Mental Complexity of Rules Systems

[Mongoose Pete]

I have a question which I was hoping that the posters on this forum might debate for me. Not wishing to cause any offense, I am very interested to know about how difficult players find MRQ (and similar) systems.

Over the months we've had many discussions involving different types of contest resolution and skill modifications. Often the answer comes back that "my players can't do this because..." with a reference to learning difficulty or lack of mental arithmetic.

So what I am asking is this. Does the average player in your games honestly find it difficult to;
1) add or subtract two-three digit numbers in their heads?
2) use an opposed roll to counter an attack/poison/orator etc?
3) change from rolling low to rolling high?

and;
4) how long did it take them to learn the dice rolling steps of combat?

I unfortunately fall into the trap of assuming that most rollplayers are reasonably well educated. I may well very well be wrong, and that the standard of education and/or mental flexibility has dropped with the passing decades.

But considering my experiences at conventions and starting groups with new RPG systems, I have yet to find any roleplayer who hasn't been able to make the switch after two or three gaming sessions at the most.

So is MRQ too complicated for the average man to understand? Does regular mental arithmetic cripple people's brains and cause them to shut down for more than a second? Or do players simply become set in their ways like old men, and dislike changing to 'new-fangled' rules? :wink:

Once again, I do not want to cause any upset, but I'm interested in opinions on the subject.

 

[soltakss]

I have a question which I was hoping that the posters on this forum might debate for me.

Well, I'm on my lunch break, so I've time ....

Not wishing to cause any offense, I am very interested to know about how difficult players find MRQ (and similar) systems.

So what I am asking is this. Does the average player in your games honestly find it difficult to;

We have 3 players, 1 GM, all graduates, so you'd expect them to be able to do basic arithmetic.

1) add or subtract two-three digit numbers in their heads?

Yes, fairly quickly.

One of our players also GMs HeroQuest and has great difficulty in working out augments and masteries on the fly, but he quickly works out bonuses, specials and criticals in RQ. He says that it's because RQ calculations are easy.

2) use an opposed roll to counter an attack/poison/orator etc?

In theory, yes. We also play HeroQuest and opposed rolls happen all the time.

In practice, however, we don't use opposed rolls as written in RQM.

3) change from rolling low to rolling high?

No, this is completely counter-intuitive.
"Proper" RQ:
I roll 01 - Yippee!
I roll 99 - Boo!

"Funny, new-fangled" RQ:
I roll 01 - Hmmm, does that mean I win or not, quick calculation later, boo!

4) how long did it take them to learn the dice rolling steps of combat?

Not long, but we don't play RQM

They got confused by varied combat actions and defensive actions.

Attack/Parry/Dodge is easy and quick, but the calculation of results is more complex and needs tables to work out, so slows it down.

The way my players play, I do not need more reasons to slow the game down, thank you very much.

So is MRQ too complicated for the average man to understand? Does regular mental arithmetic cripple people's brains and cause them to shut down for more than a second? Or do players simply become set in their ways like old men, and dislike changing to 'new-fangled' rules? :wink:

Nobody I have played RQ with has ever struggled with the arithmetic.

Perhaps they struggle a bit when multiple bonuses/penalties are applied with skill multipliers, but that's just a memory thing rather than arithmetic, and calculators help.

It's where it differs from older versions of RQ that the problems happen.

Old RQ: Attack, Parry/Dodge, roll damage/location, mark off on sheet, repeat. Easy Peasy.

New RQ: Attack, Parry/Dodge, refer to a table, try to understand the parry rules, try to work out if it does damage, roll damage/location, try to work out what kind of wound it is, complain that RQ2/3 was a lot easier to use, repeat.

Having said that, I've played RQM several times at conventions and it has always been fairly easy and straightforward, but I think the GMs skipped the opposed rolls for combat and just had straight attack/parry.

 

[gamesmeister]

It's where it differs from older versions of RQ that the problems happen.

Old RQ: Attack, Parry/Dodge, roll damage/location, mark off on sheet, repeat. Easy Peasy.

New RQ: Attack, Parry/Dodge, refer to a table, try to understand the parry rules, try to work out if it does damage, roll damage/location, try to work out what kind of wound it is, complain that RQ2/3 was a lot easier to use, repeat.

Hehe, slightly rose-tinted specs there Simon - old RQ also had different wound types (albeit with no names).

Rolling high is defintely counter-intuitive, but it works so I'm (almost) over that little bugbear.

All my players are grads too (well, all except me...I'm the thick one) and they don't have any trouble doing sums. I think MRQ tried too hard to remove simple calculations from the game - playing with several different groups over the last 25 years, I've never met a player who had trouble with basic mental arithmetic.

GM: You don't show any initiative, do you?
Player: Well, you never said I had to!

Class!

 

[Halfbat]

I play with a variety of levels. 1 regular has a degree, 2 or 3 left at 16, I think, others at 18 or dropped out in college.

It's not so much the mental arithmetic is difficult or not (though some is tedious if having to be done a lot), it's the fact it has to be done at all and also that any slows the game down. In other words, it's more as soltakss implied, which is much more about what people are doing than about maths. With d20, for example, or with old style RQ the fact you rolled low/high meant the outcome was good/bad.

 

[zozotroll]

The only person I know who regularly has to slow down for math is a computer programer by trade. But in games he often has to count on his fingers. Never made sense to me.

For us the big difference is that now you dont know for a bit if you have rolled well or poorly. Not as smooth as the old way.

I have never been a fan of opposed die rolls. AH's Napoleons Battles used it, and I hated it there. Perhaps there is some residual resentment clinging to the concept, as I hated much about that game, but it was the only Napoleonics you could play in that area.

 

[DigitalMage]

I have only read the MRQ rules and played in a game at Mongoose Hall this year, but I will give you my opinions anyway

So what I am asking is this. Does the average player in your games honestly find it difficult to;
1) add or subtract two-three digit numbers in their heads?

I would likely struggle with adding two 3 digit numbers in my head, never mind subtracting, but how common is it in MRQ to have to do that?

E.g. 167 + 251. I can do it, but I have to think about it (here is my thought process):
167 + 50 = 217
217+1=218
218+200 = 418
And that is with those numbers written in front of me - if someone had asked me to add those two numbers verbally I would struggle.

This is not to say that I am bad at maths (I did my Matsh GCSE a year early, then did a Stats GCSE the next year and finally did a Maths & Stats A Level), just that my mental arithmetic is poor; I struggle to keep all the numbers in my mind.

This is one reason I was not fond of the old Star Wars D6 system as you have to keep a running total in your mind when adding up the results of the dice pool. I like dicepool systems, but prefer comparative ones e.g. Shadowrun, WoD, than additive ones.

Ideally if I am using a percentage system I want all modifiers to be in increments of 10 (or at least 5s).

2) use an opposed roll to counter an attack/poison/orator etc?

I don't imagine this would be a problem for me. I first encountered the opposed roll mechanic of "roll under skil but higher than your opponent" in a game of Pendragon years ago - so it isn't exactly new. Also describing it as the "price is right" method usually helps people understand (where the actual price is your skill rating, and the opponent and your dice roll results are your estimations of price).

3) change from rolling low to rolling high?

Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean changing from one mechanic where you need to roll low to one where you need to roll high? If so I prefer my systems to be consistent and so this isn't great - however improvement rolls are such a small part of the system that it isn't that bad.

4) how long did it take them to learn the dice rolling steps of combat?

I haven't actually played but I can remember the steps easily enough - they aren't that hard. The thing I do have a problem remembering is what constitutes a Major Wound, Serious Wound etc (or whatever the types of wound are called).

I unfortunately fall into the trap of assuming that most rollplayers are reasonably well educated. I may well very well be wrong, and that the standard of education and/or mental flexibility has dropped with the passing decades.

Don't confuse level of education with mathematical ability or mental flexibility, as stated I am quite good at maths but have trouble keeping numbers in my head and so prefer to do sums on paper.

 

[Deleriad]

I have a question which I was hoping that the posters on this forum might debate for me. Not wishing to cause any offense, I am very interested to know about how difficult players find MRQ (and similar) systems.

I actually think you're asking the wrong question here. I don't think it's a question of ability but a question of MGF. I also don't think there's a single answer.

One aspect of this is that people who don't want to play MRQ/BRP will often cite complexity as a or the reason. People who play the system will say that it's not a valid objection. Conversely, people who don't play D&D will cite levels and XP and increasing HPs etc as reasons not to play but people who do play will say that that's not a valid reason. Same as any other system. Nothing you do to the system will change those objectors' opinions.

Within players of the system though you will find, unsurprisingly, different motivations for playing. Some will want to try to simulate, draw upon real world combat experience and so on. Some of those will actively like extra calculation steps because it makes it feel more real.

Others just want to roll some dice and go.

Opposed roll systems are more complex than non-opposed because you have to do some factoring to understand the interaction between the dice rolls. For some people this is a good thing. For others not. You probably can think in terms of the overall calculation demands of a system. For example, if you add opposed roll combat into MRQ without reducing the complexity of another part of the combat system then you have made it more complex. Again, for some, this is fine for others it may be more than they're happy with. Which is all a long way round of saying
some do
some don't.

 

[Rurik]

I have no fear of math, I played a lot of Aftermath! back in the day (who knew calculators and flow charts weren't the future of RPG's?) and can play RQ3 with Sorcery and Fatigue as in the RAW.

I still like 'simulationist' gaming, which is one of the reasons I've remained a fan of RQ and never took to HeroWars/Quest. A big part of game design is balancing playability with realism (at least for games that try to be realistic), and if a satisfying result can be achieved simply that is better than a more realistic result being achieved with too much complexity. The reason it is impossible to please everyone with one set of rules is everyone has a different sweet spot on that scale of ease to realism. Some people want ease of play and fast flowing rules over simulation, and others are willing to game with a lot more complexity to get more realistic results. Even more problematic is people can't even agree what reality is (seriously).

RQ/BRP has always done a pretty good job of balancing simplicity, playability, and a realistic feel, with variations for the more simulationist (RQ) and for the more fast and furious bunch (Stormbringer). It has certainly stood the test of time. Other game systems may be simpler, or more realistic, or more playable (though for me personally BRP is pretty much tops there), but BRP is a damn fine Balance.

Whew. I haven't even addressed the original points yet. Anyone still with me I apologise for rambling.

1) I think the average gamer can do math in their heads, though some are better at it than others (and level of education is not good indicator of who can or cannot as far as I can tell). However, games easy on the math often flow better. A related problem with players that are too math savvy can be that they spend time trying to calculate the best odds for different actions. "I know his skill is at least 63 but less than 79, and my Great Axe is 60% but my sword is 75%, so in an opposed roll...". Simple math makes all that munchkinism go faster.

2) Anyone can grasp how opposed rolls work. But...

3) Some are bothered by the roll low/roll high inconsistency in MRQ. The problem is that Criticals are low, so in unopposed rolls "low is good". In opposed rolls "Really Low (critical) is good, but other than that high is good" Seems clunky to many players. Pendragon is much more elegant in that you critical by rolling as high as possible within your skill (your skill exactly), not by rolling a 1.

So yes, most gamers can change from roll low to high, but many don't like to. Personally I've gotten used to opposed rolls in MRQ and have no problem with them, but I do like the consistency of rules systems where low or high is always good. RQ was never entirely this way anyway though, and gets grandfathered in.

4) Most gamers can learn the dice rolling steps of combat easily. Some just want it to be simple and hate things like tables. Others love Rolemaster. Can't please them all. Having to look things up does slow down play though. Not that Rolemaster people mind.

Personally I like opposed rolls, and love Pendragon. A while back on this board I was singing the praise of opposed rolls and planned to use then for everything. Every secret door and hidden trap was going to have a difficulty and detecting it was going to be an opposed roll. One thing I like about this is that a player can roll and not know if they succeeded based on their roll. A simple success does not mean you beat the GM's roll, and a failure may have been a lower roll than the gm's. In practice I have switched back to unopposed rolls for most cases.

BRP has always been extremely intuitive. My wife is not a gamer, but likes CoC. She has no interest in learning rules or calculating odds, but knows instinctively what a "Spot Hidden 60%" means. When everything is opposed rolls, a Spot Hidden 60% means nothing - it has no meaning until opposed by something else. I think on some level this basic intuitiveness appeals to most gamers - 60% means a 60% chance of doing something, rolling low is always better frees up mental processing cycles for other things, such as what is the best way to get out of a pit full of Iron wielding scorpion men.

Another demographic I have gamed with is people involved with theater. Great roleplayers, not all that interested in math or overly detailed rules. Then there are the Dionysian gamers, who like multi-task their recreational activities.

If you are still reading remind me should we ever meet - I owe you a beer.

It seems clear to me that MRQ went for simplicity and playability over realism as a design concept from the start. They tried to simplify or streamline RQ wherever possible, and in some parts were pretty successful. This came at a cost of realism. I was pretty harsh on the rules when they first came out, and still find the 3-5 actions AND 3-5 reactions in one 5 second round laughable - I much prefer the 1-2 attacks and parries per 12 second round of RQ2/3. But after actually playing MRQ I found it actually was fun, flowed well, and still felt like RQ. And boy was chargen quick. The whole low AP for weapons worked for me after running combats (though most of my combats have used either the two roll system or opposed rolls with the original table so 2xAP results were common as well dodges that avoided all damage). 2 Handed Weapons did massive damage at a cost of defense, weapon and shield gave great defense at the cost of damage, and two weapon fighting was flexible (extra attack OR parry) but also had poor defense. A kind of Rock Scissors Paper balancing. Shields were almost mandatory against high level precise attacks, but cost twice the experience of other weapons. None of this is very realistic mind you - weapon and shield is easy to learn compared to two weapon fighting in the real world (or so I've been told). But it games well, and seems balanced as a game, if not a very good simulation of reality.

And I have met gamers who thought RQ was too complicated and deadly, and actually prefer MRQ. Go figure. I guess there is no accounting for taste .

I'm gonna stop now before I start to owe people bottles of hard liquor.

 

[RosenMcStern]

a) you owe me a beer

b) great summary of all the strengths and weaknesses of MRQ

The point is that opposed rolls are not mandatory. In all cases when a tie is acceptable, or there is no opposition, just roll and check whether you succeeded. That's all.

You like opposed rolls? Set a resistance for everything. You don't? Just roll.

 

[Puck]

1) add or subtract two-three digit numbers in their heads?

This is not to much of a problem except that it sometimes moves the brain from "storytelling" mode to "thinking mathmatically" for a second mode. This is not a problem except when it happens often. It tends to ruin the story. I like not even thinking about the die roll except how to translate it to gory action.

2) use an opposed roll to counter an attack/poison/orator etc?

I do not mind using it for anything but combat. Other skill tests generally do not get bogged down as much as combat. The problem is that I am not used to it yet and in my old age I change very slowly(change is an agent of chaos!) I keep forgetting about the opposition and picking up my dice after I roll a success. My players who are all new to RQ have no problem with it. I believe that in time I could learn. For it to really work for me though it must become second nature.

3) change from rolling low to rolling high?

This also was a bugger for me at first, but I think I am getting used to it. Old habits die hard.

I think the key is that old runequest is ingrained in many of our skulls. My brain immediately translates low percentages into great successes and high percentages into bad stuff. One of the strange things for me is when I roll what should have been a special success or an impail (just over a crit) and then I realize that it is actually a pretty lousy roll. :evil:
Again my new players do not seem to have much of a problem with this. I hope I can eventually adjust.

 

[atgxtg]

Fun topic!

Okay, I for one don't mind a little math. Heck, I7m the guy who still thinks that it was a mistake to remove the special successes just to please people who can't handle "divide by 5 or look up on chart".

That said, I do believe that there is always a trade off between complexity and ease of play. The more options and details you add to a game, the more complex it will become. Most games are easy to handle once the GM and players get familiar with it. I can do RQ crits, specials and fumbles in my head, along ewith the QR results for the James Bond system, and the math for several other RPGs.

There are also times when things caq get more complex than they need to be. FOr instance, KABAL used to treat modifiers percentages of the original skill. So you couldn't get through a second of combat without perform a half dozen calculations, some recursive.

I've played and liked all sorts of simple and complex RPGs. In the end it all depended on what I was getting for the trouble.


As far as the four questions go:

1) I can add or subtract two three digit numbers in my head, but not nearly as fast as I can just read the dice result. All (well probably most) of my players can do it as well, but not everyone will get the same answer. I suspect that is true of most groups (try it).
IMO there are better ways to handle the mechanics. That is what D6s, d10s and D20s do well.

2) Opposed rolls are a staple of most RPGs and most gamers should be able to handle them. That said, just how the opposed mechanics are handled makes a big difference. Most games will opposed rolls compare totals, or degrees of success. MRQ7s methods have been a bit different.

3)Most of my players would be more comfortable with rolling high.

4) For MRQ, I don't know. We don't play it.

But, if we added numbers together, opposed the rolls, and rolled high, it wouldn't be RuneQuest, it would be RoleMaster.

 

[Halfbat]

If you are still reading remind me should we ever meet - I owe you a beer.

It's' a pity we're so far away.

But, that said, much of your reasoning is similar to what I was trying to say. x-100 = easy; x/10 = easy; roll low=good = easy... all no-brainers for GM or player so they can just get on with the game. Opposed rolls = wait and think = work; X-referencing the results to get the result = work.

But then, like Rurik, I don't use the opposed rolls for combat, either. And only rarely for other skills. I do use the tables, but _really_ like the various step-based systems that have been proposed.

 

[Loz]

a) you owe me a beer

b) great summary of all the strengths and weaknesses of MRQ

The point is that opposed rolls are not mandatory. In all cases when a tie is acceptable, or there is no opposition, just roll and check whether you succeeded. That's all.

You like opposed rolls? Set a resistance for everything. You don't? Just roll.

I second everything Paolo's just said, Rurik - a very nice summation.

Mine's a Guinness...

 

[Loz]

Opposed rolls = wait and think = work; X-referencing the results to get the result = work.

I was like that too, initially. Then it all clicked when used during a play session (being run by Pete, actually), and I became a convert. It really is very simple - and, might I add - intuitive once that click happens.

I'm definitely not a fan of opposed tests for everything though, ala HQ. There are some things that require only for a character to test against his competence in his field of expertise, and for that roll under and low is as good as it needs to be.

 

[Rurik]

a) you owe me a beer

I probably owe you more than one by now...

b) great summary of all the strengths and weaknesses of MRQ

Thanks.

The point is that opposed rolls are not mandatory. In all cases when a tie is acceptable, or there is no opposition, just roll and check whether you succeeded. That's all.

You like opposed rolls? Set a resistance for everything. You don't? Just roll.

Very true. Can easily switched based based on mood without affecting anything else.

 

[CruelDespot]

So what I am asking is this. Does the average player in your games honestly find it difficult to;
1) add or subtract two-three digit numbers in their heads?
2) use an opposed roll to counter an attack/poison/orator etc?
3) change from rolling low to rolling high?

1) No
2) No
3) No

Now replace the phrase "...honestly find it difficult to..." with "...dislike the tedium and distraction of hundreds of times per game session,..." and the answers become
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes

 

[duncan_disorderly]

So what I am asking is this. Does the average player in your games honestly find it difficult to;
1) add or subtract two-three digit numbers in their heads?

I'm not aware of anyone who finds it difficult, although some people can do it a lot quicker than others. As someone else said, "complicated" maths doesn't give me a problem, but sometimes realtively simple mental arithmatic can cause a "stutter" - especially if it comes along at the end of the day and my mind is on other things - Like say a roleplaying game in the evening... It's not something I'd want to do after every roll to see how much I'd made a roll by when reading the numbers straight of the dice is quicker.

2) use an opposed roll to counter an attack/poison/orator etc?

I don't think this is really any more difficult than rolling a parry/saving throw/on the reisistance table - although obviously people that are habituated to one method will find it harder to switch. As others have pointed out, in Heroquest every roll is opposed - though I'd tend to agree with Loz, someties just a straight roll against skill ought to be enough (this was an option in HeroWars - I suspect it may have been dropped on the assumption that if you couldn't be bothered to work out a resistance then it fell in the "no self respecting hero..." bracket and didn't need a roll...)

The problem, I think, with the Players Update revision is not that the roll is opposed, but that a marginal success (both players roll a success, but one has a better dice roll than the other) is treated the same as a minor success (one player succeeds and the other fails)

3) change from rolling low to rolling high?

I assume by this you mean from the RQ2/3 assumption that the lower you rolled the better to the MRQ assumption that the higher you roll the better? This is a complete non-issue for me, and I still don't understand why people get so upset by it. To my mind it is quicker and easier to look at the dice and say "Skill of 47, rolled 38 - success. Skill of 63, roll of 55, success. 55 is higher than 38 - player B wins" than to have to subtract 38 from 47 giving 9, and subtract 55 from 63 giving 8, then comparing 8 and 9. Since modifiers are always made to skills, not dice, it does not matter that a roll of 07% might be the best possible critical and 08% the worst possible success, because once you have rolled the dice, there is no way of "moving" between one and the other

and;
4) how long did it take them to learn the dice rolling steps of combat?

As with a number of others, I've not played MRQ as written (in any of it's varients) - but most people I play with have played (and continue to play) a wide variety of games so I can't imagine it would be any easier or more difficult than any other game - which is to say some will grok it immediately, and others will still be asking three sessions in "Which dice do I roll to hit?" - RQ/BRP is fairly intuitative in that your skills are written as a %age and you roll d100 for everything so it should be reasonably easy to grasp!