"In search of the less complex - A designers view" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleA happy customer writes to tell us about a painting service...
Featured Workbench ArticleNeed custom bases?
Featured Profile ArticleDelayed by circumstances, the 2016 Christmas Project finally arrives!
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
UshCha | 31 Aug 2019 1:11 a.m. PST |
I am a rule writer and love playing my rules, to me they are simple and intuitive. However one of our key testers is having a tough time at the moment and while he loves playing, he accuses me of writing over complex games. Me I deny it, why , the briefs and kit are no different to the real world and who would not be expected to have a decent knowledge of tactics and operations of the real thing before starting play and the ability to hold a complex plan in your head. If you did not you would just be a Warpainter not a Wargamer ;-). However it did lead to nagging doubts in my mind and a determination to prove him wrong, I could write a simple scenario, honest I could give up complex if I wanted to, honest I could I really could, no problem! Yup it's an addiction I need to "break". My co-author and I had looked in the past at Manoeuvre Group Light before and considered it impossible as it would strip out all that made it special and it would become a Featherstone Clone, a personal hate of mine. However a friend of mine was coming over for a game and he likes to chat and play, not a recipe for a normal game for us. So the chips were down, like they say necessity is the mother of invention. I had one starting point an actual scenario that to be honest only works in our rules. That was a really simple front end of a Motor rifle regiment on the move. Its advanced guard is 2 BMP's used to check the way and clear up very minor "hindrances'". Now this is normally so small a group that the rules as written don't work well. We had complex work rounds but that was not an approach that would work in this case the "C" word was not acceptable. So in desperation, with a scenario and a calculator in hand I went to work. In reality the only failure was in the command structure and a simple shift of odds on the command roll -3 on the D20 evens the odds to more like a 3 element minimum of the standard rules. This modifirer might work. So off we went, standard rules and only 6 elements on the attacking side. So DID IT WORK? Surprisingly yes it did. Complexity drops dramatically just because of the number of elements, If you only have 6 it's much easier to form a plan. Was it a challenge for the defender (me) with 2 elements not really but the scenario and tactics on my side were deliberately aimed as keeping it as simple as possible. I could have made even this game more complex really quick, yes, no more rules oe equipment needed just more complex behaviour of what I had. As it is only one of the units re-located to an alternate and lokily with no ill effects. I could have set up more but at a price of complexity of the game. So what are the lessons I learnt 1) The main statistical issue is the small numbers; the statistics of small numbers becomes a potential very big player and can adversely impact the game. Really no way to do much about that as it is small numbers (see the Pseudo Random numbers thread). 2) Complexity to my mind is not in factors. Complexity is the number of decisions a player has to make. This can and was reduced by the element count but ALSO the complexity of the scenario. Even with 2 elements I could have added complexity, there were places I could have shot as the defender then run off and done it again but refrained from doing so. This is interesting as it's NOT a function of the rules directly unless it's the fact that you could in these rules potentially add complexity. Interestingly for me this was a bit of a surprise our play tester was right complexity is in the decisions, not the rules. PS, You you can have rules with long boring tables of IF, THEN factors, a die roll for everything regarless but to me that to me is not complexity its boringly bad design.
|
DestoFante | 31 Aug 2019 5:05 a.m. PST |
In my humble opinion, complexity is not in the number of decisions a player has to do — that is the fun of the game. Complexity is in the number of steps and processes a player must go through in order to determine the outcome of his decision. |
79thPA | 31 Aug 2019 5:33 a.m. PST |
|
Tony S | 31 Aug 2019 6:17 a.m. PST |
I'd have to agree with DesoFante's definition on this one. It's like comparing DBA to DBMM – both have the same game engine, but then DBMM piles on multiple steps, exceptions and situational modifiers that makes every action a tediously laborious exercise. Personally, I'm don't like rules complexity in my games (and it's far easier to design a complex game than a simple,good game) but for the me, the whole point of a game is decision points! I thoroughly dislike games that constantly only offer "no brainer" moves. A player should be always be making tough difficult choices. To me, that's the whole interest of a game! If I understand you correctly, reducing the number of elements did not reduce the rules' complexity. The rules would have be applied equally to one element or a dozen. It reduced the number of decisions greatly, and made the decisions a lot less complex. With fewer moving parts, the potential ramifications of each decision are simpler to comprehend. But rules complexity just means I have to memorize more, or constantly take time looking up obscure bits in the rulebook, or take forever calculating odds from the QRS from endless modifiers lists. As you say, that is bad design. A simple set of rules that I can hold in my head, and concentrate on the game's decision points is the exact opposite – and the more complexity, and number of decision points in the latter makes it a far better game. And I agree with you – rolling for everything is not a decision. I absolutely like randomness, but there should still be somethings under the control of the player. Therein lies the rub – how much control versus how much randomness should there be? It's a bit like art or music – totally subjective! |
UshCha | 31 Aug 2019 7:52 a.m. PST |
Tony'S I think I am in agreement. To me complexity is the need to make a lot of potentially simple decisions and assess the outcomes of those decisions Chess to me is a Simple Game. I.E very minimal rules easily comprehended. It is however a complex game in that it requires the player decide a set of moves and assess potential responses from the opposite player, a sometimes daunting task. The complexity can be reduced by reducing the number of pieces to some extent. DestoFante, You appear to me to want a game where you make a decision but in assessing potential enemy response you want the opposition to have a very minimal number of responses to your action available to him. This means his response is almost pre-programmed and hence he has little choice on how to respond. That to me is not the same as how many rules you need to cover to assess the impact of the response for each option the enemy has. I think we agree that too many "rules" to assess the response is not a good thing. My observation is that for some players faced with a large number of potential responses to a situation can find it too complex. Deciding which elements to "move" in general, and in what order to conform to the players plan, the speed of the movement, the direction of movement coupled with the need to shoot or do other things is less complex if there is only 6 elements compared to say 20. Even though the decisions are simple the number of decisions requires more thought than the paler may whish to consider. "The Paracetamol" game as one of our players call it. Though the rules are simple its possible to generate a large level of complexity which requires a lot of brain power. Again the chess analogy is valid. |
Extra Crispy | 31 Aug 2019 8:13 a.m. PST |
A lot of this comes down to the players too. For example: My friend runs a very simple and fun Battle of Britain dog fighting game. Each player runs 2 or 4 planes. It is 2-D, there is no altitude to worry about. Maneuvers are done with cards and it plays on a grid (no measuring). Shooting is simple D6. Hit on a 4, roll for hit location. Some players take fooorrreeevvveeerrrr to deicde what to do with their 2 planes. Others are thinking ahead and make their decisions in a few seconds. |
UshCha | 31 Aug 2019 10:58 a.m. PST |
Extra Crispy, That is correct one mans Complex game is another mans boringly simple. Controlling 40 elements for me currently is my comfortable limit in Maneouvre Group, but a adding a second and third layer of complexity in a campaign setting where even simple geography and logistics further levels of complexity I am pushed to my limits. It is most certainly well past what many of our players would find a comfortable workload. Now the great gain of scenario games vs simple points cost games is that the complexity can be managed to meet the requirements of the players. Our own experience of UK wargames shows is the scenarios need to be very low complexity to cope with inexperienced players with no knowledge of the period. In my own opinion they give little insight into real wargaming having been reduced to below a challenging minima. However as Extra Crispy Points out that level varies wildly with individual players. |
Tony S | 31 Aug 2019 1:00 p.m. PST |
Ushcha – I think we are talking about the same things. Simple rules can result in complex gameplay and complexity in decision making. Your example of chess is perfect; extremely simple rules, but very complex gameplay emerges from them. That's why chess clocks were invented. Some players are indeed a bit more, ah, deliberate, than most! A good friend of mine for many years has always played by the "I've moved it, therefore I'm not taking it back" philosophy. I think it is not only fair to your opponent, but for some reason I've noticed that his "c'est la vie" approach is often rewarded by the dice gods! |
Sgt Slag | 10 Sep 2019 2:57 p.m. PST |
Not offering offense, just an honest opinion. Your friend's preferred gaming style is on the opposite end of the spectrum from you (you prefer highly detailed, "simulation" rules) -- he needs to find a different set of gamers who share his style preference for less complex, "game" rules. Very different levels of detail, very different styles of play. Cheers! |
|