Can a good RPG have too many gameplay systems?

[Tyranicon]

My current game is falling victim to scope creep (pretty damn hard too), so I was wondering if there are good RPGs that have an abundance of gameplay systems/mechanics/features/whatever. Complexity does not always equal richness of experience, but sometimes it can.

Of course, this depends pretty heavily on the implementation/quality of said systems.

 

[Sentinel]

if there are good RPGs that have an abundance of gameplay systems/mechanics/features/whatever

No. Keep it simple, stupid.

 

[distant]

Troubleshooter. Kept introducing new mechanics through its 100 hour playtime. Great game.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

Realms of Akarnia i guess , i heard that half of the skills in that series are useless and are only there to emulate the tabletop RPG "The Dark Eye". But then again, i've never played that series long enough to know if it's true or not.

 

[Tyranicon]

if there are good RPGs that have an abundance of gameplay systems/mechanics/features/whatever

No. Keep it simple, stupid.

But I want to add orgies to my game.

And dynamic factions.

And open world.

And moddable weapons.

And ammo types.

And a relationship system.

And a post-quest debriefing process.

Already added those, so orgies is up next.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

Nobody can really say that without seeing the systems in question, but make sure that its not completely unnecessary and pointless to use. For instance, I've seen a few games use a camera system, where you have a small screen with a different viewpoint you also control. Thing is, none of those games had a reason to use that, and its just a waste of everyone's time, the developer's more than the player's. Make sure whatever you implement has a reason to be used.

 

[Ghulgothas]

For a smaller-scale game, the fewer the better. Provided those few compensate with depth and inter-reactivity with each-other.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Can a good RPG have too many gameplay systems?

no

 

[rusty_shackleford]

complexity is a form of gatekeeping and gatekeeping is good

 

[Ghulgothas]

if there are good RPGs that have an abundance of gameplay systems/mechanics/features/whatever

No. Keep it simple, stupid.

But I want to add orgies to my game.

And dynamic factions.

And open world.

And moddable weapons.

And ammo types.

And a relationship system.

And a post-quest debriefing process.

Already added those, so orgies is up next.

Easy. Do they come into play in the game's tactical orgy layer?

If yes; keep it.

If no; cut that shit out.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

My current game is falling victim to scope creep (pretty damn hard too), so I was wondering if there are good RPGs that have an abundance of gameplay systems/mechanics/features/whatever. Complexity does not always equal richness of experience, but sometimes it can.

Of course, this depends pretty heavily on the implementation/quality of said systems.

You've already answered your own question, which is that "scope creep" from additional features is negative only insofar as it adversely affects the implementation of other, more important mechanics or content. Given finite resources to create a game, priority must be given more fundamental features, to avoid a game becoming a failure due to superfluous aspects indirectly preventing these fundamental features from being well-crafted by distracting the attention of the developers.

On the other hand, if the necessary resources exist, then the more features the better.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

There are people in this thread who think those simplistic crappy puzzle RPGs(e.g., Druidstone) are better than Grimoire.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

It doesn't matter much if one skill is weaker than the other, 99% of games are like that, i think it's impossible to create something 100% balanced, online games like MOBAS and RTS with their constant balance patches it's a proof of that. But if one skill is 100% useless or pointless, then there's no reason to exist.

 

[Tyranicon]

game's tactical orgy layer

This is the most 2021 quote I've heard so far. Where's the Subverse devs when you need em?

Reducing complexity is a good design goal, for many reasons. It makes it easier for your players to understand the systems, it is easier to implement, and it even leaves the possibility that the complexity cost you saved can be spent on adding new interesting gameplay choices without having to increase the overall complexity.

I agree. The most elegant forms of game design typically trends towards simplicity. I would say that complexity in most indie games are not born out of good design, but a desire/greed for more. It's the writer's conundrum: you don't want to kill your babies, and you don't want to remove good features simply because they're superfluous.

 

[Urthor]

Troubleshooter. Kept introducing new mechanics through its 100 hour playtime. Great game.

I'm pretty sure those developers don't sleep though, they work insanely hard.

The core idea is that you need a *gameplay loop*. Which is not the same thing as *gameplay systems*, which are all the various character sheet stats. You can have as many different character sheet stats as you like, but it doesn't mean your actual "user workflow" for your gamer is any good.

Keep the gameplay loop and the gameplay systems as two seperate, clearly defined KPIs in your head.

 

[King Crispy]

If all the features and functionalities in your game work properly, make sense in the scope of the game itself, and aren't contradictory to one another (nor counter-productive) then there is no limit to how many there should be.

Obviously, however, the more you attempt to implement, the harder it is going to be to justify all of them.

 

[nlfortier]

From my experience as a solo dev, if you want to have any hope of testing and releasing successfully you need to limit your scope. Identify the most fun elements of your game and focus on those.

 

[Johnny Biggums]

I wouldn't say that complexity is a bad thing in an RPG. It's a great thing, there's just a point of diminishing returns, which scales rapidly to a point of counterproductivity, where additional complexity starts to actively suck fun out of the game.

It isn't just a quantitative thing. If additional complexity makes intuitive sense (e.g. implementing a mechanic where sneaking at night is easier than in the day, or where fire types are strong against grass types) it isn't experienced as complexity in the way less natural or more abstract mechanics are (e.g. "alteration" being the "opposition school" of "abjuration"). Then again, sometimes that screwball factor comes in where a mechanic that seems to have nothing logical or intuitive going for it becomes memorable (descending AC is a good example).

There's some subjectivity too. I don't like complex survival mechanics or stronghold systems in my RPGs. A fatigue system plus camping gear is good. Add a hunger system and, frankly, it's already feeling slightly annoying to me. And of course, once you add the hunger system you're tempted to add a whole cooking system with skills, ingredients and recipes, and now you're in counterproductive territory as far as I'm concerned. But some people like that, so the developer needs a strong sense of their target audience and what they like, and not just be adding these things because it's a trend.

 

[Beans00]

As long as systems aren't pointless.

 

[Johnny Biggums]

The resource and combat systems in The Banner Saga are very elegant IMO. Easy to understand, yet deep enough for some tactical finesse and replayability. In the context of a short, story-driven and visually focused RPG, they were what they needed to be. I think it's a good case study on how you can have an interesting system with negligible complexity.

 

[Vladimuar]

Do not listen to lazy dimwits. Make your game as complex as possible. Manor management (MSc in Econometrics degree required) is a must. Also, I'd like to play The Campaign for North Africa boardgame in taverns, while elite prostitutes blow me on their knees in VR mode.

 

[oldmanpaco]

Multiple systems are cool as long as they interact with each other in some way.

 

[Serious_Business]

There is a simple distinction one can make between complex and complicated, the former being "deep", the other simply a mess.

What actually defines complexity may very well be that it can't (or shouldn't) be reduced to simplicity. Complexity cannot be reduced to unity, to numbers ; it functions as a whole. Complication, on the other hand, can and should be reduced to simplicity, as the elements that go through it don't generate a coherent organisation. The concept of organisation is probably important to understand complexity ; an organisation is a complex web of relations ; a mess is, well, it's fucked. One can probably say as a principle that if an element can be removed without affecting the whole, then it may very well be a simple complication, at least in regards to the main organisation (which in a game is a system).

All of this being said, I'm convinced that rpgs can't be complex as they rely too much on simple recognizable conventions that are piled on each other. Did you see the Solasta video where they describe the sorcerer class - the exact same fucking shit that was in Baldur's Gate 20 years ago - like it was some kind of gameplay feature? It's not a feature, it's repetition in its most tedious form, predictable and inserted simply because it has to be there. This shit cannot change and does not want to change. Prove me otherwise with your game, I'm tired of this nonsense.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

A statue is finished when no more stone can be chiseled away.

Don't concentrate on the volume of systems, but rather how necessary they are to delivering the experience you want to capture.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Yes. In particular if these systems are included only because nowdays every cool game for cool kids should have them.