A discussion topic . . .
The argument has been made to me that complexity equals depth. Specifically, a character creation process that has more options in terms of stats, abilities, skills, background, and so forth, equals a character who is more fully fleshed out and not as “two-dimensional” as those found in DW, AW, Monsterhearts, and the like.
You can probably guess I disagree with that sentiment, but I’m curious to hear what others think.
Minotaurs in The Clay That Woke are pretty sketchy to start. They get fleshed out through their actions.
Minotaurs in The Clay That Woke are pretty sketchy to start. They get fleshed out through their actions.
Paul Czege It’s funny you chimed-in, because I was actually thinking of the time I played My Life with Master. Those characters were just a handful of numbers and a couple of traits, but they ended up being some of the most lovely and tragic characters I’ve ever run into in an RPG. No one would accuse them of being two-dimensional, that’s for sure.
There is definitely something to be said for what comes out in play.
Paul Czege It’s funny you chimed-in, because I was actually thinking of the time I played My Life with Master. Those characters were just a handful of numbers and a couple of traits, but they ended up being some of the most lovely and tragic characters I’ve ever run into in an RPG. No one would accuse them of being two-dimensional, that’s for sure.
There is definitely something to be said for what comes out in play.
I think it’s a balance. Too complex and you do more character accounting than playing. Too simple and you compress variety.
I think the key is how a player actually role-plays the character. Only the player through role playing can add depth to the character and make it more than stats on a page.
For example, Bron, Jamie Lannister, The Hound and The Red Viper are all a fighter class. But each is vastly different in how they are played. And you don’t need a mechanic to represent that.
I think it’s a balance. Too complex and you do more character accounting than playing. Too simple and you compress variety.
I think the key is how a player actually role-plays the character. Only the player through role playing can add depth to the character and make it more than stats on a page.
For example, Bron, Jamie Lannister, The Hound and The Red Viper are all a fighter class. But each is vastly different in how they are played. And you don’t need a mechanic to represent that.
A lot of stats and abilities add mechanical depth which can be enjoyable or annoying depending on your outlook. Background, race, alignment and character hooks can help you get started and help others get a picture of your character. But if you end up not playing to those features it just gets forgotten or confusing. I like DWs simple character sheet because its fast and gives me the tools i need to play the game, the flavor of the character comes out in play. No one knows you checked a “greedy” or “brave” checkbox unless you play your character that way.
A lot of stats and abilities add mechanical depth which can be enjoyable or annoying depending on your outlook. Background, race, alignment and character hooks can help you get started and help others get a picture of your character. But if you end up not playing to those features it just gets forgotten or confusing. I like DWs simple character sheet because its fast and gives me the tools i need to play the game, the flavor of the character comes out in play. No one knows you checked a “greedy” or “brave” checkbox unless you play your character that way.
Yeah, it’s not about having a quantity of stats/abilities etc, but about having the right ones. In early playtests minion characters in My Life with Master had only a point or two difference in Self-loathing or Weariness from each other; so they were qualitatively undistinguished from each other except by name and the player’s vague character conceptualization. And what happened in playtesting was that players all pretty much gravitated to playing craven “dog faced boy” low-esteem Igor characters. So I was motivated to find a way to make the characters more meaningfully distinct. Except I was happy with the stats and resolution equations, so I didn’t want to add any more stats to differentiate the characters mechanically. The solution came when a designer friend suggested I look at how John Tynes differentiated puppet types in Puppetland. It was a great suggestion. The game’s mechanics for “what a puppet can do” and “what a puppet can’t do” directly inspired the More Than Human and Less Than Human traits in My Life with Master.
Yeah, it’s not about having a quantity of stats/abilities etc, but about having the right ones. In early playtests minion characters in My Life with Master had only a point or two difference in Self-loathing or Weariness from each other; so they were qualitatively undistinguished from each other except by name and the player’s vague character conceptualization. And what happened in playtesting was that players all pretty much gravitated to playing craven “dog faced boy” low-esteem Igor characters. So I was motivated to find a way to make the characters more meaningfully distinct. Except I was happy with the stats and resolution equations, so I didn’t want to add any more stats to differentiate the characters mechanically. The solution came when a designer friend suggested I look at how John Tynes differentiated puppet types in Puppetland. It was a great suggestion. The game’s mechanics for “what a puppet can do” and “what a puppet can’t do” directly inspired the More Than Human and Less Than Human traits in My Life with Master.
RPG’s are a bunch of grown ass adults playing pretend.
It is only the interaction of these players with each other that make games interesting.
Having many interacting rules will lead to complexity (See Checkers vs Chess vs Go) but weather that complexity is actually good or not is purely a judgment call.
Rules are also limiting, by defining what is possible in a system you are also defining what is not.
As a guy who only plays RPG’s on occasion, and mostly plays wargames and computer games, games where anything not spelled out in the rules or programming is therefore forbidden, it always strikes me when I read RPG related forums how hung up on rules RPG gamers are.
RPG’s are a bunch of grown ass adults playing pretend.
It is only the interaction of these players with each other that make games interesting.
Having many interacting rules will lead to complexity (See Checkers vs Chess vs Go) but weather that complexity is actually good or not is purely a judgment call.
Rules are also limiting, by defining what is possible in a system you are also defining what is not.
As a guy who only plays RPG’s on occasion, and mostly plays wargames and computer games, games where anything not spelled out in the rules or programming is therefore forbidden, it always strikes me when I read RPG related forums how hung up on rules RPG gamers are.
Complexity and detail are an anchor to what’s “real” about a character. In that way, they create a feel of depth or permanence, without contributing to dramatic or personal depth at all. Complexity also makes internal achievements/goals/abilities external, which again feels like it is representing depth.
Complexity and depth are unrelated, but easy to correlate.
Complexity and detail are an anchor to what’s “real” about a character. In that way, they create a feel of depth or permanence, without contributing to dramatic or personal depth at all. Complexity also makes internal achievements/goals/abilities external, which again feels like it is representing depth.
Complexity and depth are unrelated, but easy to correlate.
I think it all depends on who you are as a person. Creating depth through character creation is just a means of front-loading it. I used to love that sort of character creation back when I played Champions and Vampire. Reveled in picking attributes and drawbacks, tweaking points. It gives you a feeling like you are creating something that is yours.
I think part of the need for that feeling is youth. When someone is young, a lot of focus is on trying to concretely define themselves as a person: I skateboard, therefore I am a skateboarder. As we get older, we slowly understand that we are as people a messy jumble of lived experiences (and genetics but that’s a topic for another time). I think many people as they get older understand this and as a result get more comfortable with creating character depth through play.
Of course, some people may continue to just like creating concrete character depth from the onset. It can be hard for some to create character depth without that starting character creation prompt. Creating character depth through play is basically a form of improv which is a a learned skill.
I think it all depends on who you are as a person. Creating depth through character creation is just a means of front-loading it. I used to love that sort of character creation back when I played Champions and Vampire. Reveled in picking attributes and drawbacks, tweaking points. It gives you a feeling like you are creating something that is yours.
I think part of the need for that feeling is youth. When someone is young, a lot of focus is on trying to concretely define themselves as a person: I skateboard, therefore I am a skateboarder. As we get older, we slowly understand that we are as people a messy jumble of lived experiences (and genetics but that’s a topic for another time). I think many people as they get older understand this and as a result get more comfortable with creating character depth through play.
Of course, some people may continue to just like creating concrete character depth from the onset. It can be hard for some to create character depth without that starting character creation prompt. Creating character depth through play is basically a form of improv which is a a learned skill.
Hrm I edited my comment after I posted but it seems that g+ ate it.
I would add that rules are simply a process.
In DW you would simply narrate something like, “The guards rush at you!!” “I jump up and grab a chandler!” *Rolls a 6* “You grab the chandler but it can’t hold your weight and you smash into the ground!!!” “Take D6 damage!!”
Where as in another system you would have stats for stuff like how high you can jump, how much weight can a chandler hold, how much damage a Chandler does when it lands on top of you…. etc…
Ether way you end up with the same result.
I like DW because I don’t have to do any goddamn math.
Hrm I edited my comment after I posted but it seems that g+ ate it.
I would add that rules are simply a process.
In DW you would simply narrate something like, “The guards rush at you!!” “I jump up and grab a chandler!” *Rolls a 6* “You grab the chandler but it can’t hold your weight and you smash into the ground!!!” “Take D6 damage!!”
Where as in another system you would have stats for stuff like how high you can jump, how much weight can a chandler hold, how much damage a Chandler does when it lands on top of you…. etc…
Ether way you end up with the same result.
I like DW because I don’t have to do any goddamn math.
Complexity != depth. As Paul Czege noted, it’s only the correct complexity which = depth.
Complexity != depth. As Paul Czege noted, it’s only the correct complexity which = depth.
I think depth in rule systems just means that you have a lot of meaningful, useful options. Rock paper scissors is a very simple game, there are three options and unless you know something about what your opponent is planning, there is no obvious benefit to picking one over the others. Tick-tac-toe is a bit more complex but there are easily definable optimal moves.
War games have depth by giving you meaningful choices on how you make your army, how you deploy them and how you use them during the game. We could just dice off to determine a winner but that wouldn’t be fun for very long. And there is no way to change anything to make it fun. If you get beat in a good war game you can change your strategy, your army, or even what nation/side your playing.
A lot of computer RPGs are rated by their re-playability which I think is heavily linked to depth. This is because you can make choices during character creation and during game play that affect the outcome or give you other options later. This time I will play as a wizard, or a dex fighter, or an orc and see what changes.
In pen and paper RPGs you might be a fighter who wields 2 weapons, or a two handed weapon, or a weapon and a shield, or a bow, or some strange unheard of pole-arm thing. And these choices might effect the game play, but the final result of a battle is usually determined by weather or not you rolled the dice well. Depth comes from whether or not these choice allowed you to win, or fail or do something you couldn’t do if you had made a different choice. The bow guy can shoot across a ravine that the duel wielder couldn’t jump. The two handed sword guy finds fighting awkward while he has to drag his wounded friend. Fighters in DW have all of those same options and all of those same situations can be narrated.
I guess I feel that depth comes more from the story telling aspect of RPGs then the character sheet. I could make one character and replay him in a thousand one shots. As long as the DM told a different story, or I made different in game choices, different options and outcomes would occur. When I chose to play a new character sheet or play the same sheet with different stats, race or weapon choices, it can affect the outcomes and options but not nearly as much as if I change the way my character acts or the DM changes the story.
I think depth in rule systems just means that you have a lot of meaningful, useful options. Rock paper scissors is a very simple game, there are three options and unless you know something about what your opponent is planning, there is no obvious benefit to picking one over the others. Tick-tac-toe is a bit more complex but there are easily definable optimal moves.
War games have depth by giving you meaningful choices on how you make your army, how you deploy them and how you use them during the game. We could just dice off to determine a winner but that wouldn’t be fun for very long. And there is no way to change anything to make it fun. If you get beat in a good war game you can change your strategy, your army, or even what nation/side your playing.
A lot of computer RPGs are rated by their re-playability which I think is heavily linked to depth. This is because you can make choices during character creation and during game play that affect the outcome or give you other options later. This time I will play as a wizard, or a dex fighter, or an orc and see what changes.
In pen and paper RPGs you might be a fighter who wields 2 weapons, or a two handed weapon, or a weapon and a shield, or a bow, or some strange unheard of pole-arm thing. And these choices might effect the game play, but the final result of a battle is usually determined by weather or not you rolled the dice well. Depth comes from whether or not these choice allowed you to win, or fail or do something you couldn’t do if you had made a different choice. The bow guy can shoot across a ravine that the duel wielder couldn’t jump. The two handed sword guy finds fighting awkward while he has to drag his wounded friend. Fighters in DW have all of those same options and all of those same situations can be narrated.
I guess I feel that depth comes more from the story telling aspect of RPGs then the character sheet. I could make one character and replay him in a thousand one shots. As long as the DM told a different story, or I made different in game choices, different options and outcomes would occur. When I chose to play a new character sheet or play the same sheet with different stats, race or weapon choices, it can affect the outcomes and options but not nearly as much as if I change the way my character acts or the DM changes the story.
I saw a blog that changed my mind about this. It basically said, “Your a savvy fast talking merchant? Then be savvy , make deals talk fast. The fact that it says that on your character sheet means nothing if you do not do it.” And we all know the detailed character that gets played differently than written.
I saw a blog that changed my mind about this. It basically said, “Your a savvy fast talking merchant? Then be savvy , make deals talk fast. The fact that it says that on your character sheet means nothing if you do not do it.” And we all know the detailed character that gets played differently than written.
I think, depending on the individual and what they consider fun, depth could mean either a nuanced individual or a large number of strategic options.
I think, depending on the individual and what they consider fun, depth could mean either a nuanced individual or a large number of strategic options.
I’d also note that what’s being described in the OP isn’t actually complexity but rather detail. And there could be truth to the notion that a more detailed character winds up with more depth, but I think it’s a matter of preference when it comes to how the character gets that detailed–whether it’s during or before play.
I’d also note that what’s being described in the OP isn’t actually complexity but rather detail. And there could be truth to the notion that a more detailed character winds up with more depth, but I think it’s a matter of preference when it comes to how the character gets that detailed–whether it’s during or before play.
Complexity does not equate to depth because both are vague ideas. Certain types of complexity can lead to an increase in a specific system’s depth. When I think about what makes a character complex with in the confines of a role playing game such as Dungeon World, all praise be unto the two D6, I think of these two main points.
1: What are they? A point was made earlier that those rules that define what you can do also define what you cannot. I can agree with that statement, except I also believe that that rule should give you far more than it takes away. The Druid and the Mage of DW are perfect examples of this. The way that they are set up allows you to explode out in to the game and go where ever your imagination can take you with in the confines of your magic’s theme. These classes are verdant gardens where a creative mind can make a truly unique character in any game with out saying a word. The fighter on the other hand has very little to offer because you as the player are allowed to define very little about what they are. You can define your stats but you have to choose from the predetermined figures on the sheet which are the same for everyone. You can determine your weapon which I like but again the options are on the page and have yet to drastically change the way I would play. You can change your race which is defined on the page or by the GM, and as they are all humanoid, unless there are places with in the story for you to use your race it is really just a different skin for the same character to your left or right. In addition, the character creation is so easy that it is not entertaining. I love making characters, I will admit that. I like starting with nothing and creating this idea filled with hope and possibilities. But I need it to matter what I pick. In DW I can put my stats where ever I like and pick some abilities, does not mater which, and it will change the way I play minimally. I want to feel the enjoyment of working out the skeleton of my character and for it to have some meaning and/or some consequence to the way my character moves and reacts to the world. I also want the process to be mentally stimulating. Making the character creation more complex would be fun for me. That does not mean I want to break out a calculator to figure how much damage I did.
2: Who are they? The way that I play, hopefully being in some way influenced by the original seed that was planted during the character’s creation, defines who they are as a person. This is the responsibility of both the GM and the player. The player needs to seek to define themselves as the character and the GM needs to create instances where they can. In games that we have played as a group where the character as a person and how they interact with the other characters is the sole focus of the game we have created incredibly deep characters and stories. Cheat your own adventure and Hot Guys Making Out are two games we have played recently that utterly lack character creation and focus solely on playing with each other, in every way that you may have just imagined. We created deep characters with compelling relationships from relative simplicity. In DW those types of interactions a far second to the action taking place with in the world. It makes the game play more action / reaction oriented which does take away from the depth of the characters and the story. DW would be helped by a more complex and meaningful relationship or bond mechanic which would add depth to the story and to the characters.
I am not the type of person who wants to have to use a ruler to figure out if the enemy is with in range or calculate damage with one hundred pages of index information and an abacus. Increased mechanical complexity that is focused on things other than the character would not increase the story’s depth. More complex mechanics that allow for a more differentiated and unique character would increase my connection to them. More complex and meaningful ability options would create a starting point that is primed for expression with in the story. More complex relationship mechanics would help certain games build depth of emotion between characters. It is not that any kind of complexity equates to depth. It is that the right type of complexity facilitates depth.
Complexity does not equate to depth because both are vague ideas. Certain types of complexity can lead to an increase in a specific system’s depth. When I think about what makes a character complex with in the confines of a role playing game such as Dungeon World, all praise be unto the two D6, I think of these two main points.
1: What are they? A point was made earlier that those rules that define what you can do also define what you cannot. I can agree with that statement, except I also believe that that rule should give you far more than it takes away. The Druid and the Mage of DW are perfect examples of this. The way that they are set up allows you to explode out in to the game and go where ever your imagination can take you with in the confines of your magic’s theme. These classes are verdant gardens where a creative mind can make a truly unique character in any game with out saying a word. The fighter on the other hand has very little to offer because you as the player are allowed to define very little about what they are. You can define your stats but you have to choose from the predetermined figures on the sheet which are the same for everyone. You can determine your weapon which I like but again the options are on the page and have yet to drastically change the way I would play. You can change your race which is defined on the page or by the GM, and as they are all humanoid, unless there are places with in the story for you to use your race it is really just a different skin for the same character to your left or right. In addition, the character creation is so easy that it is not entertaining. I love making characters, I will admit that. I like starting with nothing and creating this idea filled with hope and possibilities. But I need it to matter what I pick. In DW I can put my stats where ever I like and pick some abilities, does not mater which, and it will change the way I play minimally. I want to feel the enjoyment of working out the skeleton of my character and for it to have some meaning and/or some consequence to the way my character moves and reacts to the world. I also want the process to be mentally stimulating. Making the character creation more complex would be fun for me. That does not mean I want to break out a calculator to figure how much damage I did.
2: Who are they? The way that I play, hopefully being in some way influenced by the original seed that was planted during the character’s creation, defines who they are as a person. This is the responsibility of both the GM and the player. The player needs to seek to define themselves as the character and the GM needs to create instances where they can. In games that we have played as a group where the character as a person and how they interact with the other characters is the sole focus of the game we have created incredibly deep characters and stories. Cheat your own adventure and Hot Guys Making Out are two games we have played recently that utterly lack character creation and focus solely on playing with each other, in every way that you may have just imagined. We created deep characters with compelling relationships from relative simplicity. In DW those types of interactions a far second to the action taking place with in the world. It makes the game play more action / reaction oriented which does take away from the depth of the characters and the story. DW would be helped by a more complex and meaningful relationship or bond mechanic which would add depth to the story and to the characters.
I am not the type of person who wants to have to use a ruler to figure out if the enemy is with in range or calculate damage with one hundred pages of index information and an abacus. Increased mechanical complexity that is focused on things other than the character would not increase the story’s depth. More complex mechanics that allow for a more differentiated and unique character would increase my connection to them. More complex and meaningful ability options would create a starting point that is primed for expression with in the story. More complex relationship mechanics would help certain games build depth of emotion between characters. It is not that any kind of complexity equates to depth. It is that the right type of complexity facilitates depth.
Scott Owen Your point is well-taken. This is very specific to our circumstances in The Gauntlet, but it’s probably helpful to point out that our Friday games are usually reserved for action and adventure, and so there is a natural de-emphasis on deep character exploration. In many ways, Sunday is the day when we really put the strong emphasis on character development, and we play a lot of games that have a more detailed and interesting character creation process. Dogs in the Vineyard, Warrior-Poet, and 1,001 Nights are just three recent examples of games we have played that have incredibly interesting character creation processes (without being overloaded with garbage). On Wednesdays, while we mostly play story games, we tend to play the ones that have fast set-ups since we have a shorter period of time than on Sunday.
I actually believe the Fighter is the most interesting playbook in DW. Some players will just mark some boxes on the Signature Weapon and not give much thought to it, but I have seen other players grab hold of that feature and use it as a platform to tell us something really interesting about their character. I’ll use Jorge Salazar as an example: I don’t think he had even played RPGs before, but his Fighter’s weapon had a terrific story, being crafted from elements of the mountain from which his people were exiled. And that detail informed how he played his character, which was the most important thing. The Fighter has a “just enough” quality which appeals to me. You have just enough history to get started, and I like that.
You should really check out The Burning Wheel. It’s a system I used to run all the time and it has a phenomenal character creation process. I’ll loan you a copy of the book tonight (I have several).
Scott Owen Your point is well-taken. This is very specific to our circumstances in The Gauntlet, but it’s probably helpful to point out that our Friday games are usually reserved for action and adventure, and so there is a natural de-emphasis on deep character exploration. In many ways, Sunday is the day when we really put the strong emphasis on character development, and we play a lot of games that have a more detailed and interesting character creation process. Dogs in the Vineyard, Warrior-Poet, and 1,001 Nights are just three recent examples of games we have played that have incredibly interesting character creation processes (without being overloaded with garbage). On Wednesdays, while we mostly play story games, we tend to play the ones that have fast set-ups since we have a shorter period of time than on Sunday.
I actually believe the Fighter is the most interesting playbook in DW. Some players will just mark some boxes on the Signature Weapon and not give much thought to it, but I have seen other players grab hold of that feature and use it as a platform to tell us something really interesting about their character. I’ll use Jorge Salazar as an example: I don’t think he had even played RPGs before, but his Fighter’s weapon had a terrific story, being crafted from elements of the mountain from which his people were exiled. And that detail informed how he played his character, which was the most important thing. The Fighter has a “just enough” quality which appeals to me. You have just enough history to get started, and I like that.
You should really check out The Burning Wheel. It’s a system I used to run all the time and it has a phenomenal character creation process. I’ll loan you a copy of the book tonight (I have several).
I was going to suggest burning wheel
I think the short answer is that yes a detailed character sheet can help you create depth but a simple one does not stop an avid role player from creating it themselves.
I was going to suggest burning wheel
I think the short answer is that yes a detailed character sheet can help you create depth but a simple one does not stop an avid role player from creating it themselves.
<3 what Burning Wheel can do for enriching character depth. (Just resumed a longer-running campaign with a couple of my college friends. HYPE.)
<3 what Burning Wheel can do for enriching character depth. (Just resumed a longer-running campaign with a couple of my college friends. HYPE.)
Andy Hauge I have tons of affection for Burning Wheel, despite the fact I sometimes rag on it.
Andy Hauge I have tons of affection for Burning Wheel, despite the fact I sometimes rag on it.
I like simpler mechanics because it allows for a pacing that I enjoy. I do not want to get bogged down in the minutia. This is very subjective though, some people love to track the number of arrows they have and that the canteen is about to run out, and those players play Torchbearer. I desire a story with my games, the other players seem to want a more simiulationist experience. Neither are intrinsically better than the other, just preference.
I like simpler mechanics because it allows for a pacing that I enjoy. I do not want to get bogged down in the minutia. This is very subjective though, some people love to track the number of arrows they have and that the canteen is about to run out, and those players play Torchbearer. I desire a story with my games, the other players seem to want a more simiulationist experience. Neither are intrinsically better than the other, just preference.
I can definitely see that, although I would caution against espousing the notion that players who are detail-oriented are disinterested in story. (I know you didn’t say it specifically, Ryan Marsh, but there was a bit of implication in the post unless I read it wrongly.) In fact, I think that such players often are very interested in story, otherwise they wouldn’t be playing an RPG.
That’s a good starting point to understanding their viewpoint, I find.
I can definitely see that, although I would caution against espousing the notion that players who are detail-oriented are disinterested in story. (I know you didn’t say it specifically, Ryan Marsh, but there was a bit of implication in the post unless I read it wrongly.) In fact, I think that such players often are very interested in story, otherwise they wouldn’t be playing an RPG.
That’s a good starting point to understanding their viewpoint, I find.
Andy Hauge I don’t believe that simulationist don’t want a story, but in my experience, they often don’t want the control of the narrative, like story focused RPGers. This isn’t to say it can’t happen, but often the values of tracking minutia and focusing solely on the narrative mechanics, run in opposition.
Andy Hauge I don’t believe that simulationist don’t want a story, but in my experience, they often don’t want the control of the narrative, like story focused RPGers. This isn’t to say it can’t happen, but often the values of tracking minutia and focusing solely on the narrative mechanics, run in opposition.
I think they are often very intensely focused on story, they just have another path to it. 🙂
I think they are often very intensely focused on story, they just have another path to it. 🙂