The thing about rpgs and math is it's all founded upon relational math. Fans of hardcore rpgs tend to be the sort of people who can do relational math without even thinking about it. They don't even notice they're doing it. They read associative patterns and learn them without any effort whatsoever. As in, being an elf means I get this and this and this, and if I mix that with being a fighter then it will do this and this and this, and being a fighter will get me this and this and this, and then if I add a level of magic-user, that will change me in this and this and this way. Thing of it is, none of this math is particular complex in isolation. Put it all together, though, and the Player has to start thinking about number patterns. And that's where ya lose most of the public.
Things like Sudoku can have quite complex puzzle challenges, but they don't require you to look beyond the patterns directly in front of you, nor do they require you to learn and apply multiple overlays on top of patterns, such as equipment, spell bonuses and magic items (which all stack and don't stack with various choices made on the character sheet). These elements are why the public often calls rpgs Excel sheets. - A common epithet used also for grognard strategy games.
And it's often not that the public couldn't learn the skills of rpg, it's that they really really really don't want to. They find the entire concept of rpg boring, and when they are taking entertainment, they don't want to be bored. They want to have "fun and relax".
Taken individually, arguments of this form have a certain logic to them. They appeal to the "hardcore CRPG fan's" sense of superiority, makes a claim that cannot be refuted because it is based on a lack of actual evidence, and finishes it up with an intelligence association ie "CRPGs = relational math." Propagandists would be proud.
But there's a central flaw: it only works when your audience is as ignorant as you presume them to be, ie drinking the full "hardcore" coolaid.
In actuality, the amount of math in just about all the "hardcore CRPGs" discussed is less than in a typical strategy game, even a less hardcore strategy game, and simultaneously it's a lot easier to achieve success in these games, all of which are single-player, than it is in the min/max world of strategy gaming. After all, you can beat Age of Decadence just by following a walkthrough. There's no doing this with any competitive strategy game, which tend to be played between human opponents.
You guys' response? "Well they're strategy games, not CRPGs, so it doesn't count because, uh, strategy fans have already accepted it."
In which case, the inference to draw, actually, is that CRPG fans = idiots, strategy fans = smarts, and hardcore CRPG fans are smart wannabes who have a soft spot in their hearts for storyfaggotry. Suddenly the label is not so appealing.
Try to refute this:
CRPG combat is a dumbed down form of PnP RPG combat, which is in turn a dumbed down form of tactical strategy game combat. Because I am fairly sure very few of you making these sorts of arguments about the "complexity" of CRPGs have ever played a full-blown strategy game. And yes, those do sell.
