--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/elements20sep02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
+RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net>
+<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://endgameoakland.com/mini_con.html&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/eg-day.jpg>
+
+
+ Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>
+News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> Columns &
+Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> RPG Wiki
+<http://wiki.rpg.net> RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net>
+<http://www.rpg.net/members/>
+
+
+ Elements
+
+
+ Elements of Complexity
+
+*by Brian Gleichman*
+Sep 20,2002
+
+
+
+
+ Elements
+
+Hi, everyone. Welcome to an experiment.
+
+Seems it was column search time at RPGNet again, and of all things I was
+asked to contribute. Let's take a few moments for the cries of rage to
+calm down a little...
+
+Now then, first thing up is "what should the column be about?" In my
+case there is a rather obvious choice- the examination of game design
+with a focus on complex and detailed rulesets. After all, that's what I
+do. What are their characteristics? How does one highlight specific
+concepts? How have others' games attempted various things, and where
+have they succeeded and failed?
+
+At this point, one wonders if RPGNet has any need for such a column at
+all. That's the experiment part. Let the guys in charge know if this is
+a good idea or a waste of space; it's up to you. Isn't it wonderful to
+be in charge?
+
+First up is a reprint of an article I did for Unclebear's. I've expanded
+it a little (I was working under some space limits originally) and
+present it here to kick things off by defining a few important terms.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+ Elements of Complexity
+
+Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the
+comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a
+statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes
+obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for
+very different purposes.
+
+Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I
+think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it
+reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on
+game design.
+
+It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of
+various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is
+too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!"
+Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing
+is a simple case of different people looking at different specific
+sub-meanings of a single word.
+
+For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into
+three elements: *Implementation*, *Mass*, and *Concept*. Each of which
+has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll
+detail below.
+
+
+ Complexity of Implementation
+
+This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a
+couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:
+
+/ /
+
+ * /Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the
+ character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit
+ points./
+ * /Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was
+ struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the
+ armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the
+ weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage
+ Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location
+ Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the
+ damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound
+ level and final effects./
+
+In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1.
+It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations
+(multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table
+lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole
+numbers in the second example as well.
+
+Games like /Phoenix Command/ are representative of designs with high
+Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as
+/GURPS Vehicles/ or /Hero System/ Character design, systems that call
+for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.
+
+Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are
+entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others
+spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this
+seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the
+mastery of the method.
+
+Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the
+desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game.
+Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many
+games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed
+breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of
+this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation
+drives the need for complex mechanics.
+
+
+ Complexity of Mass
+
+Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a
+large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.
+
+/ /
+
+ * /Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8
+ points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus./
+ * /Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons
+ each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with
+ strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3./
+
+Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat
+modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has
+increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific
+powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in
+total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is
+overwhelming in itself.
+
+Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost
+weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting
+information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of
+complexity, as is /Rolemaster/ with its dozens of charts, each of which
+uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.
+
+Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two
+reasons come immediately to mind.
+
+First, some people love options and different ways to approach things.
+How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin,
+I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight
+options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple
+relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules
+themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an
+extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play
+with them just to do something different.
+
+A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of
+rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To
+some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a
+major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and
+use, the greater the satisfaction.
+
+These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like
+D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their
+splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so
+connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of
+high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they
+have little in common.
+
+
+ Complexity of Concept
+
+There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still
+viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take
+even the greatest of players years to master.
+
+Think Chess.
+
+Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game
+can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What
+will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to
+answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games
+as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in
+the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much
+will it affect."
+
+In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended
+nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is
+presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a
+great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with
+complex tactical environments like /Heavy Gear/ top the list here.
+
+Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance
+of individual decisions in a challenging environment.
+
+
+ Just Plain Complex
+
+Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to
+rate high in others if you rate high in one.
+
+Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game /Air War/, which pegged very
+high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of rules
+concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to
+represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of
+aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very
+complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire
+course of the game.
+
+While any RPG pales in comparison to that Wargame, some examples include
+/Hero System/ and /Age of Heroes/. A common combination is Mass and
+Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and
+spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management
+(Concept).
+
+
+ Eye of the Beholder
+
+Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it.
+Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above
+elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it
+becomes complex.
+
+Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One
+person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a
+level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the
+complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly
+different from each other.
+
+And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in
+all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become
+completely free form.
+
+Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to
+fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or
+how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what
+makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.
+
+
+ What do you think? <http://trio.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>
+
+Go to forum! <http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>
+RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net>
+<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://endgameoakland.com/mini_con.html&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/eg-day.jpg>
+
+
+ Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>
+News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> Columns &
+Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> RPG Wiki
+<http://wiki.rpg.net> RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net>
+<http://www.rpg.net/members/>
+
+ Available Forums
+* About the Industry <index.php?f=4>*
+ Forum Folder
+
+ Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through
+ business.
+
+* Columns <index.php?f=2>*
+ Forum Folder
+
+ Individual discussions for the RPG columns
+
+* Outside RPGnet <index.php?f=82>*
+ Forum Folder
+
+ Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet
+
+* RPGnet <list.php?f=5>*
+ Posts: *118469* Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30*
+
+ General discussion about the game industry and where it's going,
+ and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing.
+
+* Tangency <list.php?f=61>*
+ Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24*
+
+ Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly,
+ folks!
+
+* The RPGnet Awards <list.php?f=84>*
+ Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07*
+
+ Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards
+
+* Trouble Tickets <list.php?f=57>*
+ Posts: *741* Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00*
+
+ Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad
+ code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read
+ this and fix things. Thanks!
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+ Previous columns
+
+ * Elements of Strategy </news+reviews/columns/elements11feb03.html>
+ by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03
+ * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes)
+ </news+reviews/columns/elements14jan03.html> by Brian Gleichman,
+ 14jan03
+ * Layers of Design </news+reviews/columns/elements11dec02.html> by
+ Brian Gleichman, 11dec02
+ * Elements of Tactics </news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html>
+ by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02
+ * Elements of Complexity
+ </news+reviews/columns/elements20sep02.html> by Brian Gleichman,
+ 20sep02
+
+
+ Other columns </news+reviews/columns.html> at RPGnet
+
+[ Read FAQ <http://forum.rpg.net/faq.php> | Subscribe to RSS
+<http://www.rpg.net/rss.phtml> | Contact Us <mailto:www@rpg.net> |
+Advertise with Us <http://www.rpg.net/ads/info.phtml> ]
+
+Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved
+RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved.
+