Ranged Damage 10 with two non-dynamic AEs, or Ranged Damage 11 on its own. The most powerful one is the least complex and vice versa.

[Drynwyn]

"I want to be selfless, intelligent, and honest and kind. Well, I'm still working on kind." Four would disagree.

And so would I.

Any kind of arbitrary grouping of abilities to limit the players will (correctly) feel limiting, and diminish the fun for certain groups of players - exactly what the OP was trying to avoid.


You've dramatically misinterpreted my post. I never said the restrictions had to be arbitrary, now did I?

In the example you gave (not quoted to save space), my proposal would look like this- You can pick one of the 5 base character sheets, and if you like, you can then swap out certain components from it for other things from a pool of things. However, depending on the base character you chose, certain components might be more expensive or totally unavailable. You would still be able to swap things out, but there would, generally, be a cost associated with taking advantages associated with one or more wildly different character backgrounds.

This makes sense from an in-character perspective (things that are highly unusual for a given area/type of upbringing would require more effort to learn, and therefore more character points) and an out of character perspective (if you're dipping around between multiple types of character, you're most likely cherrypicking the best elements of each, and a surcharge to account for that cherrypicking helps balance characters).


In a different game, the rationale and costs/limited availability might be justified in another way- but the core idea is that if you are gaining the ability to choose from a larger set of elements, statistics dictates that you will increase in power as a result if you pick the most powerful option available to you. By adding a surcharge for taking sets of wildly varied abilities, this power increase is dampened, and the game designers remove some of the burden of examining ability interaction from themselves.

[Lord Raziere]

@ Fizban:
ah but you prove me right again! as I predicted, you want to teach the person to roleplay like you do, when what they really want is to roleplay their playstyle, not yours. to teach the person to run "faster" would be to teach them use a complex class just to be more effective and thus not have fun with the complexity for the sake of what? feeling as if your rewarded for having a "superior" playstyle? to spread the "enlightenment" to someone else who prefers to not have to deal with meaningless complexity and system mastery? this is just competition in the guise of being helpful, arrogantly assuming that the person who is not roleplaying like you is running slower and being dead weight just because you want to go faster and at a different pace from your fellow players. this isn't cooperative at all, its dominating for your own selfish desire to compete without disruption and not thinking of what they want, that maybe you should try giving something up instead.

and furthermore you continue to justify your playstyle with "prep-time" and so on, more proof that true opt-in complexity without power differentials is a pipe dream that can't be realized, because there will always be someone like Fizban who wants a +1 just for being able to figure out how to get a +10 in some byzantine way. best for such players to go their different ways, to play with people with the same playstyle.

because people of such complexity, they don't want to give anything up, they don't want to cooperate, they want their complexity cake of being just another playstyle like everyone else and eating it too by being objectively superior because of it. you can't criticize it because its "just another playstyle", but you cannot persuade them to give up with extra bonuses because they "worked for it." when you can't or should not have both: your either just another playstyle and therefore shouldn't receive special bonuses over everyone else or you are objectively superior with your bonuses and therefore not actually a playstyle.

[NichG]

I see a lot of posts concerned with what, for lack of a better term, one could call 'raw power' - that is, the idea you can assign a number to what you're playing that compares it to what the other guy is playing on an absolute scale.

What would people think of a system in which certain kinds of necessary tasks in the game require complex characters, whereas other kinds of necessary tasks in the game derive no benefit from complexity at all?

For example, imagine if there were an 'item crafter' role, which would need the item crafting character to navigate a bewildering array of power lists, ingredients, tradeoffs, and interactions. However, the efficacy of the items depends on them being in the hands of non-item-crafter characters. In this example, only one person in the group needs to be the 'item crafter', and the products of their effort are then distributed to other characters; but no matter how good the item crafter is at crafting items, he can never e.g. cast a spell or pick a lock or win a duel. So the item crafter is important, and is rewarded for mastering complexity, but is not a better fighter or wizard as a result of it - they make the party's fighter or the party's wizard better instead.

[Necroticplague]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Ranged Damage 9 with 2 dynamic AEs costs the same as Ranged Damage 10 with two non-dynamic AEs, or Ranged Damage 11 on its own. The most powerful one is the least complex and vice versa.

You: MnM does a good job of balancing complex vs. simple characters.
Me: No it doesn't. Thanks to Arrays and Containers, more complex characters are almost always more powerful than simple ones.

Minor premise: this is because such things can be used to reduce the point costs of some things (thus essentially increasing amount of points, a basic measure of power), while increasing complexity.

[Lord Raziere]

I see a lot of posts concerned with what, for lack of a better term, one could call 'raw power' - that is, the idea you can assign a number to what you're playing that compares it to what the other guy is playing on an absolute scale.

What would people think of a system in which certain kinds of necessary tasks in the game require complex characters, whereas other kinds of necessary tasks in the game derive no benefit from complexity at all?

For example, imagine if there were an 'item crafter' role, which would need the item crafting character to navigate a bewildering array of power lists, ingredients, tradeoffs, and interactions. However, the efficacy of the items depends on them being in the hands of non-item-crafter characters. In this example, only one person in the group needs to be the 'item crafter', and the products of their effort are then distributed to other characters; but no matter how good the item crafter is at crafting items, he can never e.g. cast a spell or pick a lock or win a duel. So the item crafter is important, and is rewarded for mastering complexity, but is not a better fighter or wizard as a result of it - they make the party's fighter or the party's wizard better instead.

there is already a system a lot like that, its called Exalted 3rd edition Crafting system, where you HAVE to do Basic Projects before you do Major Projects before you can make Artifacts of actual power, where you have to accumulate a certain of silver points to do major projects by doing basic projects, and then accumulate gold points to make artifacts at all. basically making you have to do various little things to help others out before you can make the things you want, and I hate it.

why? because the only thing you could play with it is Santa, and cannot play an inventor-gageteer character who is actually does cool things with the things they make rather than go through meaningless part-works. because of its complexity, most people will just use magic to get what they want instead of actually going through the Crafting system, or homebrew up something based upon Sorcerous Workings that is simpler, easier and will get what they actually want rather than meaningless basic projects no PC would do.

all the other system in Exalted 3rd? are good because they're not as complex and don't need to go through such meaningless actions to get to what you actually want to do, or need abilities designed to specifically bypass the system to get to what I want to do.

said system is also receiving criticism for people unable to figure out if its a light and fluffy system or a hard and crunchy system because of how some subsystems are crunchier than others, and the fact that its mechanically incoherent like that is actually a turn off, because people are unable to interpret the rules in any consistent way. so not only does a game trying to be diverse in its complexity risk imbalance, it risks mechanical incoherence and confusion on how to interpret the rules at all.

by making the complexity needed for some things and not others you shut down certain character concepts that people want to play, by making the system for item crafting you propose, you shut down people who want to just play a mad scientist who makes things faster and without worrying about all that stuff, sure technically you could still play a mad scientist but not in a way that is desirable. thus, you expose another flaw of the player desiring complexity: I want simplicity, because I can play a wider range of character concepts WITH that simplicity. I want to use as little as I can to achieve a functional concept so that I can have fun. regardless of what that concept actually is. a simplicity player is not desiring simplicity for one thing, they are desiring simplicity so that they can do more with less, so that they can play a dragon without need an entire book for it, so that their story can be told without meaningless things I don't care about getting in the way. completely incompatible with how complexity player thinks, since they want all those little things there for a bigger challenge to face.

by making an incoherent set of rules like this, you just confuse people, and encourage some people to either homebrew out the one system that doesn't fit, or not interact with it. again, not compatible.

[Fizban]

@ Fizban:
ah but you prove me right again! as I predicted, you want to teach the person to roleplay like you do, when what they really want is to roleplay their playstyle, not yours. . . and furthermore you continue to justify your playstyle with "prep-time" and so on, more proof that true opt-in complexity without power differentials is a pipe dream that can't be realized, because there will always be someone like Fizban who wants a +1 just for being able to figure out how to get a +10 in some byzantine way. best for such players to go their different ways, to play with people with the same playstyle. . . because people of such complexity, they don't want to give anything up, they don't want to cooperate. . . your either just another playstyle and therefore shouldn't receive special bonuses over everyone else or you are objectively superior with your bonuses and therefore not actually a playstyle.
I think you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said. What am I giving up? Playing a game where someone receives greater reward/effort than I do devalues my effort, but I am willing accept that devaluation in order to increase my chances of having enough players in the first place, and they give up some of their expected parity for the same reason of more players. For the final time I will point out that it is obviously you who refuse to compromise, as bolded above. This is not a problem of systems with opt-in complexity, it is your personal dislike of them.

Quertus did a nice expansion on player types, and Flickerdart has provided an excellent example of how the game (of DnD 3.5) tries to keep things balanced (sometimes). Quertus asks about his complicated but easy to play fighter build: your build there absolutely deserves to perform well. I don't see a difference between tactical resources management complexity and extreme character build complexity: both require research and effort outside of the session to set up. You have to learn how to manage your resources and make tactical decisions in any given system just as you have to learn how to build characters: forcing the other players to wait excessively while you figure out what moves to make at the table is wasting their time, so everyone should be putting in the time to learn how to play. It's perfectly valid to spend a lot of time putting together a character that's simple to play if that is what you wish, just as valid as a simple build that's harder to play like a straight wizard. (My biased experiences on the other hand indicate to me that people who refuse to build complex characters also refuse to use tactics or use/manage their resources properly, which in a game that assumes a certain level of tactics even on the simplest of characters is a serious problem).

While Flickerdart's example of game balance is quite good, note that it doesn't consider the decisions made before/outside of the session. The example of a rogue, incarnate totemist, and archivist are all one-word builds, and does not take into account a rogue/incarnate/totemist or an archivist/incarnate/sapphire heirarch or a rogue/archivist/[divine rogue theruge], possible builds chosen away from the table. As he said for a custom system this is much easier, the the implication being that you build your custom system with a much smaller amount of building decisions, or at least cross-building decisions that can disrupt that balance. A single-classed only game is a lot easier to balance in this way (as in actually possible), but the appeal for complex players will depend heavily on the complex classes since they can't naturally use the whole system. My favorite homebrew class is one that really does not multiclass well at all, so I'm not saying that limited multiclassing is a deal-breaker.

[NichG]

there is already a system a lot like that, its called Exalted 3rd edition Crafting system, where you HAVE to do Basic Projects before you do Major Projects before you can make Artifacts of actual power, where you have to accumulate a certain of silver points to do major projects by doing basic projects, and then accumulate gold points to make artifacts at all. basically making you have to do various little things to help others out before you can make the things you want, and I hate it.

why? because the only thing you could play with it is Santa, and cannot play an inventor-gageteer character who is actually does cool things with the things they make rather than go through meaningless part-works. because of its complexity, most people will just use magic to get what they want instead of actually going through the Crafting system, or homebrew up something based upon Sorcerous Workings that is simpler, easier and will get what they actually want rather than meaningless basic projects no PC would do.


In the context of this thread, what I'm trying to do is to get at the reasons why people want complexity. I think that's key in trying to consider how to satisfy what they actually want, or to decide that it won't be possible for a given table. However, a lot of it is getting masked under a very generic 'I like complexity, let me choose' argument. So this question is meant to sharpen the various different possibilities.

Some people are competitive and actually want to have a better character than other people at the table.
Some people want to have agency over their own power level - the idea that they can try harder and get more as a consequence.
Some people like to optimize, and so if the simple choices are strictly better/equal to the complex choices, they won't be motivated to seek the complexity.
Some people just inherently like fiddling with complex systems.
There are probably many other reasons that are all getting conflated.

So in the example I gave, I'm trying to distinguish between the first two and second two desires.

[Talakeal]

I would personally prefer that both power and complexity be separated from stylistic or aesthetic choices. If one wants to play a complex character one should not have to play a spell-caster and vice versa.

Of course, a lot of people also think that complexity (and power) should be entirely determined by aesthetics. I can't count all the times I have seen someone say they like spell casters because of the power fantasy, and that said power fantasy is shattered if their "guy who can alter reality on a whim" is no more powerful at the table than "some idiot with a pointy stick."

[Lord Raziere]

@ Fizban: why do you keep referring to 3.5? this is not the 3.5 forum. its just one system of many.

it doesn't try for balance. at all. the people who play it like for how unbalanced and broken it is. your example system is one unintentionally designed so that it has anything but fair play in mind, even if the creators presented the options as if they were equal. they're not. through this presentation combined with a system that is buggy and only usable with system mastery at all, its a game rife with newbie traps, and the way the whole thing is presented doesn't tell the player that any of this is tactical, its the player culture that says that DnD 3.5 is balanced because of its tactical play after playing through it and figuring out its mistakes, but then instead of fixing them, they think its apart of the game. there is no advice in the PHB or the DMG to teach people how to play tactically, there is no warning about this stuff, no nots about how its intended to be the way of which you describe.

because managing your resources and figuring out how to organize this or that is exactly what players have in mind when they want to play an adventurous risk-taking hero who goes forth and slays monsters in their escapist fantasy. behold the adventures of accounting. [/sarcasm]

expecting balance to come from player decisions is like expecting fairness from capitalism: they'll either not care and create a little shop for their own interests, or they will be as cut throat as possible to get as much they can. expecting everyone to be a tactician by itself narrows the game and enforces a certain level of complexity, closes off simplicity people, the very argument for a opt-in complexity system is what is driving me away, because its placing expectations on players that don't want to live up to those expectations, which is unfair to them. the very expectations you have Fizban, are the ones that make sure that opt-in complexity won't work for everyone and will in fact make sure that it never will, because they are all complexity player expectations. a simplicity player has a completely different set of assumptions and expectations that are not compatible.

mostly because the players who really desire simplicity are not playing DnD at all, and any discussion of an opt-in complexity system has to talk about the people who don't think DnD 3.5 works at all, and not just the people who do. there are roleplayers out there that won't accept any set of rules that is greater than 100 pages, that is not an exaggeration, they literally want less to read so that they can understand it faster so that they can get to the fun faster. what the expect is efficiency, streamlined design, a consistent unified core mechanic so that they can make what they want with as little as they need, the entire point of the simplicity playstyle is as much as effectiveness you can get for less effort and preparation- the desirable state for a simplicity player is being able to improvise everything, get going and playing without any sacrifice in being effective or vital.

thats why Opt-In Complexity is not a thing that is effective for everyone, sure it might appeal to some, but don't try to make it a solve-all for all players. mostly because the concept seems to be a uniquely DnD one that I don't really see in any other system: all the other systems pretty much seem to pick a level of complexity and stick with it. this entire discussion is DnD biased in its assumptions in how games work. just because it works for one doesn't mean it works for anything else.

[JoeJ]

You: MnM does a good job of balancing complex vs. simple characters.
Me: No it doesn't. Thanks to Arrays and Containers, more complex characters are almost always more powerful than simple ones.

Minor premise: this is because such things can be used to reduce the point costs of some things (thus essentially increasing amount of points, a basic measure of power), while increasing complexity.

Your minor premise is false. Putting power effects into arrays increases the cost compared with the alternative of having fewer power effects to deal with. You seem to be comparing different ways of building the same set of capabilities, which would give you exactly the same complexity. What I was talking about was building characters with different capabilities based on how many decisions you want to make during play. Do you want to play Bruce Wayne or Billy Batson? One has an enormous number of skills and advantages to keep track of, as well as almost any imaginable piece of equipment. The other one flies fast and hits things really, really hard. But unless the GM is doing something very odd, neither one should be able to overshadow the other in a campaign.

[Drynwyn]

Your minor premise is false. Putting power effects into arrays increases the cost compared with the alternative of having fewer power effects to deal with. You seem to be comparing different ways of building the same set of capabilities, which would give you exactly the same complexity. What I was talking about was building characters with different capabilities based on how many decisions you want to make during play. Do you want to play Bruce Wayne or Billy Batson? One has an enormous number of skills and advantages to keep track of, as well as almost any imaginable piece of equipment. The other one flies fast and hits things really, really hard. But unless the GM is doing something very odd, neither one should be able to overshadow the other in a campaign.

But complexity involves the number of choices made during character CREATION, not just during play. For example, a GURPS melee fighter has dozens of different Advantage combinations he might take to dramatically increase his power, even though he's doing the same thing every round . He's still a complex character, the complexity just has to be dealt with during character CREATION rather than PLAY. Meanwhile, a D&D 3.5 fighter makes far fewer meaningful decisions during character creation- he's a simpler character, even though, in play, both do the same thing round to round.


The GURPS community sometimes refers to this as the "power-through-accounting" problem. You're gaining power by making your points stretch further, rather than by spending your points on the individual best things available, but it amounts to the same thing- an increase in power.

[JoeJ]

But complexity involves the number of choices made during character CREATION, not just during play. For example, a GURPS melee fighter has dozens of different Advantage combinations he might take to dramatically increase his power, even though he's doing the same thing every round . He's still a complex character, the complexity just has to be dealt with during character CREATION rather than PLAY. Meanwhile, a D&D 3.5 fighter makes far fewer meaningful decisions during character creation- he's a simpler character, even though, in play, both do the same thing round to round.


The GURPS community sometimes refers to this as the "power-through-accounting" problem. You're gaining power by making your points stretch further, rather than by spending your points on the individual best things available, but it amounts to the same thing- an increase in power.

First of all, character creation is a one-time event in GURPS. However complicated you make it, once it's done it's done. It's not like 3.5 where you have to think about your build every time you go up a level.

Second, are those builds you're talking about really more complex? I'm not that familiar with GURPS, but it seems to me that every player has the same choices to make if they're creating a character from scratch. Or, if a player can use a template to make character creation simpler, then why is the GM allowing some players to build characters that are significantly more powerful than the allowed templates?

[Flickerdart]

It's not like 3.5 where you have to think about your build every time you go up a level.
If you haven't planned your build from 1 to 20 in 3.5, you're not really optimizing.

[Drynwyn]

First of all, character creation is a one-time event in GURPS. However complicated you make it, once it's done it's done. It's not like 3.5 where you have to think about your build every time you go up a level.

Second, are those builds you're talking about really more complex? I'm not that familiar with GURPS, but it seems to me that every player has the same choices to make if they're creating a character from scratch. Or, if a player can use a template to make character creation simpler, then why is the GM allowing some players to build characters that are significantly more powerful than the allowed templates?

Character creation is NOT a one time event in GURPS. You continue to gain character points following character creation.

And yes, those builds are DRAMATICALLY more complex. You get FAR more power out of taking, say (advantage names made up based on a comb I played with once, do not recall exact names), Supernatural Martial Arts + Improved Called Shot + Weapon Mastery (Barehanded) + Critical Headshot + Deadly Blows + A moderate amount of Martial Arts skill then you do putting the same number of points required for that advantage combo into the Martial Arts skill.

[veti]

thats why Opt-In Complexity is not a thing that is effective for everyone, sure it might appeal to some, but don't try to make it a solve-all for all players. mostly because the concept seems to be a uniquely DnD one that I don't really see in any other system: all the other systems pretty much seem to pick a level of complexity and stick with it. this entire discussion is DnD biased in its assumptions in how games work. just because it works for one doesn't mean it works for anything else.

I agree with Raziere's entire post, but this seems to sort of sum it up.

In practice, I'm not sure that what the OP calls "opt-in" complexity is really optional at all. A player in D&D 3.5 who insists on playing an unoptimised character - think monk, or just about any member of the Order of the Stick - is going to be severely left behind in power levels by those in the party - if any - who are taking their optimisation seriously. The complexity is only "optional" if you don't mind your character being relegated to irrelevance by mid-level.

[JoeJ]

Character creation is NOT a one time event in GURPS. You continue to gain character points following character creation.

I really doubt that adding one or two points at a time will create a huge imbalance that the GM can't see coming and take steps to correct long before it becomes a problem.


And yes, those builds are DRAMATICALLY more complex. You get FAR more power out of taking, say (advantage names made up based on a comb I played with once, do not recall exact names), Supernatural Martial Arts + Improved Called Shot + Weapon Mastery (Barehanded) + Critical Headshot + Deadly Blows + A moderate amount of Martial Arts skill then you do putting the same number of points required for that advantage combo into the Martial Arts skill.

Okay, but in GURPS, the GM is supposed to play an active role in character creation. Why are they allowing some PCs to be significantly more powerful than others? if the GM is not experienced enough with the system to be a good judge of optimization shenanigans, they can simply require all PCs to be built using templates. (A GM in M&M could do something similar by requiring that all PCs be built using the Quickstart Generator that's included in the book.)

[Drynwyn]

I really doubt that adding one or two points at a time will create a huge imbalance that the GM can't see coming and take steps to correct long before it becomes a problem.



Okay, but in GURPS, the GM is supposed to play an active role in character creation. Why are they allowing some PCs to be significantly more powerful than others? if the GM is not experienced enough with the system to be a good judge of optimization shenanigans, they can simply require all PCs to be built using templates. (A GM in M&M could do something similar by requiring that all PCs be built using the Quickstart Generator that's included in the book.)

If "The GM can prevent these issues by not allowing characters to be too optimized!" is allowable as a defense, the entire argument is moot. (IE, the Oberoni fallacy- the ability of a GM to solve a problem does not mean there isn't a problem).

A good system minimizes how closely the GM has to scrutinize character sheets to prevent a problem from occurring.

Better way of phrasing it: If a system minimizes the level of GM intervention required for a reasonable intra-party balance, that is a point in it's favor (A system can fail to do this entirely and still be a good system if it has other points strongly in it's favor, or is a specialized enough game that having a superhumanly good X doesn't mean Y becomes irrelevant.)

I'm actually gonna take a sec to expand on that last point- you CAN make systems that DO NOT NEED intra-party balance per se. This can be GREAT for "opt-in complexity"- I'll explain why after I list the three main ways to make party balance a non-issue:


Game of Specialists (Shadowrun): Players are each specialized in one area. The hacker manipulates electronics, the mage addresses varied magical threats, and the street samurai kills things. The critical thing here is that the party as a whole must be able to accomplish ALL of these things- even if the street samurai is capable of cutting a bloody swathe through a team of elite special forces, he still needs the hacker to keep the police from catching him and to open doors, and the mage to stop the enemy spirit that his sword passes harmlessly through from tearing him to pieces. Dramatically overpowered characters here are less of an issue, since there ability to hog the spotlight is significantly dampened by their need for others to be fully effective.
Troupe Style (Ars Magica): Players each have several characters that vary significantly in power, each with one wizard who is built, from the beginning, to be far more powerful and versatile than just about any non-wizard. Characters will still hog the spotlight, but because all players get a chance to spend a couple sessions front and center over the course of the campaign, it evens out. Getting out of the spotlight can be refreshing, after all!
High Degree of Randomess(Cortex): Not a method I like personally, but one that does see some use: The higher the degree of randomness inherent in the system, the less one character who is particularly strong is to outshine the others- he can still flub up horribly very easily.


The main two scenarios that matter for opt-in complexity are the Game of Specialists and Troupe Style. Game of Specialists is fantastic for opt-in complexity- the street samurai only has to learn the relatively simple combat system and describe how he shoots/stabs things, while the mage and hacker have more detailed systems. Similarly, in Troupe Style, the more potent characters have more options- but in Ars Magica, players who play their mage less frequently have their mages spending MORE time studying and growing more powerful- which means that they'll have more raw power to play with when they do decide to play the more complex characters, which will more than make up for the more precisely-optimized characters of the natural complexity-lovers.

[JoeJ]

If "The GM can prevent these issues by not allowing characters to be too optimized!" is allowable as a defense, the entire argument is moot. (IE, the Oberoni fallacy- the ability of a GM to solve a problem does not mean there isn't a problem).

Except that it's not the Oberoni Fallacy if a game designed to require a lot of close oversight by the GM does, in fact, require a lot of close oversight by the GM. That isn't fixing a problem, it's the game working as intended - although that kind of game, obviously, isn't to everyone's taste.




Game of Specialists (Shadowrun): Players are each specialized in one area. The hacker manipulates electronics, the mage addresses varied magical threats, and the street samurai kills things. The critical thing here is that the party as a whole must be able to accomplish ALL of these things- even if the street samurai is capable of cutting a bloody swathe through a team of elite special forces, he still needs the hacker to keep the police from catching him and to open doors, and the mage to stop the enemy spirit that his sword passes harmlessly through from tearing him to pieces. Dramatically overpowered characters here are less of an issue, since there ability to hog the spotlight is significantly dampened by their need for others to be fully effective.
Troupe Style (Ars Magica): Players each have several characters that vary significantly in power, each with one wizard who is built, from the beginning, to be far more powerful and versatile than just about any non-wizard. Characters will still hog the spotlight, but because all players get a chance to spend a couple sessions front and center over the course of the campaign, it evens out. Getting out of the spotlight can be refreshing, after all!
High Degree of Randomess(Cortex): Not a method I like personally, but one that does see some use: The higher the degree of randomness inherent in the system, the less one character who is particularly strong is to outshine the others- he can still flub up horribly very easily.


The main two scenarios that matter for opt-in complexity are the Game of Specialists and Troupe Style. Game of Specialists is fantastic for opt-in complexity- the street samurai only has to learn the relatively simple combat system and describe how he shoots/stabs things, while the mage and hacker have more detailed systems. Similarly, in Troupe Style, the more potent characters have more options- but in Ars Magica, players who play their mage less frequently have their mages spending MORE time studying and growing more powerful- which means that they'll have more raw power to play with when they do decide to play the more complex characters, which will more than make up for the more precisely-optimized characters of the natural complexity-lovers.

That's a good rundown. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not all that experienced with GURPS. I will say, however, that M&M leans very much toward the Game of Specialists model. That's hardly surprising, though, since it also describes perfectly the way your typical comic book superhero team works.

[Lord Raziere]

Ha!

Shadowrun?

your going to that for a good example of this?

sorry, but people who like simplicity don't like Shadowrun either. the fact its subsystems are so self-contained means that people feel like they're playing their own little minigame and not really cooperating as a group. Furthermore Shadowrun has a serious problem with newbie traps-people try to build a generalist badass and end up being screwed over because the system is designed for specialization so much people can't play their hybrid gun-toting badass+whatever other job they want. and Technomancers get screwed over because they're basically the hacker version of 3.5 Sorcerers but worse since being a normal hacker+any other job is easy in comparison if you have the money.

simplicity players who want to play Shadowrun just get Fate or Dungeon World or something then make a quick hack they and their group are comfortable with then play. they don't go "oh I want to a play a hacker but the system for hacking is too complex, I'll play a street samurai instead" thats not how it works, they go "oh god, this hacking system is too complex, for my character I'm going to use a simpler system to do it with to represent my character better." then want nothing to do with the complex hacking system.

while troupe style brings a completely different issue onto the table: that of character actions and how much players are willing to remain relatively inactive while another guy gets the spotlight. I think its safe to say not everyone would be ok with that.

while Cortex, I would hardly call complex. its a pretty simple system. I only have Marvel Cortex, but its pretty build-from-scratch-y like many light systems that simplicity players like because they only need to make as much as they need and no more. sure you can make it more complex, but there isn't any inherent NEED to do so, since its designed to run light and play light without needing to be burdened with extra mechanical weight. the fans of the system, I'm pretty sure would look at you funny and just keep playing their light version far away from you if you tried. Mostly because its assumed that if your using Marvel Cortex, that you want to a fast-paced heroic game where you get right into the action and do awesome things right off the bat without needing to think a lot, going through tedious decisions of slow involved processes or bean-counting. simplicity generally encourages faster gameplay while complexity encourages slower gameplay.

see why I say these two playstyles can't be reconciled? there are fundamentally different assumptions being made here about everything that are mutually exclusive.

[Drynwyn]

Ha!

Shadowrun?

your going to that for a good example of this?

sorry, but people who like simplicity don't like Shadowrun either. the fact its subsystems are so self-contained means that people feel like they're playing their own little minigame and not really cooperating as a group. Furthermore Shadowrun has a serious problem with newbie traps-people try to build a generalist badass and end up being screwed over because the system is designed for specialization so much people can't play their hybrid gun-toting badass+whatever other job they want. and Technomancers get screwed over because they're basically the hacker version of 3.5 Sorcerers but worse since being a normal hacker+any other job is easy in comparison if you have the money.

simplicity players who want to play Shadowrun just get Fate or Dungeon World or something then make a quick hack they and their group are comfortable with then play. they don't go "oh I want to a play a hacker but the system for hacking is too complex, I'll play a street samurai instead" thats not how it works, they go "oh god, this hacking system is too complex, for my character I'm going to use a simpler system to do it with to represent my character better." then want nothing to do with the complex hacking system.

while troupe style brings a completely different issue onto the table: that of character actions and how much players are willing to remain relatively inactive while another guy gets the spotlight. I think its safe to say not everyone would be ok with that.

while Cortex, I would hardly call complex. its a pretty simple system. I only have Marvel Cortex, but its pretty build-from-scratch-y like many light systems that simplicity players like because they only need to make as much as they need and no more. sure you can make it more complex, but there isn't any inherent NEED to do so, since its designed to run light and play light without needing to be burdened with extra mechanical weight. the fans of the system, I'm pretty sure would look at you funny and just keep playing their light version far away from you if you tried. Mostly because its assumed that if your using Marvel Cortex, that you want to a fast-paced heroic game where you get right into the action and do awesome things right off the bat without needing to think a lot, going through tedious decisions of slow involved processes or bean-counting. simplicity generally encourages faster gameplay while complexity encourages slower gameplay.

see why I say these two playstyles can't be reconciled? there are fundamentally different assumptions being made here about everything that are mutually exclusive.

I was using Shadowrun as an example of game of specialists, not complexity. The point stands, in that it is very easy to imagine Shadowrun with simple combat rules (or a GM running easy combats), while the hacker and mage's portion of the game remain unchanged.

Also: The fact that GURPS admits it needs tight GM oversight is good- it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be better if, all else held equal, less GM oversight was necessary. Admitting there is a problem does not mean the problem doesn't exist.

[AceOfFools]

In practice, I'm not sure that what the OP calls "opt-in" complexity is really optional at all. A player in D&D 3.5 who insists on playing an unoptimised character - think monk, or just about any member of the Order of the Stick - is going to be severely left behind in power levels by those in the party - if any - who are taking their optimisation seriously. The complexity is only "optional" if you don't mind your character being relegated to irrelevance by mid-level.

A few quick words on opt-in complexity in DnD: the monk is the more complex melee class than the fighter. It is also weaker.

I specifically called out DnD on doing opt-in complexity poorly overall because it ties power to complexity (outside of melee classes).

It does, however, have one example that it gets it right:

If you'd rather not deal with three levels of spell selection a wizard does (spells in spellbook, spells to prepare, round-by-round spells cast), you can play a sorcerer, and spend less effort managing resouces.

One option has to make more decisions durring the build, has harder and more complicated round-by-round decisions, and greater versitility, but the other has fewer (but no less powerful) choices to make and simplwr round-by-round decisions in exchange for more ammo.

That's the sort of opt-in complexity I want to build into my system.

The question I have are what are the tradeoffs that make sense between high and low complexity builds that serve the same roll?

[Fizban]

DnD 3.5 is also supposed to be a game of specialists by legacy, it just didn't accomplish it that well. There was a time when the Fighter was an absolutely necessary wall of flesh and dps master, or so I'm told. Even with Fighters invalidated, right there in core are plenty of obstacles that you do absolutely need a cleric or wizard or rogue to deal with (ailments that can only be cured with cleric spells, effects that require sor/wiz spells to bypass, any lock outside the Knock spell's parameters or series of traps). But then power creep'd versatility blurs those lines and lets you specialize in everything at once and it stops being a balancing factor.

I think you'll nee to define what you mean by roles more specifically. While the sorcerer and wizard both fill the same "role" of arcanist, they actually don't. The sorcerer is actually the standardized class here, with the ability to pick their role via spell choices but only branch out in the most narrow form via item activation. The more complex wizard class trades raw staying power and reliability in order to change their role by changing their spells "known" each day. Tune it right and this is generally considered a fair tradeoff, but neither is enough for what I refer to as a "build," since it's assuming single system balance. Complex builds (as opposed to classes) come from multiclassing and multiple parallel advancement tracks (level, PrC level, skills, feats, etc). If you allow "builds" then balancing will get exponentially more difficult. If each system is isolated, either by not having multiclassing at all or making all classes extremely multiclass unfriendly, then you can have simple and complex versions of each system, with each system corresponding to a specialist role.

You'll need to design a number of engaging systems in order to make it work. Note that core DnD really only has one system: spellcasting, which is copied with different spells to cover two different specialist roles. Everything else is just increased degrees of parallel advancement and perks (ex: more skills/feat, and rage bonuses) which don't really give the ability to fulfill a role, let alone create a class than can make the reliability/versatility tradeoff. If you want to attach classes to certain specialist roles, those need to be in the base class regardless of player choice (though the player might still have some room in choosing what form it takes, such as a blaster getting to choose between fireball/lightning bolt/whatever as long as it blasts). And of course you'll need to define your roles well enough that there's no overlap in specialists.

[AceOfFools]

I think you'll nee to define what you mean by roles more specifically.
In the interest of limiting our scope to something manageable, let's use 4e's Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender in a fantasy game.

They're generic enough to fit with what I'm trying to do.

You'll need to design a number of engaging systems in order to make it work...
Yes, pondering the question of what systems should be created (in the context of fantasy adventure genre) was what lead me to start this thread.

[Drynwyn]

In the interest of limiting our scope to something manageable, let's use 4e's Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender in a fantasy game.

They're generic enough to fit with what I'm trying to do.

Yes, pondering the question of what systems should be created (in the context of fantasy adventure genre) was what lead me to start this thread.

The hard part here is that all of "Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender" are within the system of "fight things and kill them." So a really, really powerful Striker conceivably negates the need for the other three roles (A really good leader/controller/defender less so.)

The fastest solution is to (somwhat atypically) make Striker the low-complexity role. If you want to deal damage, great, here's the ways to deal damage. They aren't too complex, after all, hurting things is simple, and by making them simple, you limit the possibility space for Damage Man to make doing other things possible.

From then out, in ascending order, complexity could go Defender -> Leader -> Controller (or some other shift).

[AceOfFools]

The question I have are what are the tradeoffs that make sense between high and low complexity builds that serve the same roll?

@Drynwyn: The comment you quoted was in response to a request to clarify what I meant by role in the above statement.

Is it possible to build a low complexity Controller?

[Cluedrew]

I can't count all the times I have seen someone say they like spell casters because of the power fantasy, and that said power fantasy is shattered if their "guy who can alter reality on a whim" is no more powerful at the table than "some idiot with a pointy stick."

Warrior: But I can alter reality on a whim.
Caster: Right.
Warrior: {WACK!} Reality has been altered. You are now in pain.
Caster: Ow...I don't see a problem.

I half agree in that it is true of broad strokes, but I think someone who uses complexity as part of their strategy will have a natural increase in mechanical complexity. To use a pure marshal example, a raging berserker would probably have simpler mechanics than a fencer who makes two or three feints for every actual strike.

As for just above I think that was:
(Lower Complexity) Striker -> Defender -> Leader -> Controller (Higher Complexity)

Still, you could make a simple controller, doing general straightforward de-buffs or multi-target damage (if I recall correctly, those were often part of the 4e controller's roll).

[goto124]

But the caster can alter reality to get a wall of stone/force/golems/angels/demons between hir and the warrior.

Or alter reality to teleport hirself away.

[Quertus]

Except that it's not the Oberoni Fallacy if a game designed to require a lot of close oversight by the GM does, in fact, require a lot of close oversight by the GM. That isn't fixing a problem, it's the game working as intended - although that kind of game, obviously, isn't to everyone's taste.

... Nope, you lost me. IMO, if my car requires an engineer to tinker with it every 2 miles, it is a bad design, even if it was designed to have an engineer tinker with it every 2 miles. Can you explain how a game requiring lots of GM oversight makes it not qualify for the OF in a way I can follow what you mean?

[JoeJ]

... Nope, you lost me. IMO, if my car requires an engineer to tinker with it every 2 miles, it is a bad design, even if it was designed to have an engineer tinker with it every 2 miles. Can you explain how a game requiring lots of GM oversight makes it not qualify for the OF in a way I can follow what you mean?

It's not the OF because the GM is not fixing a broken game, but playing a game that's working as it's supposed to. You're assuming that all games are supposed to have minimal GM involvement in character creation. That's simply not the case.

To go with your metaphor, if an ordinary car required a mechanic every few miles that would be a bad design. But it's not a bad design if a Formula 1 racing car requires a mechanic every few miles. Taking away the requirement of being relatively low maintenance allows the car to do something it otherwise couldn't - run for extended periods at very high speeds. So instead of being designed to require only a little maintenance, it's designed to require a lot of maintenance that can be done very quickly, such as being able to replace all four tires in just a few seconds.

RPGs can do something similar, trading increased GM involvement for greater flexibility in character creation. GURPS, the example given, allows for many more character concepts to be built, and built to work effectively, than D&D. So many that there's no way to balance all the possibilities against each other, or evaluate them all in terms of suitability for every possible game world, without using human judgment. GURPS requires more GM oversight than D&D because the game is intended to do something different. M&M and, from what I understand, Hero, are the same in that respect.

And to tie it back to the original topic of the thread, GURPS templates and M&M archetypes allow a player to opt for much less complexity in character creation by choosing packages that are already known to work well. And this complexity in creation is orthogonal to how complex the characters are to play.