Thread: Re: game complexity OT - was Re: M256 Smoothbore / Rheinmetall 120mm

It's always going to be a fine balancing line. As a Ref, I love complexity
when it can be used to spruce things up but don't use it always. PMCS
rules, for example are a perfect example. Vitally important in real life
but sort of tedious in real life and the TNE rules captured that perfectly.
A good GM uses that to budget the time though and uses it in the abstract
except when it's necessary.

I had some gnarly complicated lightsaber construction rules in my SWRPG.
It makes sense there since a lightsaber is a very important subject for a
Jedi and they're not very frequently used. Han Solo just wants it to work.
Player Jedi Apprentices loved selecting different emitters for different
bonuses (wider blades better at parrying vs spiked ones a Sith could jab
into a Jedi's throat, etc). For my TNE house rules, I have similarly
complex rules for Jump, especially coordination, and Refueling (based on
Supp 5). Don't ALWAYS use them but always CAN.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Tim O'Reilly <> wrote:

>
> regarding game complexity I agree there has to be a limit at some
> point...finding that well ...
> I recall a PC game I bought some years back that went full tilt for the
> complexity ... it was named B17 and each position had its own player and to
> get the B17 started was about as complex as it was in reality i.e. you
> needed three hands to start an engine etc. basically it had reached the
> point where, while I liked the genre it was too complex for me to play
>
> Regards
> Tim
>
> *From:* "" <>
> *To:*
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:42 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: M256 Smoothbore / Rheinmetall 120mm
> L/44
>
>
> See, and people say that only GDW makes mistakes.
>
> But here is a larger issue. Anything like FF&S that attempts to do what it
> does is going to be inevitably so complex that it will result in a large
> number of honest errors just like the one you found. There is no getting
> around it. And the reason it does that is because it is so complex, and
> the reason it is so complex is that is what the players say they want. As
> you've seen in the past day, there have been suggestions that we should
> have added details on the wheels in the tracked suspension, or more detail
> to allow the different type rounds to mass different amounts. Okay, but
> remember that each and every one of those additional layers of detail is
> another place where players will inevitably make honest mistakes.
>
> From a design standpoint, I will tell you that GDW was stupid to put out a
> system like FF&S because it is inescapably prone to error due to its
> complexity. Design 101, you don't put out a system that people will
> inevitably make significant errors in. Bad design. But that is what our
> players said and still say they want. In fact, they keep saying they want
> it to be made more detailed. So we made the effort to give the players
> what they say they want. So we're both in this together. Good designers
> would never have given you FF&S, it's just a Bad Idea. But if you really
> want it, here it is, limited by all of iron laws of Mass of Complex
> Concepts divided by Design Time Available.
>
> So when you get down to it, we're right back to, "only GDW makes
> mistakes," by agreeing to put the thing out.
>
> > Forgot to say, your design is correct except for the ammo where you
> appear
> > to have forgotten to calculate for the propellant. APFSDSDU/HEAP mass
> > correctly calculated is 39.24kg
> >
> > --- In <>,
> Master Uxi <master.uxi@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Redesigned this as part of the CPR sequence for doing the M1 Abrams
> >> series
> >> of MBT
> >>
> >> Some thoughts that have occurred to me over the years (and this time in
> >> particular):
> >>
> >> Ammo is pretty far off and should probably be more detailed. Rather
> >> simple
> >> assumption, regardless of type. The table should adjust for materials
> >> and
> >> intent, as well as just TL. For example, 120mm ammunition if I'm
> >> reading
> >> right is 30kg regardless if it's APFSDS, AFSDSDU, HEAT (HEAP, etc).
> >> Real
> >> Life� ... or even Wikipedia. much less my FM-17-12 (aka 3-20) tells us
> >> the
> >> M829 sabot variants ranged from 18.6 to 22.3kg depending on the
> >> propellant
> >> and density of the DU penetrator as well as details like metal vs carbon
> >> fiber sabots, etc.
> >>
>
>
>
>
>

> regarding game complexity I agree there has to be a limit at some
> point...finding that well ...
> I recall a PC game I bought some years back that went full tilt for the
> complexity ... it was named B17 and each position had its own player and
> to get the B17 started was about as complex as it was in reality i.e. you
> needed three hands to start an engine etc.  basically it had reached the
> point where, while I liked the genre it was too complex for me to play
>  
> Regards
> Tim

Yeah, finding the balance is tricky when you have a production schedule to
maintain to pay the bills. That's why I don't blame Marc for letting T5
gestate this long.

However, Traveller had already established its personality as always
wanting to add one more complex thing, so in a certain sense we were just
along for the ride.

> It's always going to be a fine balancing line. As a Ref, I love
> complexity
> when it can be used to spruce things up but don't use it always. PMCS
> rules, for example are a perfect example. Vitally important in real life
> but sort of tedious in real life and the TNE rules captured that
> perfectly.
> A good GM uses that to budget the time though and uses it in the abstract
> except when it's necessary.

Yeah. Personally I know I always leaned toward wanting to provide more
information to the players because

1. So many of them wanted it,
2. It was fun and interesting to try to work it all out, and
3. As I've said, Traveller had already established that personality for
itself, which probably is exactly why I wound up in that job, because it
made sense to me, and also to Frank who was already there and had helped
establish that personality to begin with.

Then there was also the desire to expand the Traveller design rules from
the Generic SFRPG perspective, to try to capture things from other games,
novels, or movies, so that you could play "any universe."

Yikes, that's a lot of work, and a lot of detail, and not much time for
development.

We did what made sense to us at the time, as a good faith effort, and I
can still sleep at night and look myself in the mirror. In the words of
Soul Asylum, "I did the best that I could do, with all the mess that I'd
been through, what did you expect me to do? I did my best for you."

And I'm still glad to have had the chance to try.

> I had some gnarly complicated lightsaber construction rules in my SWRPG.
> It makes sense there since a lightsaber is a very important subject for a
> Jedi and they're not very frequently used. Han Solo just wants it to
> work.
> Player Jedi Apprentices loved selecting different emitters for different
> bonuses (wider blades better at parrying vs spiked ones a Sith could jab
> into a Jedi's throat, etc). For my TNE house rules, I have similarly
> complex rules for Jump, especially coordination, and Refueling (based on
> Supp 5). Don't ALWAYS use them but always CAN.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Tim O'Reilly <> wrote:
>
>>
>> regarding game complexity I agree there has to be a limit at some
>> point...finding that well ...
>> I recall a PC game I bought some years back that went full tilt for the
>> complexity ... it was named B17 and each position had its own player and
>> to
>> get the B17 started was about as complex as it was in reality i.e. you
>> needed three hands to start an engine etc. basically it had reached the
>> point where, while I liked the genre it was too complex for me to play
>>
>> Regards
>> Tim