Measuring rules complexity

[shlo]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone tried to measure the complexity of rpg rules system. We always read about a system being complex or simple, but this is hardly relevant. Comparing with another system might help, but only if you know this one. I know John Kirk did a remarkable work with the rpg design patterns, but the goal isn't the same.

The steps to resolve a situation in a rpg are really like an algorithm, and algorithms' complexity has been measurable for ages. We all know that, as a general rule, dividing numbers and consulting a table is going to make the game more complex. If it hasn't been done yet, I would like to find a method to estimate the complexity of a given system, for several benefits:

a. Talks about complexity and simplicity would now have a solid ground.

b. A player could find is comfort zone by experience, when a game is too simple for him, and when a game is too complex for him.

c. A designer could measure the complexity of his current work and react accordingly, depending on his goal.

For example such a method could take in account the sum of steps to be taken, the complexity of each step (choosing between n stats, justifying/negotiating a choice, adding and subtracting n numbers with up to m digits, multiplying n numbers, consulting a table, choosing the dice to roll, comparing n numbers...) and the frequency of the resolution process.

Does it exist yet? If not, is someone interested to work with me on something like this? And everybody, do you think such a work is relevant, or even feasible?

michael.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Michael, and welcome.

We discussed this in a few early Forge threads, and I think we nailed it. I'm hunting those down now, to link here.

Briefly, we separated the experience of play from the number/interactions of moving parts. My argument was that people called something "simple" or "transparent" based on the experience of play, regardless of how many moving parts there were. So through a combination of design and familiarity, someone can call a game simple quite sincerely even when it features a hundred times more mechanical bits than another game. The discussion went on from there to talk about how designs can help achieve this effect.

Conversely, a game with very few rules or mechanical interactions can be elegant and productive, so simple in the positive sense or transparent ... or it can be vague nonsense, requiring huge procedural hassles at the table. In other words, the issue of simple vs. complex (in the numerical, many-parts sense) turns out to be very minor compared to the elegance of the design, at any level of that kind of complexity.

Anyway, give me a little while to find the threads and I think you'll like them.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Ah, here they are. From April 2002: Transparency and Transparency again (this one is the pay-off, so I suggest starting here). A brief follow-up came a few years later, in Transparency revisited.

I also think you might like my game function diagrams, so I'll see if I can find some or make some when I get the chance.

[shlo]

Hello Ron,

Thanks for the references. I quickly red through all three threads, I'll do it again with a higher percentage of my brain available and come back here to comment. =)

michael.