| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, for me, pathfinder is to complex. Not so much at early levels, but by about level 6 it is really starting to become 'not fun'.
I'd much rather play games like FATE, Storyteller, Call of Cthulhu or WFRP.
Less maths more fun.
I haven't played a game that was too "complex" for me yet, but I've certainly seen the opposite.
I like games that have enough crunch to set quasi-realistic limitations on what I can or can't do in a given span of time. You can attempt to do anything, but PF has explicit rules about how long certain actions take and how difficult they will be.
On the other side of the spectrum, a homebrew system a friend of mine created just had "actions", no standard, move, swift, free, etc. The number of actions you had in a round was based on stats, not global for each character, and some more intuitive players could easily chunk things into a single action because all actions were considered equal. It was very easy to break without an easy way to counterbalance.
And, to you, at what point does depth cross the line into miserly scrupulousness?
Different games offer different levels of complexity to cater for different crowds, so the answer is always: "depends on who you ask".
Ideally, deeper levels of complexity allow for a more accurate and/or granular representation of reality (even if it's an "artificial" or "constructed" reality, such as magic or psionics).
For me, the line of "too complex" lies where deeper levels of complexity no longer add to the reality that the system is trying to represent in significant ways.
This directly ties to the focus of a game. For me, completely generic systems often fall into the "not complex enough" category when it does not suitably simulate the elements my game needs to focus on, and in the "too "complex" when it tries to detail everything in order to cover the most genres and foci.
A well designed game allows for the most granularity and options around the themes that the game focuses on, with the least amount of complexity as possible. Completeness does not equal complexity, and complexity does not equal completeness.
IMO, Pathfinder stands among the most complex ones on the market and too be frank, it's starting to be a bit to much for me. It's nothing I cannot handle, but handling it quickly becomes more of a chore than fun.
I don't think I've run into one for my tastes.
The game systems I've enjoyed in the last 20 years:
HERO
GURPS
Dangerous Journeys/Mythus
Rolemaster
D&D 3rd
Pathfinder.
I even spent time and played a merged Rolemaster/Mythus game.
But I have never played Aftermath - but hearing about it, I think that would be too much.
I like a mix. My main games are Pathfinder and World of Darkness. Pathfinder is by far the crunchier game, but I prefer it for the combat (some people may start laughing at this next comment) because it's easier to balance and harder to break. As suspected, I'm hearing some sniggers. Let me just point out that without completely turning one of my characters in World of Darkness into a one trick pony (I was actually playing the skill monkey), I was able to get his dice pool for firing his gun up to over 30d10, and he rolled 9s again as well as 10s. Which meant I could conceivably one-shot most creatures with little effort. I also like Pathfinder for the fact that it lets me play classic and modern fantasy archetypes without having to do too much work on my own to build classes etc.
World of Darkness on the other hand I like for more intense, personal story telling. It lends itself well to subtle, atmospheric games (until people start getting silly, see my shenanigans mentioned above), and works well with horror.
I also enjoy Shadowrun, again quite crunchy. GURPS I feel goes too far in the crunch direction, in that the rules themselves are pretty simple (you're pretty much always rolling 3d6 and trying to get under your stat for whatever you're doing), but there's just too many damn options. I've seen so many games break down into players spending more time trying to customise their characters than actually playing.
On the other end of the spectrum I like games like Fate Core (very rules light) and Fate Accelerated (even more rules light than Core), and am currently writing a Welcome to Night Vale game using it. I also love Hollowpoint, a very fast paced, rules light cinematic game designed to emulate ultraviolent action/crime movies/comics/novels/whatever.
So, to answer the question (and to mirror some other responses), it all really comes down to who you're talking to. Some people like one end of the spectrum, some like the other, and some of us like pretty much anything. Except FATAL. No one likes that.
|
So, to answer the question (and to mirror some other responses), it all really comes down to who you're talking to. Some people like one end of the spectrum, some like the other, and some of us like pretty much anything. Except FATAL. No one likes that.
I have the feeling that if people like Terquem who state things like "no game is too complex" ever tried FATAL, they would change their minds. Even if you strip away all the misogyny, sexism, racism, and just plain bad taste and reduced it to a "fluff"-free purely mechanical system, it would still be utterly horrific based solely on the ridiculously and needlessly complex system. Hell, I challenge anyone just to make it all the way through the character creation process.
I refuse to believe it was meant as a true product...I think it was simply one of the most brilliant and successful instances of trolling ever in the RPG community.
Honestly, for me, pathfinder is to complex. Not so much at early levels, but by about level 6 it is really starting to become 'not fun'.
I'd much rather play games like FATE, Storyteller, Call of Cthulhu or WFRP.
Less maths more fun.
Yep, I agree.
Pf tries to give too much to go up and above the competition, and thus it becomes cluttered and an absolute mess as the levels go on.
I would say the rot really sets in at 8-9, not 6 though.
Also, is your name a reference to the old game zombies ate my neighbours?
I'd say maybe twice as complex as pathfinder would be too complex. Right now it is a bit simplified in many respects.
As most people have stated, PF is a good middle point for complexity. In many ways, complexity can be added (Words of Power, piecemeal armor, books beyond the CRB), but the core book does a pretty good job of having a safe baseline complexity.
I'm not sure how this next game will fit in, but Mutants and Masterminds 3e was one of those games that took me a while to wrap my head around. Not so much how to make checks or what each skill/power/advantage is used for, but how to balance a character with effective powers and reasonable defenses. All told, though, once it all clicked, it makes me think that many of the other d20 games are a bit on the complex side.
Honestly, for me, pathfinder is to complex. Not so much at early levels, but by about level 6 it is really starting to become 'not fun'.
I'd much rather play games like FATE, Storyteller, Call of Cthulhu or WFRP.
Less maths more fun.
Yep, I agree.
Pf tries to give too much to go up and above the competition, and thus it becomes cluttered and an absolute mess as the levels go on.
I would say the rot really sets in at 8-9, not 6 though.
Also, is your name a reference to the old game zombies ate my neighbours?
Nope. Long boring and depressing story behind it, not worth getting into
So, to answer the question (and to mirror some other responses), it all really comes down to who you're talking to. Some people like one end of the spectrum, some like the other, and some of us like pretty much anything. Except FATAL. No one likes that.I have the feeling that if people like Terquem who state things like "no game is too complex" ever tried FATAL, they would change their minds. Even if you strip away all the misogyny, sexism, racism, and just plain bad taste and reduced it to a "fluff"-free purely mechanical system, it would still be utterly horrific based solely on the ridiculously and needlessly complex system. Hell, I challenge anyone just to make it all the way through the character creation process.
I refuse to believe it was meant as a true product...I think it was simply one of the most brilliant and successful instances of trolling ever in the RPG community.
I don't know... I mean yeah, I could see it being a troll situation. But if so, that guy kept it up for a lot longer than I'd normally expect a troll's attention span to last.
I guess we'll never know for sure though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, for me, pathfinder is to complex. Not so much at early levels, but by about level 6 it is really starting to become 'not fun'.
I'd much rather play games like FATE, Storyteller, Call of Cthulhu or WFRP.
Less maths more fun.
Yep, I agree.
Pf tries to give too much to go up and above the competition, and thus it becomes cluttered and an absolute mess as the levels go on.
I would say the rot really sets in at 8-9, not 6 though.
Also, is your name a reference to the old game zombies ate my neighbours?
This is how I feel also...I could bear it up until 11th or 12th level but I just start losing my desire to play after 10th level. I usually see people who say they haven't found a game too complex to be people that have a ton of free time. Usually a married, have a couple kids in various activities, can barely get an hour straight of reading time-type of person wants something a bit less cluttered with rules so they can just enjoy it...whereas I typically see single people, married with no kids, or students liking the heavier rulesets.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is playing complex and DMing complex.
Pathfinder is fine as a player. Even at high levels, with a few notecards even the most complex class isn't that hard to play once you understand the rules and if you are paying attention.
GMing at that level...that is where the problems start to come in. You are running multiple enemies, each with lots of powers, often unique powers, that you need to understand and run effectively, all while adjudicating everyone else and making sure they are running things properly.
At this point, after about level 12 or so you need good players to GM with you to make it work. If you have anyone in your group who is shady or dishonest, it can fall apart quickly.
And many players seem to be tempted in that direction. No one I still play with...but the temptation is out there.
I think if everyone at the table is there to play a fair game, it can work at this level of complexity, with a lot of GM prep required at higher levels. Far more prep time than play time, which is an investment that is hard for GM's to make.
But it has reached a level of complexity that I wouldn't want to have to deal with strangers at a table.
|
|
Complexity for its own sake seems a bit pointless. I'm with Fakey on this - mastering a complex system is fine for those who don't have other significant commitments, but it just gets in the way for me. PF is really too complex for me - I play because my online buddies on PbPs like it, but I much prefer 4e (and this isn't intended to be a "PF sucks" "No! 4e sucks" sort of comment, it's just my preference and I use it as an illustration) as it is more user-friendly (and even 4e begins to get a bit unwieldy at higher levels). Plus complexity doesn't necessarily equate with flexibility - having a rule for every situation v having a framework you can apply seems to me the wrong way to go, introduces complexity by default and doesn't really make the game any more playable. But I also understand that some people enjoy complexity for its own sake - it's a matter of taste. And the basic PF game in the Core Rulebook is fairly manageable.
Pathfinder is a toolbox, but that doesn't mean every tool in the chest needs to be used. As a player you can control exactly how much crunch you need for your characters. As a GM, you have even more control in deciding how much of the games modules you can plug in.
There's no law that says you HAVE to use all or any of the Ultimate Books, the game was just fine without the Mythic additions. Use what you need or want to use and simply ignore the rest.
Agreed, but I was talking about PF being too complex without any supplements...
But d20 is beautiful that way; you can remove subsystems by the spoonful without affecting the game as a whole, and easily add patches where you see fit (i.e. houserules).
But I'll give credits where credits are due; Pathfinder did simplify some aspects of the core engine from 3.5, but players and DMs are still drowning in a sea of options (even by "core only" definition), not all of them contributing equally to the quality/enjoyment of the game. This unevenness invites game mastery; and while I don't deny that this is one of the game's attraction for many, it does add to the complexity of the game.
As I grow older, I find that I have have less interest in game mastery and more interest in games finding simple and clever mechanics to represent complicated aspects of life/combat simulation.
|
|
There is playing complex and DMing complex.
Pathfinder is fine as a player. Even at high levels, with a few notecards even the most complex class isn't that hard to play once you understand the rules and if you are paying attention.
GMing at that level...that is where the problems start to come in. You are running multiple enemies, each with lots of powers, often unique powers, that you need to understand and run effectively, all while adjudicating everyone else and making sure they are running things properly.
At this point, after about level 12 or so you need good players to GM with you to make it work. If you have anyone in your group who is shady or dishonest, it can fall apart quickly.
And many players seem to be tempted in that direction. No one I still play with...but the temptation is out there.
I think if everyone at the table is there to play a fair game, it can work at this level of complexity, with a lot of GM prep required at higher levels. Far more prep time than play time, which is an investment that is hard for GM's to make.
But it has reached a level of complexity that I wouldn't want to have to deal with strangers at a table.
I understand what you are saying about GMing being really complicated but I think even playing after level 12 is complex. Levels 1-6 your party can clear most of a dungeon(14 or so rooms) in a 4hour session. Levels 7-10 you can maybe clear half a dungeon if you are all decent players and GMs. Levels 10-15 you may get 3 encounters a session if you are lucky....I have seen some encounters at 15+ that lasted for a couple of sessions by themselves.
The game slow down tremendously at higher levels and that is part of an innate complexity that grows as options get more varied and plentiful at higher levels. Even good players running through a fairly easy full-attack have a boatload of feats, temporary modifiers to add, any debilitating effects, etc to factor in. Their turn has gone from a 60 second roll attack and damage to 4-5 times that amount.If you can master the complexity then it is easier but that doesn't mean it isn't complex, only that someone who has the extra time needed can master the complexity a bit better.
|
|
@Fake Healer - Oh it is absolutely a different game at high levels that moves at a snails pace. It took us months to complete the last area of RoTRL and the final battle was itself more or less an entire session.
You make an excellent point.
I had the same issue with ROTRLs...The last level of the tower was took 8 or 9 sessions. Unfortunately I am back at 14th level in Second Darkness doing the "good God, can we advance the story any frickin' slower"-grind until the end. At least I am always happy when a Path is over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious. Are there, in your opinion, systems that are simply too complicated for their own good, or outright complex simply to be complex? Either in terms of combat, leveling up, or any other aspect.
And, to you, at what point does depth cross the line into miserly scrupulousness?
I ask this, being rather generally unfamiliar with any systems outside of Pathfinder.
I don't enjoy playing complex games. I wouldn't phrase it as 'too complex' though - they're just not my thing.
For me, the ideally complex game can have it's rules encapsulated on a DM screen (I don't mean all the spells, monsters, items and so forth - just the mechanical 'how do you do stuff' rules). Anything more than that gives up too much ease for the added nuance as far as my tastes are concerned.
|
I find it difficult to GM systems without a "Challenge Rating" mechanic. Though the CR system is hardly perfect, as a rule of thumb it is absolutely brilliant for GMing on the fly.
I think there's quite a few systems out there that focus to heavily on player options, but don't really think about the GM's side of the table. Pathfinder has a lot of moving parts, but ultimately the complexity of an encounter boils down to the Challenge Rating tables.
I try to favour simplicity wherever possible if only to keep games moving. I don't mind a bit of complexity (since I do enjoy Pathfinder and 3.5 before it), but I think every RPG worth its salt needs to have more than just general advice for GMing and really elaborate on encounter building, scene building or what-have you. Those are the building blocks of a game and a lot of RPGs don't really offer enough advice to GMs on that aspect of their job.
While I love it, I think Ars Magica 5e is too complicated, even if it is an improvement over previous editions.
Mostly I find it inefficient and/or putting too much focus on nigh-unimportant things.
As for Pathfinder, I don't find it complicated in general, but as a DM I really dislike the way it handles monsters and non-player stuff in general (though this problem was inherited from 3e/3.5), which I find tremendously inefficient. I have more and more reverted to a much more AD&D-like way of designing creatures, focusing only on the truly important aspects and using generic baselines for everything else.
In that way, the NPC Codex has been a blessing. But still I think there is too much, even though I understand why it's there.
Thought of a few answers to the question in the form of further questions. We begin:
Can you make a character in half an hour or less?
Is levelling a painful chore? If so, when is it a painful chore?
Will you ever use all of your abilities and options?
Is it impossible to get/grasp most of the rules in two sessions of play, with only a bit of supplementary reading between the games?
The truth is in the pudding, if it reveals itself to be a complex baked good.
What game are you talking about?
Took Immortal Greed's post to be a general questionnaire for PF. Should have read more uptread. deleting post now...
I'm curious. Are there, in your opinion, systems that are simply too complicated for their own good, or outright complex simply to be complex? Either in terms of combat, leveling up, or any other aspect.
And, to you, at what point does depth cross the line into miserly scrupulousness?
For us, there could be. As far as my group and I are concerned, 3.x/d20 is the sweet spot.
- Anything more complex than 3.x is too complex.- Anything more simple than 3.x is too simple.
Lincoln, Shadowrun is on its fifth edition dude.
Lincoln, Shadowrun is on its fifth edition dude.
(You mean the other lincoln I'm sure but)
Nah, I'm pretty sure there's a reason both Lincolns prefer SR3.
SR4 and 5 made a bunch of changes, and in the process threw out some of the greatest dice pool mechanics of all time.
They look like fine games in their own right, but if I have to pick a Shadowrun version, I pick SR3, warts and all.
The base time skill mechanic was just so versatile. It works especially well for modern, sci-fi, and heist-movie type plots where time is highly relevant and not everything fits nicely into combat rounds.
It had a bunch of problems (subsystem creep, definitely) but the core was very solid. You can really just ignore any subsystems you don't like in favor of a GM-extrapolated skill roll.
It's like driving: everyone driving faster than I am is too fast, and everyone driving slower than I am is too slow. :)
My ideal speed is pretty close to 4e, with 3.x being a bit too complex. And I include PF is the 3.x category.
Earlier editions are simpler in some ways, but more (and needlessly) complex in other ways. (See: A different subsystem for every event!)
Other games span the gamut from super-simple to super-complex, though I haven't played many of them. Those I have played have been roughly comparable to D&D in complexity.
It's like driving: everyone driving faster than I am is too fast, and everyone driving slower than I am is too slow. :)
My ideal speed is pretty close to 4e, with 3.x being a bit too complex. And I include PF is the 3.x category.
Earlier editions are simpler in some ways, but more (and needlessly) complex in other ways. (See: A different subsystem for every event!)
Other games span the gamut from super-simple to super-complex, though I haven't played many of them. Those I have played have been roughly comparable to D&D in complexity.
Been talking to an old dm lately, and we have moved to simpler systems over the more complex. We have an idea, a vision if you will:
AD&D updated with some newer, better mechanics (opposed rolls) but still with the smooth feel of newer simpler games.
It's like driving: everyone driving faster than I am is too fast, and everyone driving slower than I am is too slow. :)
My ideal speed is pretty close to 4e, with 3.x being a bit too complex. And I include PF is the 3.x category.
Earlier editions are simpler in some ways, but more (and needlessly) complex in other ways. (See: A different subsystem for every event!)
Other games span the gamut from super-simple to super-complex, though I haven't played many of them. Those I have played have been roughly comparable to D&D in complexity.
Been talking to an old dm lately, and we have moved to simpler systems over the more complex. We have an idea, a vision if you will:
AD&D updated with some newer, better mechanics (opposed rolls) but still with the smooth feel of newer simpler games.
Sounds a lot like what I hear about Castles & Crusades.
I've been messing around with my own super-simple fantasy heartbreaker, though it's really just a sketch of a game right now. It features a couple of things that D&D has never done before. Namely, 3e style multiclassing that's not broken or mucked up with XP penalties, and static AC and attack. (Damage scales with level instead.)
(I always found it weird that offense and defense in D&D are utterly asymmetrical, at least prior to 2008.)
If want to make offence and defence a choice, what my group tried is tie it to dice and levelling the improvement of the dice rolled over an adventure. This is not at all pf, but a completely different take.
E.g.
The able bodied start on d6 for attack, d4 for defence.
After some accomplishments and a few wins in battle, have a "build point", you could now make your attack d8 and defence remains d4. So you are now moving in the direction of a heavy hitting build with rubbish defence. d8 also means you can insta-kill if an opponent rolls 1 on defence (they miss the parry entirely, you take their head).
Four build points later, attack could be d10 and now defence is d10. This makes a balanced combatant capable of both offense and defence. Want to make your character more of a defensive character, give them a shield and they are now on d10 A, d12 D.
The players can make them asymmetrical, or they can move it around as they desire.
The only game I have gamed that really seems too complex to me is Anima, and have played only a few sessions; maybe with a bit more of play would have find it fun.
Pathfinder is a complex system, but with so many years of 3.0+3.5+PF, we are really familiar with it. I miss some fluff from 2Ed, specially DragonLance and Planescape, but I would not return to that rules. PF are to my group much better.
But surely my favourite rules system is Legend of 5 Rings 4 Edition. I have always liked the basic system of 5 Rings, but 4 Ed has implemented some new rules for actions that really clarify things. I really wish I could play it more.
On the other side, I love the setting of the various Warhammer 40.000 RPG, but really dislike the rules. Too complex on some places, few options on others... I play it, I DM it, and have fun with it in spite of the rules.
I have high hopes for Exalted 3 Ed. Parts of the 2Ed ruleset are great, but the whole was a real mess.
Needed?
Er, this is a HOBBY. Exactly ZERO editions of Shadowrun (or any other RPG) were ever NEEDED.
Yes, thank you Kthulu. I'm sure everyone was very confused and had no idea what was meant.
Yes, thank you Kthulu. I'm sure everyone was very confused and had no idea what was meant.Needed?
Er, this is a HOBBY. Exactly ZERO editions of Shadowrun (or any other RPG) were ever NEEDED.
But think of all those designers and publishers! They need their salary. Think of their kids, their families! You want them all to starve Kthulu? That's what you want, for the children to starve!?!
;)
I thought the RoleMaster combat system was too cumbersome to be enjoyable. Attacker makes a hit roll. Defender makes a defense roll. You do math-- a hit! Roll damage. Then roll on the standard damage table. Then roll for a critical hit. It's a critical hit! Roll on critical hit table 1. One round of combat for four combatants took, like, an hour. (I only ended up playing four sessions of the one RoleMaster campaign I ever joined, back in the early '90s.)
Champions / HERO System is very math-heavy with character creation. It can be rather intimidating to new players. But once you have your character, the actual combat game mechanics are very simple and straightforward.
On the other side of the coin is Amber Diceless Role-Playing (and its newly-released successor, "Lords of Gossamer and Shadow.")There basically aren't any combat mechanics-- if you have a higher relevant score, you win. It's a game that's focused on collective storytelling and bluffing the other players. What gets overly complex in this game is the plot, storyline, and machinations of the other players. While I have enjoyed the two ADRPG games I've played in, they end up getting extremely political-- and I have to deal with office politics at work too much to want to do that in my spare time.
I think that the D&D 3.x/OGL family of games gets a little too niggly in the combat rules, making a battlemat and minis mandatory. Ideally, I would still prefer running combats more abstract like in AD&D 1e or GURPS.
Of course, positioning is a centerpiece of the PFRPG game mechainc, so I use them as-written if I want to run a PF game.
I thought the RoleMaster combat system was too cumbersome to be enjoyable. Attacker makes a hit roll. Defender makes a defense roll. You do math-- a hit! Roll damage. Then roll on the standard damage table. Then roll for a critical hit. It's a critical hit! Roll on critical hit table 1. One round of combat for four combatants took, like, an hour. (I only ended up playing four sessions of the one RoleMaster campaign I ever joined, back in the early '90s.)
Interesting, I must been a plying different "rolemaster". Did you play HARP or MERP?
When I played Rolemaster (1st, 2nd and standard edition) it was:
1) roll for attack,
2) add offensive bonus, and misc bonus (charging, flanking etc)
3) subtract defender's defensive bonus, and misc penalties (cover etc)
4) compare result to chart under defender's armour class to figure damage and critical (if any).
5) If you had a critical, roll for critical on the appropriate chart.
That part isn't complicated, but the constant reference to charts was tiresome (don't forget that every weapon has its own chart!), and tests are required frequently by RaW (Movement Manoeuvre everyone!).
IMO, Rolemaster's complexity is mainly in character's creation and leveling. 3.X D&D inherited most of Rolemaster complexity in its skill system which is a striped down version of Rolemaster's (but with a d20 instead of a open-ended d100). Except that in Rolemaster, there's about 100 skills (not exaggerating). And classes have static bonuses to some skill (so does D&D however). Classes have bonuses too (a few D&D classes have that too). And all skills have different costs based on class (D&D only had 2 costs, 1 point or 1/2 point if crossed class). And the bonus contributed less to your skill after 5 ranks, and even less after 10 ranks. BUT, you could buy more than one rank per level. That would cost you more off course. And skill points are used for EVERYTHING, skills, hit points, attacks, spells, mana points, everything!
Character creation in Rolemaster is a chore, but once that is done, the game runs a lot smoother than its reputation makes it.
In my experience combats were *gasp* quicker in Rolemaster than 3rd ed D&D, but arguably longer than 2ed AD&D.
Combats were very fast in RM - we photo copied all our weapon and spell charts.
Iron Crown just had an open play test for the new edition. ICE openly supports the fan made excel sheet for character creation... That speeds things up a lot.
I hope they talk to Lone Wolf and use their character creator.
If I had my way my group would be playing RM.