|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 3:10PM
#1
|
|
|
Extra Credits, which is a show about the depths of game design (Mostly video games, but a majority of the lessons can translate into any kind of game design), just did a great episode about Depth vs Complexity. It does a great job of highlighting how depth is a positive goal of a game, but complexity can be negative. Just thought I would post it since there's always a host of conversations going around about DDN not being complex enough  extra-credits.net/episodes/depth-vs-comp...
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 3:12PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
When people say D&D is not complex enough, they really mean not deep enough.
When people say D&D is too complex, they really mean too complex.
The tension happens when one player's deep is another player's complex, which is how D&D can be called both too complex and not complex enough simultaneously.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 3:17PM
#3
|
|
|
When people say D&D is not complex enough, they really mean not deep enough.
When people say D&D is too complex, they really mean too complex.
The tension happens when one player's deep is another player's complex, which is how D&D can be called both too complex and not complex enough simultaneously.
Very well said, and very true.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 4:23PM
#4
|
|
|
Wow, that is an incredibly narrow view of complexity being used to reinforce such a pre-conceived notion. There is no "mental weight" to complexity, and to associate the two is show the bias in one's premise.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 4:37PM
#5
|
|
|
No mental weight? How are you defining complexity? The simplest definition to me is the amount of mental calculations and processes required to complete a task.
Think about math problems. A simple problem is one that requires little to no amount of mental calculation.
2+2=4 only really requires your brain to do one calculation.
But 5(2+2)=20 is a more complex problem because more steps are involved. The more steps, the more mental processes. The more mental processes, the more mental stress.
You must be a pretty intese person if complex math problems don't force you to think harder than normal :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 5:57PM
#6
|
|
|
No mental weight? How are you defining complexity? The simplest definition to me is the amount of mental calculations and processes required to complete a task.
Think about math problems. A simple problem is one that requires little to no amount of mental calculation.
2+2=4 only really requires your brain to do one calculation.
But 5(2+2)=20 is a more complex problem because more steps are involved. The more steps, the more mental processes. The more mental processes, the more mental stress.
You must be a pretty intese person if complex math problems don't force you to think harder than normal :P
I prefer the definition of an item made of multiple interrelated parts. Mental processes and calculations don't come into the definition at all.
Dominion is a complex card game. League of Legends is a complex video game. D&D is a complex TTRPG. The large number of diverse options is what makes something complex. I'd also argue it is what makes some of these same things engaging.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 5:58PM
#7
|
|
|
Great tutorial.
What he calls “depth”, would be more familiar to me as “versatility”. The ability to do many vividly different actions by means of the same set of resources.
The definition of “elegance” is perfect. Getting the most versatility-depth for the least complexity.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 6:13PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2011
|
Extra Credits, which is a show about the depths of game design (Mostly video games, but a majority of the lessons can translate into any kind of game design), just did a great episode about Depth vs Complexity. It does a great job of highlighting how depth is a positive goal of a game, but complexity can be negative.
Just thought I would post it since there's always a host of conversations going around about DDN not being complex enough
extra-credits.net/episodes/depth-vs-comp...
Good series. Their skill balance video is very related to D&D as well:
extra-credits.net/episodes/balancing-for...
"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it." Spoiler:
Show
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 6:13PM
#9
|
|
|
D&D comes with an added difficulty that makes normal design goals difficult: brand recognition and historical precedent.
D&D designers are often forced to keep problematic design simply because players are accustomed to it and insist on it.
An example is, the need to track ability “scores” (numbers 10 to 20), despite being useless, when it is actually the “bonus” (numbers +0 to +5) that functions in mechanical formulas involving the d20, to resolve efforts. Thus the nostalgia pressure doubles the complexity with two redundant mechanics for quantifying the abilities.
Also, players use the D&D traditions in different ways. Such as mental versus grid, acting versus wargame, and so on. Thus streamlining the rules for one purpose may alienate players who use it for a different purpose.
For D&D Next, designers are striving for elegant design, cautiously. The public “alpha-testing” has been identifying which elements can be removed or streamlined, and which elements need to remain for the sake of familiarity, even if awkward designwise.
Also, the alpha-testing has been striving to establish a “Basic” core, that most players can live with. Then providing optional “Modules” that allow players to modify the game so players can use it for different purposes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 6:24PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Extra Credits, which is a show about the depths of game design (Mostly video games, but a majority of the lessons can translate into any kind of game design), just did a great episode about Depth vs Complexity. It does a great job of highlighting how depth is a positive goal of a game, but complexity can be negative.
Just thought I would post it since there's always a host of conversations going around about DDN not being complex enough
extra-credits.net/episodes/depth-vs-comp...
Good series. Their skill balance video is very related to D&D as well:
extra-credits.net/episodes/balancing-for...
I was just about to post that one. And D&D needs to get this right.
----
On the depth and complexity front, the beauty of the DNN core idea is that groups can add the amount of omplexity and depth they individually want.
By having the core basic game a simple and shallow game designed to be added to, gamers can get the types of depth they want witout the types of complexity they do not want.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
