Tattered Page

While I was off pretending to know something about that mythological thing called “reality,” Psychochild started a decent debate on complexity as it relates to games… a lot of good points all around- in the article and in the comments. Psychochild advocates against oversimplification, while others point out that the broader market can’t grasp games as complex as Monopoly or program a VCR… or that those of us with less gaming time prefer less complex games.

As a kid, I sought the most complex games under the assumption that the more complex, the more challenging; the more challenging, the better the game. Certainly, a game as simple as tic-tac-toe is rather unchallenging. We move on to Connect Four until it too becomes predictable. We see Chess as a more complex advancement from Checkers. Axis & Allies can be seen a more complex version of Risk.

At each stage, the increased complexity brought more of a challenge, gave us another variable to plan against, and kept us on our toes.

Taking it to the Extreme

I never leave “good enough” alone. At one point, a group I frequented took the classic Axis & Allies board game and replaced the combat resolution with rules akin to Squad Leader. (I think it WAS squad leader for the ground, but I can’t remember the naval rules.)

If you know anything about those games… well, I’ll pause here so you can wipe the tears away. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Needless to say, we quit before the Japanese even got their first turn. I’m amazed Great Britain got a turn. Funny thing is- we never really lost our enthusiasm for the idea. We had fun at each sitting, we joked about it. It was fun… but it was shelved.

I think I have the binder somewhere on the same shelf with a Starfleet Battles Homebrew campaign that stalled somewhere in year 33…

What went wrong?

Why’d they get shelved to go back to a classic, non-modded game like Diplomacy?

Well, logistics were a problem- but getting everyone together at the same time has always been a challenge for any gaming group. It usually doesn’t kill a campaign.

No, what killed it was the breadth of scope. While everyone participated in every battle- the U.S. player took over some Russian troops in the defense of Karelia, for example… but the US player was anticipating what he’d do in his own turn. That was one heck of a long wait. It wasn’t long after Germany’s turn was over before the German player was planning his next round’s battles- even though his next turn was likely 3 months away.

That’s a lot of waiting.

A strategic game focuses on the long-term and abstracts out the individual battles into a few die rolls to keep the “pace” of the game alive. A tactical game where you may control a few dozen units takes that detail a few levels deeper, but usually stops before you get into the second-by-second game play you may encounter in a roleplaying game like GURPS. (If we’d have scaled down that far, we’d still be fighting for Karelia over a decade later).

The players who were planning strategically in our game- who were seeking the FUN of strategic challenge- weren’t seeing their efforts played out in a timely manner. They got tired of waiting for the payoff. Tired enough to seek payoff elsewhere- even though they enjoyed the daily tactical battles.

The complexity got in the way.

The many facets of gameplay- the strategic planning, the tactical planning, the unit management, the setting-up-the-table-before-every-game… they all affected the pacing of different parts of the game. If one facet that I’m anticipating is delayed, it doesn’t matter how awesome the others are- I’m still stuck waiting.

The simpler games, like basic Axis & Allies, a collectible card game, Diplomacy or Risk were easy enough to experience dozens of them in the time we spent on our campaign, but complex enough that none of us “mastered” the game right away (Australia FTW!) They also offered a tighter package- my “planning” and my “goal” were available in one sitting, and all of us were focused on the same goal, defined in the game.

Computer Gaming

I’ve used cheat guides in “puzzle” games. It (usually) isn’t because the puzzle was too hard or uninteresting, but because it took second seat to the engaging story- and it was blocking my way to the next “chapter” of that tale. Similarly, I’ve resorted to “godmode” cheats to beat a boss just because I really wanted to keep the story going.

Now, in games with a less compelling story, I probably wouldn’t have thought twice at spending 6-8 hours repeating the battles or running around the map. My focus on the story, though, made these obstacles rather than challenges.

Similarly, while I like the idea that a character shouldn’t be able to carry seven different suits of armor and an entire arsenal of weapons, that level of detail can take away from other elements of play that I find more appealing- like story or character development or combat itself. If I have to delay the next chapter in the story to shuffle through my backpack one more time, I’m not going to be happy.

It isn’t just story, though. If I’m focused on the battle play, even a relatively short “cutscene” takes me away from what I like to do. Under a minute, I might tolerate, but some of these epic-length scenes frustrate the heck out of me.

What this Means to the Game Designer

Part of a game designer’s task is identifying which game elements support one another, which impede on one another, and which can exist as equally-valid alternate paths. Make sure that every factor you include is necessary and contributed to the experience.

Never make a game complex for complexity’s sake, but if the complexity contributes to the game package, don’t shy away from it.

Finally, when you start to think, like I did, that “complexity means a better game” remind yourself that neither Chess nor Go are incredibly complex, but mastery is almost impossible.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 18th, 2006 at 6:26 pm and is filed under Gaming. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.