[svn] r2449@freebird: fabien | 2007-04-24 15:19:05 -0400
Ajout de recompense.xml.
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.