Earlier, I discussed the importance of Tactical Depth to RPG Design. This week, I wanted to talk about the trade off between a game's Tactical Depth and it's Complexity.
As I mentioned before, by "Tactical Depth," I mean the relative number and types of meaningfully different options available to PCs that can change the state of the game, both and out of combat. However, the currency which with an RPG Designer buys Tactical Depth is Complexity (i.e., as a game becomes Deeper, it concurrently also become more Complex). This is because as a game's Complexity increases, there are more rules to consider before reaching a resolution and, as a consequence, the game's pace slows down.
IMHO, ideally any RPG should have sufficient Tactical Depth to keep players interested. However, this Tactical Depth, IMHO, should be bought with the least possible Complexity to keep the game's pace moving.
A great example of Complexity-efficient Tactical Depth is utilizing a universal Core Mechanic, such as the d20 System, the first iteration of which appeared in 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons.
To resolve an action in the d20 System, a player rolls a 20-sided die and adds modifiers based on the ability modifier, if any, and the skill modifier, if any, as well as other, situational modifiers. In Dungeons & Dragons, the d20 System replaced a host of different and usually unrelated subsystems in older editions, making the game easier to learn and quicker to play.
However, speed is not the be all and end all in RPG Design. For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons, there's no mechanical difference between weapons since all weapons do 1d6 damage. This is certainly less Complex than variable weapon damage introduced in Supplement I: Greyhawk, but most people would consider non-variable weapon damage to be less fun.
Also, as mentioned above a game's Complexity increases every time a new rule is added, and rules are added for more than just Tactical Depth. So, Complexity issues must be considered in other contexts as well.
For example, beginning with 1e AD&D, material spell components are required in order to successfully cast spells, such as:
As a result, material spell components adds a resource management element for casters and is also a way to address Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, since, as a caster levels up, it is increasingly unlikely that they will happen to have all the material spell components that they would like for a particular today.
However, many (if not most) groups consider material spell components to be a poor purchase of Complexity since they consider the rule unnecessarily restrictive and too much of a drag on the game's pace. Thus, material spell components are often hand waved or ignored outright.
As I mentioned before, by "Tactical Depth," I mean the relative number and types of meaningfully different options available to PCs that can change the state of the game, both and out of combat. However, the currency which with an RPG Designer buys Tactical Depth is Complexity (i.e., as a game becomes Deeper, it concurrently also become more Complex). This is because as a game's Complexity increases, there are more rules to consider before reaching a resolution and, as a consequence, the game's pace slows down.
IMHO, ideally any RPG should have sufficient Tactical Depth to keep players interested. However, this Tactical Depth, IMHO, should be bought with the least possible Complexity to keep the game's pace moving.
A great example of Complexity-efficient Tactical Depth is utilizing a universal Core Mechanic, such as the d20 System, the first iteration of which appeared in 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons.
To resolve an action in the d20 System, a player rolls a 20-sided die and adds modifiers based on the ability modifier, if any, and the skill modifier, if any, as well as other, situational modifiers. In Dungeons & Dragons, the d20 System replaced a host of different and usually unrelated subsystems in older editions, making the game easier to learn and quicker to play.
However, speed is not the be all and end all in RPG Design. For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons, there's no mechanical difference between weapons since all weapons do 1d6 damage. This is certainly less Complex than variable weapon damage introduced in Supplement I: Greyhawk, but most people would consider non-variable weapon damage to be less fun.
Also, as mentioned above a game's Complexity increases every time a new rule is added, and rules are added for more than just Tactical Depth. So, Complexity issues must be considered in other contexts as well.
For example, beginning with 1e AD&D, material spell components are required in order to successfully cast spells, such as:
Spider Climb (Alteration)Level: 1 Components: V, S, M Range: Touch Casting Time: 1 segment Duration: 1 round + 1 round/level Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: Creature touchedExplanation/Description: A Spider Climb spell enables the recipient to climb and travel upon vertical surfaces just as a giant spider is able to do, i.e. at 3" movement rate, or even hang upside down from ceilings. Note that the affected creature must have bare hands and feet in order to climb in this manner. During the course of the spell the recipient cannot handle objects which weigh less than 50 g.p., for such objects will stick to the creature's hands/feet, so a magic-user will find it virtually impossible to cast spells if under a Spider Climb dweomer. The material components of this spell are a drop of bitumen and a live spider, both of which must be eaten by the spell recipient.
As a result, material spell components adds a resource management element for casters and is also a way to address Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, since, as a caster levels up, it is increasingly unlikely that they will happen to have all the material spell components that they would like for a particular today.
However, many (if not most) groups consider material spell components to be a poor purchase of Complexity since they consider the rule unnecessarily restrictive and too much of a drag on the game's pace. Thus, material spell components are often hand waved or ignored outright.
No comments:
Post a Comment