Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;568337ooh intricate...congratulations. I've never tried building anything this complex, but I mostly see what you're doing here, I'm not sure I have any useful criticism of it since it seems the percentages are all very tightly controlled to get the final effect you want, but...
 
*I assume that dividing die shifting to d4 for an 04 or less makes criticals for some weapons particularly bad (daggers or bows, mentioned?) since the base damage for these was designed to factor in the larger dividing die?.
 
*I note that you have two separate effects that are skill-based - one being the increase in the chance of a critical roll itself (+1% per 10% added to the base 07), and the second being the critical effect itself being mainly skill-driven (roll under to-hit% to get the dividing die bonus). Perhaps a bit of unnecessary redundancy there since both independently factor into the same final effect; you might in theory be able to tweak either one or the other to get the same final result more simply..? Or not, depending on how happy you are with the current exact %s.
 
*The dividing die itself is interesting since it would work to give occasional massive spikes in damage, with each doubling of damage being half as common. The negative dividing die results look like they give horrendous amounts of damage, but you need both a high skill and a lucky roll to do it, and otherwise I guess a critical couldn't do more damage than a lucky dividing die roll (apart from the 01 armour minimization effect).
 
*No extra special effects for an 01 on your second critical roll?...

Lost track, and have been very, very busy with work.

1) shifting the dividing die to a d4 on a roll of 04 and lower basically means that even if the second roll is not that great, they get some benefit from their lucky roll/hit.  It also means a huge multiplicity effect if the second roll is a good one.  getting -2 on your divider with a dagger with a d8 divider is helpful, but if that dagger rolled an 04 on the first roll, that dagger is getting their -2 or whatever off of the d4.  

2) more complicated than that, and thus more elegant that we don't have to do any more.  In the +1 to crit per 10% chance to hit, that chance to hit includes the total chance to hit, and all the factors included therein.  So a particular strong or dextrous character with a magic weapon and maybe using an advanced combat tactic may have a +10% to hit with an axe as a skill, but may have a +30% chance to hit.  So the skill with the weapon adds in, but the idea is that a smart player can take advantage and increase their critical %.

3) yes, The dividing die changes the frequency distribution of damage from a bell to a long tail.  And it models physics well when smaller weapons have higher dividers, while still allowing them to casue good damage on occasion, while big weapons basically roll a 1 or 2 more often....

Quote from: beejazz;627298You could probably swap all but the first one with the catch-all terms "iteration" and "appropriation" and maybe even "adaptation."
Iteration would be editions and clones.
Appropriation would be good both for "magpie" and hybrids.
Adaptation would be emulation of a non-RPG in RPG form. Both for licensed properties and for war-game to RPG transitions (chainmail to D&D, Warhammer to various Warhammer RPGs, or Iron Kingdoms D20 to Warmachine to the new Iron Kingdoms).

Yep, agree. I'll go back in later today and rewrite.
Licensed properties that you mention are an interesting one I think in that the thought process is different to adapting a wargame; there's often a ruleset existing in-house that's going to be adapted to suit the genre, whereas adapting a wargame often means taking the wargame's rules and adding extra RPG elements.

Quote from: LordVreeg;627346Lost track, and have been very, very busy with work.
1) shifting the dividing die to a d4 on a roll of 04 and lower basically means that even if the second roll is not that great, they get some benefit from their lucky roll/hit. It also means a huge multiplicity effect if the second roll is a good one. getting -2 on your divider with a dagger with a d8 divider is helpful, but if that dagger rolled an 04 on the first roll, that dagger is getting their -2 or whatever off of the d4.
2) more complicated than that, and thus more elegant that we don't have to do any more. In the +1 to crit per 10% chance to hit, that chance to hit includes the total chance to hit, and all the factors included therein. So a particular strong or dextrous character with a magic weapon and maybe using an advanced combat tactic may have a +10% to hit with an axe as a skill, but may have a +30% chance to hit. So the skill with the weapon adds in, but the idea is that a smart player can take advantage and increase their critical %.
3) yes, The dividing die changes the frequency distribution of damage from a bell to a long tail. And it models physics well when smaller weapons have higher dividers, while still allowing them to casue good damage on occasion, while big weapons basically roll a 1 or 2 more often....

Fair enough, and the shifts in dividing dice make sense. On the critical % (#2) what I meant is, if you have to roll your to-hit roll again to get the critical effect [the damage boost], the chances of a critical occurring are increasing even if you only had a fixed 7% of making the first roll. Since the chance of the final occurrence (the damage increase) is [probability of first roll] x [probability of second roll].
 
PS while noticed your different STR/DEX requirements for different weapons depending on 1h or 2h use rule while I was in there and made note of it in the Strength requirements subsection of the weapon proficiencies post (#70).

One of the biggest problems among RPG fandom (and, it must be said, all fandoms) is the prevalence of One True Wayism: "My preferences are objectively the best for everyone."

Well, hooey! Simply, provably untrue. (Unless I'm saying it. Because, you know, I'm awesome.)

In my experience, any game designer (or any designer, engineer, or artist, period) who can't explain the drawbacks of his own choices, and the benefits other choices might offer, doesn't understand his own work well enough to produce something great. (Unless it's wholly by accident, like Kevin Siembieda or George Lucas.)

That goes for classes/levels, as well. If you can't articulate or don't know the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, your body of knowledge is lacking. (One of the reasons this thread is so valuable, IMHO.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642736(Unless I'm saying it. Because, you know, I'm awesome.)

In my experience, any game designer (or any designer, engineer, or artist, period) who can't explain the drawbacks of his own choices, and the benefits other choices might offer, doesn't understand his own work well enough to produce something great. (Unless it's wholly by accident, like Kevin Siembieda or George Lucas.)

That goes for classes/levels, as well. If you can't articulate or don't know the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, your body of knowledge is lacking. (One of the reasons this thread is so valuable, IMHO.)

lol!
Thanks! The thread here - bits I've done anyway - are inevitably limited by my knowledge and personal preferences, so if there's anything you (or anyone else) disagree with, by all means we can discuss Not that I think that was what you were suggesting.

I was leaving the thread fallow for a bit since Spike is doing something similar (I'm hopeful his system-by-system approach will show patterns in systems that are interesting, rather than listing components as this thread does), though a check over it would show that I've done considerable editing to earlier posts, adding extra bits n' bobs. However, if anyone has any further comments, flamewars, etc. etc. of course they're welcome.

PS Many people on rpg.net would probably disagree about Kevin Siembieda. I think Rifts has a lot of interesting emergent properties that come from its wacky design. (Though it is also possible that I'm biased, and thinking Rifts is awesome is just Cheetoism at work).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;496044Dragonquest uses point-buy after rolling on a table which determines both # points and maximum attribute buyable (these two things generally oppose each other). While interesting, this has a net effect of generating characters who are across-the-board very competent, or characters who can “max out” an attribute, but had to seriously reduce another attribute to do so. I wouldn't really recommend this since its extremely random - moreso than rolling 3d6 in order for stats - and manages to be uninteresting (providing no input into final character) at the same time.

I pulled this out a few weeks ago and did up a character. I didn't sit down and calculate the variation in totals compared with rolling 3d6 in order,* but neither did that leap out.

That the roll for points provides "no input into final character" beyond total points and limits on high scores is precisely because the player's input is emphasized! You're supposed to design the sort of figure you want to play.

What sucks is that you're given too few experience points to get any but (at most) one of a very small selection (like 3) of the non-combat skills, at skill level 0; most characters can't even get that. Some kind of weapon skill is doable, but generally not enough to seem like much. A shield is, IIRC, basically useless with skill 0.

Maybe something like 600 XP more -- what you might expect from one (unsuccessful?) adventure, or from some months (about a year?) of training/practice -- would be a decent start; I forget the details. Heck, an order of magnitude more might suit many people's tastes.

*Literally rolling 3d6 would be unsuitable, since you're supposed to start with an average in the neighborhood of 15 (with a normal cap of 25 on the human scale), whereas "normals" average around 10.

QuoteA possible third alternative to rolling or using points, Marvel Super Heroes has the option of using "character modelling" to design a character. Here the player assigns numbers to the character (that they think the GM will allow!) and the GM vetoes anything too excessive.

I've done that in a more interactive way, in actual dialog with the player. This was for one thing because the players had no previous MSH system expertise, but I think it's generally a good idea. (This is my favorite method for RPG chargen generally.)

So, instead of the player "assigning numbers" directly, he or she describes the character envisioned in plain English. I work with the player to model the character in game terms.

"Excessive" matters only in terms of the scenarios for which a given character might be inaproppriate. That really has more to do with the actual character of the character than with levels of battleship tossing or cosmic ray zappery.

Not that those might not sometimes be relevant to a game balance, but in Marvel Comics (or DC for that matter), characters running the gamut often worked together.


Another variation on point buy: In TSR's Conan game, you choose skill ratings, and then the score for each category is 1/10 the skill levels rounded down (which may be 0).

Quote from: Phillip;643794I pulled this out a few weeks ago and did up a character. I didn't sit down and calculate the variation in totals compared with rolling 3d6 in order,* but neither did that leap out.

That the roll for points provides "no input into final character" beyond total points and limits on high scores is precisely because the player's input is emphasized! You're supposed to design the sort of figure you want to play.

What sucks is that you're given too few experience points to get any but (at most) one of a very small selection (like 3) of the non-combat skills, at skill level 0; most characters can't even get that. Some kind of weapon skill is doable, but generally not enough to seem like much. A shield is, IIRC, basically useless with skill 0.

Maybe something like 600 XP more -- what you might expect from one (unsuccessful?) adventure, or from some months (about a year?) of training/practice -- would be a decent start; I forget the details. Heck, an order of magnitude more might suit many people's tastes.

*Literally rolling 3d6 would be unsuitable, since you're supposed to start with an average in the neighborhood of 15 (with a normal cap of 25 on the human scale), whereas "normals" average around 10.

Ah well, TBH, I didn't do the math either - it was something I'd mostly just assumed.
Checking some of the numbers for DragonQuest now, its more noticeable when comparing the far ends of the table, and what I think I did miss was that the point total roll is a 2d10 roll (2d10+79). So in actual play, it would be less likely to be a great issue.
Comparing the extreme ends of the table -the character with 99 points (max. 19) on the one hand has enough points to get to (19,16,16,16,16,16).
At the other extreme 81 points, max 25 gives a character who bought their 25 stats of say (25,11,11,11,12) if they spread remaining points evenly, or maxing out a second stat to the limit of one lower would give them (25,24,8,8,8,8). They can buy a higher stat, but have less points to spend.

It does seem not as bad as I've suggested though (I will probably soften the language and add a pointer to more detailed discussion here).
Looking at it again, I'm actually a bit surprised by how similar the end results are to 3E-style gradually increasing point costs for stats (except that those let someone pick which extreme to take)

Thanks anyway for the tips!
PS re. Conan: I've got a note on Conan/ZeFRS (its clone) under 'Skill Defaults' rather than attributes, though I see what you mean - it should probably be in both places...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;642800PS Many people on rpg.net would probably disagree about Kevin Siembieda. I think Rifts has a lot of interesting emergent properties that come from its wacky design. (Though it is also possible that I'm biased, and thinking Rifts is awesome is just Cheetoism at work).

I'm not saying Rifts is bad. I'm saying its greatness was an accident. Completely, bizarrely, this-shit-shouldn't-have-worked accident. Strange alchemy.

Proof? Just about everyone wants to re-engineer RIFTS, but everyone who tries ends up saying "ah, fuck it, I'll just run it as-is".

It's an accidental masterpiece.

Some things can be planned and built. (James Cameron is the king of this, as a director.) Other things are, but are much better than their creators could have imagined. Others should be shit, all logic says they should be shit, but somehow... they are accidentally awesome.

Rifts is accidentally awesome. Star Wars is accidentally awesome.

(Proof? Look what Lucas did when he was in total control. Total shit. I've heard the ideas he had for Star Wars. If he'd been in total control back then? Total shit.)

That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645099I'm not saying Rifts is bad. I'm saying its greatness was an accident. Completely, bizarrely, this-shit-shouldn't-have-worked accidental. Strange alchemy.

Mystery of the universe . Rifts points and laughs at game designers, showing that many modern ideas of game design are, if not mistaken, at least only a small piece of the puzzle of how to design a good game - you could build something according to the conventional wisdom and it would fail to capture whatever X-factor it has.
 
As far as I can work out, my theories are:
 
*virtually no metagame mechanics (e.g. luck points, HP inflation, etc).
 
*detailed combat decision making (despite lack of metagame mechanics).
 
*extensive character choice. While modern design typically favours balanced character building, there's really a dichotomy between character diversity and balance; its perhaps only really possible to dial one up if you take the other down.
 
*so unbalanced its actually balanced in places (e.g. you have mega HPs, but bad guys they have broken abilities that will kill you anyway). Unlike a point system, only limited options to reinforce weak points.
 
*no social skills
 
*limited impact of attributes, so that characters can be gods stat-wise without breaking the system.
 
*the total opposite of an effects-based system (so - no disconnect between flavour and mechanics; peculiar balancers built into specific powers or classes including setting-based or roleplay-based balance factors like rolling psionics making the Coalition come and kill you, juicer time limits, or Borg multiclassing). Unfortunately this means that rewriting it means rewriting ALL of it.
 
*tiered, specialized skills that set most percentages within a useful range (character progress without "level treadmills" and the like).
 
I also suspect a rigorous ruleset that did what it did would be the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and probably still not work (OK slight exaggeration...but it'd be big).
 
Its also interesting to look at how Rifts works to provide lots of classes. There are lots of settings that may be deep and atmospheric, but where the answer to 'what should I be?' is unclear, or has only one answer.
 
EDIT TO ADD - I also found this in the rpg.net archives and thought it maybe relevant:
 
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?57002-How-Does-Palladium-do-it/page5

QuoteIt's the system.
Palladium's wacky rules system hits the core values of the average gamer a lot better than many other. The game is accessible and it brings combat to the fore. Skills are relegated to simple yes/no results on an easy die roll, which is all many people want out of them. Combat maneuvers actually reflect what the player says her character is doing; most other games abstract many actions to the point where you can't really tell how dude A hit dude B, but in Palladium the dice results show you exactly what happened and how.
Few gamers care about elegant design. Palladium's baroque set of rules and lack of baseline principles actually works in it favour, because you don't have to be self-conscious about stapling new rules on. Compare this to DnD3e, where a new character class has fairly rigorous standards to meet. Most Palladium character classes also have an instant hook -- the same great thing that makes WW's splats so enduring. When you paly a Juicer, you know that he's a dangerous drug addict/warrior with special needs and talents.
This also benefits backlisting. Palladium products never become obsolete because they practically never violate later rulings/revisions.

EXTRA EDIT:
Or here's another alternate opinion - on D&D by Lars Dangly on rpg.net, but pretty applicable. To paraphrase him, its about STUFF.

QuoteThe over-arching, apparently indefinite popularity of D&D has never had anything to do with great rules (not to tweek any 4E enthusiasts...); rather, it is because this is the game system that provided absolutely gigantic, diverse lists of spells, monsters and magic items from the get-go, and never lost sight of the importance of diversity and 'character' in these things. D&D remains fun year after year because every time you turn the page there is another spell you haven't used, another monster you haven't hacked to pieces, and another unique item you wish you had in your golf bag. It always bumms me out when I go through a new game and find 200 pages of rules with a 10 page grimoir and 20 standard monsters pasted in the back. Game designers of the world take note!

A new topic I missed somehow, prompted by today's game; deities & PC divine ascension.

A few fantasy games give deities statistics; in somes cases divine ability is an endgame of a fantasy character's career (in view of which some games may suggest offering overpowered PCs immortality simply to get rid of them). More ambitious games may attempt to have deity PCs. As seen in many cheesy fantasy series, deities may also serve as major (campaign-end?) monsters.

Deities typically have extremely high statistics and some magical powers, combined with immortality. Special rules may govern transfer of divine power between characters governing whether plots to steal it work.
Some games may have deities reliant on mortal worship to exist or for determining power points. They may also have some ability to awe mortals.

Some examples of systems:

AD&D: deities have typically superhuman ability scores (19-25); to divinely ascend a character needs a couple of stats that are 19+, and a minimum Charisma of 18 (plus a body of worshippers who consider them a deity already), as well as sponsorship and possession of high level. Deities have multiple classes at high levels, maximum hit points, and a number of special abilities, modelled individually on mythological deities.
2nd edition claimed deity stats were for 'avatars' rather than the deity itself (though they were similar), leaving the true deities' statistics undefined.

Basic: The basic D&D lineage evolved a completely different system for 'Immortal' characters, designed to allow PCs to continue progressing as characters. Characters could ascend after reaching level 36 and performing a quest, losing their old classes and beginning anew as '1st level Immortals', with old xp converted into 'power points' used for spellcasting (1 PP = 10,000 xp). As well as casting all mortal spells the characters gained new Immortal spells, assorted immunities, picks from a specific powers list, and could expend Power Points to raise ability scores. Progressions were reset by creating new saving throw categories, and (in the older BECMI version) moving ability checks from d20 roll under to d100 roll under (this latter also had a backwards system of modifiers where levelled-up immortals, who had higher abilities, took a penalty for no particular reason). To-hit tables were expanded with very high rolls adding damage bonuses. Rules for plots, artifact creation, and immortal monsters were also included. A deity reduced to 0 HP is drawn back to its home plane and reforms over a period. While virtually throwing away the old character sheet and starting over made it possible to reset progressions so that characters again had meaningful failure chances, and eliminate major discrepancies between characters, a L1 Immortal is in some areas worse than a L36 mortal (e.g. caster level or to-hit chance, hit points). Letting characters still be 'warrior deities', 'thief deities', etc. was accomplished in the later version (Wrath of the Immortals boxed set) by including sets of appropriate abilities under single Power selections characters could choose if they wanted (a character didn't have to choose these). A character could also create a 'mortal identity' as a Level 36 character of whatever class for a small amount of PP (5 points) - potentially a cheap workaround for e.g. thief abilities though probably too squishy for fighter.

3rd Ed. D&D: this has a detailed system for handling divine abilities, although these abilities are for the most part  not suited to PCs, and the NPCs with them are so ridiculous that the statistic blocks are largely a waste of space.
Most deities have monster hit dice, as well as colossal ability scores and a number of other abilities based off 'divine rank' (rated from 0 for quasideities, 1-20 for normal deities, and 21+ for overdeities) with each rank granting a special ability. Deities gained extended senses (1 mile/rank), ability to sense events related to their portfolios weeks in advance, and various personal resistances, as well as being able to get 20s automatically on checks without rolling.

Synnibarr: this allows characters who reach level 50 to add a second character class, beginning to progress that instead of their primary class. Eack rank (Immortal, demigod, god) added stat bonuses, as well as raising stat ceilings. Characters also gained 'core god points' based on level (which gave number of god points generated/day, before bonuses from # worshippers), a few minor abilities and un-negateable damage reductions.
Synnibarr also allowed starting characters to be 'immortal born' under extremely rare circumstances (five 20s rolled on chargen out of 7d20 with scores under 9 rerolled)- these have 2 character classes/races, extra stat bonuses, and the ability to regenerate from death. It defines 'god power' as a specific energy type, usually resistant to nullification.

Marvel Super Heroes: this has a number of 'deity' characters due to Thor being a Marvel character. Asgardians are potentially within the playable range; they have a number of fairly standard super-abilities and enhanced statistics.

Rifts: Rifts has rules for playable deity PCs, although it unusually assumes that these are born as deities (and playable from 1st level, despite being stronger than most other characters). Godlings are an RCC (racial character class) receiving several abilities, some of which are more or less other entire character classes, as well as MDC and high stats. Demigods (who are part human) have fewer powers, and select a normal class (OCC) rather than being an RCC. Note NPC deities typically have many more MDC than do PCs.

SenZar: this game assumes characters will ascend at level 20; they must have raised their Power score to 100 (the maximum). At 20th the character must choose whether to become a Deific God (having worshippers, needs sponsor), a Material God (Highlander; free Regeneration) or an Eternal (shapeshifting lunatics who bet power with each other). RP limitations apply in each case e.g. divine gods need a sponsor, while material gods change is triggered by dying. In any case the character can raise stats above 20, increase in level further, gets free 'primal' from their prior Fame score, and will have access to special abilities and spells burning 'primal' points.

EDIT: And the really obvious hole in the discussion here is absence of any mention of White Wolf's Scion, the RPG specifically designed for playing demigod PCs. Unfortunately, I haven't read it.

Quote from: beejazz;568162If no one else is using that crit mechanic we should port it in for the collaborative design thread. A second D10 that crits on a 10 (failure if the person would have failed, success if the person would have succeeded).

Mostly joking. Seems weird.

Well, found something that works like this - sort of.
Dungeon Crawl Classics fighter 'deeds' use a second roll that's made each round. Its not quite a critical roll - there are separate rules for criticals - but sort of. (the deed die rules I've seen criticized as a rule for class-based criticals, in a game that already has class-based criticals).
The other weird thing about DCC is that the fighter uses the Deed Die to determine their attack bonus for that round, while the other classes have a fixed attack bonus. (others have said: it'd be better to have a fixed bonus and then use margin-of-success for the deed, which I agree with).
D&D Next seems to have stolen the idea quite shamelessly for fighter manuevers, too.

You might take a look at John Kirk's Design Patterns of Successful Role-Playing Games, which is a similar project. He uses a flowchart-like graphic notation scheme to diagram different kinds of play procedures. It's really neat.

I have seen it - I found it interesting although I don't always agree with his conclusions. My thing here is a bit different since I'm not looking for deep underlying patterns as Kirk was... IMHO the same underlying pattern can be used quite differently in different contexts, hence I've been cataloging lots of specific implementations instead. Thanks, though.

Another general topic, just summarizing some thoughts...
Reading various arguments on the topic I come to the conclusion people mean different things when they mean something is complex e.g. I've seen arguments on whether 2E D&D (with all its exception rules for various issues) is more complex than 4E (with its unified but more term-heavy resolution). Or whether 3E is more complex than Hero.

In a general way, complexity of a ruleset can be viewed in a few ways. Details can be 'front-loaded' into character generation, or 'back-loaded' to occur during play - for instance, by precalculating skill values vs. requiring a roll, or determining situational modifiers beforehand. HERO is another game where adherents often insist its quite simple in play, once the parameters of the characters powers are considered. Games which have rules for lots of specific situations might be considered more complex, although, many of these rules may not come up in play - Rolemaster has lots of tables (but is often considered less complex than 3E, which has fiddlier rules for skill interactions).
Another interesting case, 2nd Edition D&D has many different subsystems for skills, ability checks, saves, climbing, opening doors, etc. but frequently IMHO has fairly non-intrusive rules - compared to say 3E where rules for social interaction & perception will generate dice rolls frequently in the course of play. The games with more baroque mechanics have more individual rules, but there may be less action-at-a-distance requiring sub-rules to precisely shape what occurs for individual skills (Palladium for instance has melee critical rules but no skill critical rules - since skills are d100 rather than d20; 3E has rules which increase the default armour penalty for swim, while Ride has a mix of functions to which armour penalty applies and doesn't apply).

There is also 'tactical' complexity, or decision-making complexity. Needing players to select an informed option requires they understand all the options available, which is particularly a problem if its a permanent character building decision, or there are a lot of options -it sometimes makes sense to sub-divide a list further e.g. into class-specific powers.
If an option has fairly abstract, mechanical effects the player may also need to understand the rules that option affects as well.
I have to pick on FantasyCraft here: the rules are deliberately set up to generate synergies between options, sometimes awkwardly ('iconic specialties'). Options here are also deceptively strong/weak without a full understanding of what they do (e.g. 'Hammer Supremacy' looks like it insta-kills most NPCs who "automatically fail their damage save" until you realize a Tough NPC may require several damage saves to kill). Overall the class, race, proficiency, feat and skill rules seem to me overly byzantine given that a simpler system could have as many options if it wasn't deliberately tiering options (take a Specialty to get a Feat that then gives access to otherwise restricted skills/bonus to a skill) - building deliberate restrictions into specific classes/races/skills and basically running the player through an unnecessary maze of options to optimize their build.

Probably the main factors driving increasing ruleset complexity in general are:
*the desire to make rules more comprehensive* - that is, taking the burden off the game master by defining exact situational modifiers. IMHO this is good to a point, although, after a certain point the system may become bloated with too many rules for normal players to remember, with potentially important rules buried by minutiae.
*adding realism (detail). More abstract rules less perfectly duplicate the 'process' of a realistic system but may need more modifiers to handle specific steps. More detail does make it easier to handle specific circumstances that apply at one step, but don't necessarily generate more realistic results. A particular issue being multiple rolls at multiple stages biasing chance of success downward (3E D&D trip)
*adding gameability to a system. Looking at D&D over time again (2E through 4E), the movement system becomes more intricate to make tactical combat interesting, rather than because of its simulational value. Similarly, FantasyCraft character building is more or less a minigame in itself.
*balance: an extra layer of detail can fix an imbalance between options, or obscure a difference because more circumstances need to be considered (for instance if one weapon does d12 and another 2d6, adding rules for DR, or weapon vs. armour type for the different weapons as well, or other properties). One option being slightly worse may sometimes be an acceptable tradeoff for not taking on extra complexity.

*comprehensiveness is itself driven by a desire to map out gameplay expectations  - different fictional sources, different assumptions about proper lethality and challenge. Different power levels -when 'realism' was seen as a main goal people could sometimes agree on what was 'realistic', but in higher-powered fantasy e.g. anime/wuxia based, what a character should be capable of is unmoored from reality and so harder to agree upon. Naive players/GMs may disagree on rulings and just decide the other person is an idiot, rather than realizing why they did whatever it was; more rules give a roadmap as to what the game will be like, and an opportunity to address problems in advance.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;679610Another general topic, just summarizing some thoughts...
Reading various arguments on the topic I come to the conclusion people mean different things when they mean something is complex e.g. I've seen arguments on whether 2E D&D (with all its exception rules for various issues) is more complex than 4E (with its unified but more term-heavy resolution). Or whether 3E is more complex than Hero.

In a general way, complexity of a ruleset can be viewed in a few ways. Details can be 'front-loaded' into character generation, or 'back-loaded' to occur during play - for instance, by precalculating skill values vs. requiring a roll, or determining situational modifiers beforehand. HERO is another game where adherents often insist its quite simple in play, once the parameters of the characters powers are considered. Games which have rules for lots of specific situations might be considered more complex, although, many of these rules may not come up in play - Rolemaster has lots of tables (but is often considered less complex than 3E, which has fiddlier rules for skill interactions).
Another interesting case, 2nd Edition D&D has many different subsystems for skills, ability checks, saves, climbing, opening doors, etc. but frequently IMHO has fairly non-intrusive rules - compared to say 3E where rules for social interaction & perception will generate dice rolls frequently in the course of play. The games with more baroque mechanics have more individual rules, but there may be less action-at-a-distance requiring sub-rules to precisely shape what occurs for individual skills (Palladium for instance has melee critical rules but no skill critical rules - since skills are d100 rather than d20; 3E has rules which increase the default armour penalty for swim, while Ride has a mix of functions to which armour penalty applies and doesn't apply).

There is also 'tactical' complexity, or decision-making complexity. Needing players to select an informed option requires they understand all the options available, which is particularly a problem if its a permanent character building decision, or there are a lot of options -it sometimes makes sense to sub-divide a list further e.g. into class-specific powers.
If an option has fairly abstract, mechanical effects the player may also need to understand the rules that option affects as well.
I have to pick on FantasyCraft here: the rules are deliberately set up to generate synergies between options, sometimes awkwardly ('iconic specialties'). Options here are also deceptively strong/weak without a full understanding of what they do (e.g. 'Hammer Supremacy' looks like it insta-kills most NPCs who "automatically fail their damage save" until you realize a Tough NPC may require several damage saves to kill). Overall the class, race, proficiency, feat and skill rules seem to me overly byzantine given that a simpler system could have as many options if it wasn't deliberately tiering options (take a Specialty to get a Feat that then gives access to otherwise restricted skills/bonus to a skill) - building deliberate restrictions into specific classes/races/skills and basically running the player through an unnecessary maze of options to optimize their build.

Probably the main factors driving increasing ruleset complexity in general are:
*the desire to make rules more comprehensive - that is, taking the burden off the game master by defining exact situational modifiers. IMHO this is good to a point, although, after a certain point the system may become bloated with too many rules for normal players to remember, with potentially important rules buried by minutiae.
*adding realism (detail). More abstract rules less perfectly duplicate the 'process' of a realistic system but may need more modifiers to handle specific steps. More detail does make it easier to handle specific circumstances that apply at one step, but don't necessarily generate more realistic results. Particular issues being multiple rolls at multiple stages biasing chance of success downward (3E D&D trip)
*adding gameability to a system. Looking at D&D over time again (2E through 4E), the movement system becomes more intricate to make tactical combat interesting, rather than because of its simulational value. Similarly, FantasyCraft character building is more or less a minigame in itself.

Sometimes ruleset complexity comes about from trying to better support a setting, as well.