Quote from: Abraxus on April 14, 2023, 02:22:46 PM
Math is not hard in that if an rpg system either crunchy or complex or both so expect a certain part off and reward for either or. More often than not it's neither. When one has existing rpgs thst can do both with less time and Easter to run well I can under the reluctance of both older and newer gamers to embrace both.

I'm having trouble understanding you here. Could you rephrase this so I can?

Quote from: Abraxus on April 14, 2023, 02:22:46 PM
I recently tried making a character with Palladium Rifts and Fantasy and each time all it gave me was a pounding migraine. The flipping all over the place for rules. Is the bonus 5% or 4%. I started looking at Savage Rifts and never looked back.

This sounds more like poor layout of the Palladium books than a Math problem.

Quote from: Abraxus on April 14, 2023, 02:22:46 PM
In the end gamers have shown they are not interested in overly crunch systems such as Gurps or Hero in large numbers as the second is in life support and the first survived on the good graces of Munchkin profitability. Even Battlelords has a Savage Worlds conversion at this point.

Overly crunch systems do not equal Math and Science heavy systems. The problem with GURPS and Hero are rules bloat, especially for character creation. Now, if you are saying that the addition and subtraction required for character creation is too Math heavy, then your Math skills are inadequate for the task and you have reinforced my argument.

Quote from: Abraxus on April 14, 2023, 02:22:46 PMAs for math is hard it's an excuse used by those who rather than actually acknowledge the flaws of their favored rpg to blame players for not wanting that kind of complexity.

Cute.

Now explain how Traveller is flawed and too complex but has survived for 46 years, 7 publishers, and 11 editions so far.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 03:16:37 PMThe problem with GURPS and Hero are rules bloat, especially for character creation. Now, if you are saying that the addition and subtraction required for character creation is too Math heavy, then your Math skills are inadequate for the task and you have reinforced my argument.

What you call rules bloat with Hero char creation, is simply a degree of granularity and complexity beyond what you consider necessary. Some people disagree with you, which is why it still has a die-hard cult following.

Personally I think it's a bit much, which is why I only ever run a stripped down version via Dark Champions, but I think it's subjective rather than objective. It's a game for people in to extreme simulationism.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 14, 2023, 03:08:11 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 14, 2023, 02:43:25 PM
I see a lot of folks online complaining about complexity.  Not so much, even the kids, in real life.  The kids I've seen deal with complexity in RPGs just shrugged, did it, and seemed to like it.

This.   This makes me wonder if the people complaining are A) Actually part of the hobby and B) whether they have actually tried something other than D&D,   What happens online doesn't seem to translate to real life.

Most SJW warriors online are really just trolls with no lives.

Can't say that observation tracks with mine.

Most of the people I see online complaining that games are too complicated are OSR/Grognard types leveling the accusation at 3rd-5th edition, Pathfinder, etc. As far as I've seen, the Nu-School complaint against the old school is more about it being too restrictive, rather than too complicated. Hell, aside from the endless and pointless debate around THAC0, and this specific thread, I rarely even see people arguing about how hard the math is in a game. Even this thread is a grognard vs. grognard  argument, not an old vs. new school one.  Plus just logically, why would you complain about one game being too complicated if you weren't comparing it to another?

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 14, 2023, 04:37:35 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 14, 2023, 03:08:11 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 14, 2023, 02:43:25 PM
I see a lot of folks online complaining about complexity.  Not so much, even the kids, in real life.  The kids I've seen deal with complexity in RPGs just shrugged, did it, and seemed to like it.

This.   This makes me wonder if the people complaining are A) Actually part of the hobby and B) whether they have actually tried something other than D&D,   What happens online doesn't seem to translate to real life.

Most SJW warriors online are really just trolls with no lives.

Can't say that observation tracks with mine.

Most of the people I see online complaining that games are too complicated are OSR/Grognard types leveling the accusation at 3rd-5th edition, Pathfinder, etc. As far as I've seen, the Nu-School complaint against the old school is more about it being too restrictive, rather than too complicated. Hell, aside from the endless and pointless debate around THAC0, and this specific thread, I rarely even see people arguing about how hard the math is in a game. Even this thread is a grognard vs. grognard  argument, not an old vs. new school one.  Plus just logically, why would you complain about one game being too complicated if you weren't comparing it to another?

IME both things are true at the same time, don't ask me which is more prevalent.

I've seen plenty of new players complain about THAC0 because "it's too math involved", TBF I've also seen not so new players level the same criticism.

IMHO the ONLY thing that makes THAC0 (and the games that use it) more complex is the need to remember when rolling low is good or bad, which is why I prefer games with a single logic, either rolling low is always good or it is always bad.

AC was created for naval war games trying to emulate naval combat, there they imported the naval idea that 1 was better than a bigger number, from there it got imported to D&D and remained as gospel because "that's how we have always done it!".

AAC is simpler not because of the math involved, but because as humans we think bigger is better, and because if your system is roll => target number for most things then making it the same to hit lowers the learning curve. So a modifier with a + is always good and one with a - is always bad, or vice-versa IDGAF, just have it be consistent.

One of the good things the OSR did was to backport some modern design ideas like AAC IMHO.

My experience is that younger players like the complexity in RPGS whereas older players, while not necessarily against rules-complex RPGS, are happy to play less complex versions and maybe even prefer them.  Now, board games are where I notice a real difference.  Guys my age are happy playing playing Kingmaker or Civilization or a hex-and-counter wargame for ten hours at a stretch, just as we did in our youth, while it's hard to get younger people nowdays to commit to any board game that takes longer than thirty minutes and has four pages of rules.  Of course you can't pin this on every individual person, but it's definitely a trend I've noticed.

Quote from: I on April 14, 2023, 06:02:25 PM
My experience is that younger players like the complexity in RPGS whereas older players, while not necessarily against rules-complex RPGS, are happy to play less complex versions and maybe even prefer them.

Every old fart I associate with loves getting in to the guts of a system, whereas the younger ones can't wrap their heads around rules. It's not a regional thing either, as I play online.

It's weird, the disconnect between experiences of people here.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 14, 2023, 06:06:50 PM

It's weird, the disconnect between experiences of people here.

We've seen this disconnect before on other subjects, like the Satanic Panic.  [We all deplored it, but some of us barely noticed it at the time while others had traumatic experiences].  I guess we just have to chalk it up to the fact that it's a big world out there and that individual experiences will vary.

Complex is not the same as complicated. Moreover, it seem natural to assume system consistency, so if it takes a substantial amount of time to build a character, how long would one expect resolving an action to take? Thus, if the former is was not enjoyable, the latter will be assume to not be enjoyable.

Wrenching on a classic all weekend and going for a Sunday drive are not the same experience even though both involve fun mobiles, but that we get to people who can't open the hood or even understand the concept.

I can enjoy solving a complex problem and fine tuning a build, but when I have only a few hours to play with friends I want to spend more time playing and less time building. Both action figures and constructor sets can be fun, but one generally plays with one and builds the other. The latter may involve building something to play with, but the building part is not the playing part.

Some are incapable of understanding, others resent restrictions on their selfish fantasies, some like a detailed simulation, while others like to play fast without slowing down for things out side of the imagined space.

I find building Mektons more fun then running them, and playing non combat parts of d20 more than I like building characters or the nitty gritty of combat. I could do either, but I prefer one or the other, while thanks to whatever it is schools are doing these days some of the yoof are incapable of one or both.

Quote from: Wisithir on April 14, 2023, 08:29:40 PM
Complex is not the same as complicated. Moreover, it seem natural to assume system consistency, so if it takes a substantial amount of time to build a character, how long would one expect resolving an action to take? Thus, if the former is was not enjoyable, the latter will be assume to not be enjoyable.

And herein the HERO issue arises. Yes, it is complex to build a character, but not complicated as everything is extremely consistent All powers follow the same rules, the same math, etc. However, the game system itself is almost instantaneous to run. I mean that. 3D6 under a target number for pretty much everything, rolling damage, be it physical, mental, whatever, is exactly the same every time. So really, you spend 95% of the investment in the system to make your character, and playing the game is fassssssst. Like insanely fast. HERO is one of those games that looks ridiculous, but really is excellent in every way EXCEPT for the fact that there are so many fucking options the average gamer is just dissuaded from ever even attempting to play it. GURPS is like this to some degree. So then you get a system like Savage Worlds which does about 90% of what HERO can do, in about 1/10th the time. But sometimes you feel like something is lacking. If you're going to "build" a character, don't you want every conceivable option available? Is that 10% worth 10X the work?

Sometimes, yes. The 10% IS sometimes worth the effort, in many things. Excellence is often spending a ton of time on polish...what seems like drudgery means quality. The layout of some books, for instance. Layout is annoying and boring and lame and frustrating, but it MATTERS. You can be the best writer in the world, but with a poor layout no one will read your stuff. So that 10% that takes longer than writing the books matters. But if you're playing pickup basketball, it doesn't. You don't need the fancy jerseys and marketing of the NBA to have fun. Who is the audience?

D&D allows shortcuts. The OSR is complex enough to be interesting, and simple enough to be accessible. Sometimes you need that complex stuff, like when you're a college student with copious amounts of free time and you spend literally days mapping out dungeons and world maps and campaigns and whatever else. And sometimes you have kids and a wife and a job and get a 4 hour window during the week to play, so you say fuck all that garbage we need to start playing now and get on with the show. D&D and OSR games allow you to do that. But sometimes you still want to make HERO characters.

I don't think there's a real answer to this, honestly.

When it comes to hard build easy run games for new players, I believe the answer is customized pregens with a disconnected introductory adventure. New to system players give the GM or veteran helper a character concept and get handed a mostly built character. Over the course of the introductory adventure the builds are expert fine tuned while the player is learning how to run the character.  Then, in game time moves forward, the build is finalized, and the real adventure begins. The vehicular analogue is that one does not need to know of to rebuild an engine, and could get ways with not knowing how to change a tire, to go drive said car and cruise with friends. Nor would anyone teach someone to drive by starting with preforming an oil change.

Quote from: cavalier973 on April 14, 2023, 07:47:14 AM
Also, people who complain about THAC0 because subtraction is *hard*.

People complain about THAC0 because it's convoluted, counterintuitive nonsense that's complicated for the sake of being complicated without adding anything else to the game.

But you keep beating on that strawman, while simultaneously praising older editions of D&D, cuz newer editions are too hard.

Greetings!

Do people still defend THHACO? I started with the game back in the day, and played for years. I still love AD&D.

However, AD&D and OD&D or whatever, aren't perfect. Ascending AC, I would think, would be seen as obviously superior. Clearer, more intuitive, and easier. Fucking math doesn't have fuck to do with it. Just working with positive, ascending numbers is easier and more intuitive. Why the fuck would anyone want to desperately cling to more awkward, convoluted systems and mechanics when the game has clearly made progress in a number of areas? I love Gygax, but having said that, again, in some areas, with some mechanics, there are better ways to do things, and clearer ways to explain them.

I like ascending AC, updated weapon damages, getting rid of awkward weapon-speed rules, and also a clear and flexible Race and separate Class system. Fuck "Race as Class." As mentioned, there have been clear improvements in mechanics, systems, presentation, explanation, and layout. That's just the way it is.

And I love AD&D, and the OSR, but geesus. Defending or championing the OSR and AD&D doesn't mean the old systems are perfect, or cannot be improved. Newer editions HAVE introduced some improvements in all the areas I mentioned. That should be celebrated, not vilified or disparaged. And I'm also all in favour of re-embracing "Old School" gaming and games, such as the case may be. Doing so doesn't mean that we have to slavishly or blindly embrace every particular rule, system, or mechanic.

Some of these arguments seem obtuse and pointless to me, really. It reminds me of someone proclaiming "But, we should use the 1875 Lever Action Rifle!"

These people need to get out and touch grass. Realize that we have access to AR-15's in 2023.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 15, 2023, 12:11:48 AM
Greetings!

Do people still defend THHACO? I started with the game back in the day, and played for years. I still love AD&D.

However, AD&D and OD&D or whatever, aren't perfect. Ascending AC, I would think, would be seen as obviously superior. Clearer, more intuitive, and easier. Fucking math doesn't have fuck to do with it. Just working with positive, ascending numbers is easier and more intuitive. Why the fuck would anyone want to desperately cling to more awkward, convoluted systems and mechanics when the game has clearly made progress in a number of areas? I love Gygax, but having said that, again, in some areas, with some mechanics, there are better ways to do things, and clearer ways to explain them.

I like ascending AC, updated weapon damages, getting rid of awkward weapon-speed rules, and also a clear and flexible Race and separate Class system. Fuck "Race as Class." As mentioned, there have been clear improvements in mechanics, systems, presentation, explanation, and layout. That's just the way it is.

And I love AD&D, and the OSR, but geesus. Defending or championing the OSR and AD&D doesn't mean the old systems are perfect, or cannot be improved. Newer editions HAVE introduced some improvements in all the areas I mentioned. That should be celebrated, not vilified or disparaged. And I'm also all in favour of re-embracing "Old School" gaming and games, such as the case may be. Doing so doesn't mean that we have to slavishly or blindly embrace every particular rule, system, or mechanic.

Some of these arguments seem obtuse and pointless to me, really. It reminds me of someone proclaiming "But, we should use the 1875 Lever Action Rifle!"

These people need to get out and touch grass. Realize that we have access to AR-15's in 2023.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Speaking strictly in terms of mechanics, 2014 5e is a better designed game than AD&D. I just don't like the play style 5e is designed to facilitate as much, and it has steadily evolved in the opposite direction of the play style I prefer.

Quote from: Festus on April 15, 2023, 01:27:55 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 15, 2023, 12:11:48 AM
Greetings!

Do people still defend THHACO? I started with the game back in the day, and played for years. I still love AD&D.

However, AD&D and OD&D or whatever, aren't perfect. Ascending AC, I would think, would be seen as obviously superior. Clearer, more intuitive, and easier. Fucking math doesn't have fuck to do with it. Just working with positive, ascending numbers is easier and more intuitive. Why the fuck would anyone want to desperately cling to more awkward, convoluted systems and mechanics when the game has clearly made progress in a number of areas? I love Gygax, but having said that, again, in some areas, with some mechanics, there are better ways to do things, and clearer ways to explain them.

I like ascending AC, updated weapon damages, getting rid of awkward weapon-speed rules, and also a clear and flexible Race and separate Class system. Fuck "Race as Class." As mentioned, there have been clear improvements in mechanics, systems, presentation, explanation, and layout. That's just the way it is.

And I love AD&D, and the OSR, but geesus. Defending or championing the OSR and AD&D doesn't mean the old systems are perfect, or cannot be improved. Newer editions HAVE introduced some improvements in all the areas I mentioned. That should be celebrated, not vilified or disparaged. And I'm also all in favour of re-embracing "Old School" gaming and games, such as the case may be. Doing so doesn't mean that we have to slavishly or blindly embrace every particular rule, system, or mechanic.

Some of these arguments seem obtuse and pointless to me, really. It reminds me of someone proclaiming "But, we should use the 1875 Lever Action Rifle!"

These people need to get out and touch grass. Realize that we have access to AR-15's in 2023.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Speaking strictly in terms of mechanics, 2014 5e is a better designed game than AD&D. I just don't like the play style 5e is designed to facilitate as much, and it has steadily evolved in the opposite direction of the play style I prefer.

Doesn't mean one can't (and many have) backport the mechanics into a game with the play style you prefer.

I'm into the 3rd year of an AD&D2e campaign (as a player), I still think the OSR did good by using AAC, a single ST like in White Box FMAG and other mechanics, our own Erick Diaz made a feats thingy for the OSR, using advantage and disadvantage isn't hard to implement either.

BTW Eric, when are you doing a modern-ish feats for the OSR?

I agree with getting rid of race as class.

Quote from: SHARK on April 15, 2023, 12:11:48 AM
Greetings!

Do people still defend THHACO? I started with the game back in the day, and played for years. I still love AD&D.

However, AD&D and OD&D or whatever, aren't perfect. Ascending AC, I would think, would be seen as obviously superior. Clearer, more intuitive, and easier. Fucking math doesn't have fuck to do with it. Just working with positive, ascending numbers is easier and more intuitive. Why the fuck would anyone want to desperately cling to more awkward, convoluted systems and mechanics when the game has clearly made progress in a number of areas? I love Gygax, but having said that, again, in some areas, with some mechanics, there are better ways to do things, and clearer ways to explain them.

I like ascending AC, updated weapon damages, getting rid of awkward weapon-speed rules, and also a clear and flexible Race and separate Class system. Fuck "Race as Class." As mentioned, there have been clear improvements in mechanics, systems, presentation, explanation, and layout. That's just the way it is.

And I love AD&D, and the OSR, but geesus. Defending or championing the OSR and AD&D doesn't mean the old systems are perfect, or cannot be improved. Newer editions HAVE introduced some improvements in all the areas I mentioned. That should be celebrated, not vilified or disparaged. And I'm also all in favour of re-embracing "Old School" gaming and games, such as the case may be. Doing so doesn't mean that we have to slavishly or blindly embrace every particular rule, system, or mechanic.

Some of these arguments seem obtuse and pointless to me, really. It reminds me of someone proclaiming "But, we should use the 1875 Lever Action Rifle!"

These people need to get out and touch grass. Realize that we have access to AR-15's in 2023.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, you're usually right on with your comments, but not this time.  Most of that stuff is purely subjective.  You don't like race as class; others do.  There's no objective standard to say one is better than the other.  One could just as well say that classes are yesterday's design and skill based is the new hotness.  That's my view, but it's just what I like, not something provably better.  "Rising AC is more intuitive."  To you, buddy, and admittedly to a fair number of others as well.  Not to me - to me it makes no difference at all.  I'm reminded of the Europeans who tell us we should switch to metric because it's easier.  It's only easier to learn in the first place.  For everyday use it makes no difference at all. 

I've only every found one objective rule for game complexity:  if there are two ways to do exactly the same things, the better one is the one that involves less work.