In Defense of Complexity

Complex games are rewarding in their own right.

I look at outstanding PC wargames, such as Hearts of Iron IV, which are complicated, deep, and in-depth. They have a steep learning curve just to play at a basic level. Is it "gatekeeping" for them to be so complex? No, people who enjoy that level of depth will put in the time, and the community that forms will be a dedicated group of faithful fans who can understand the game, and for that camaraderie around the time and effort everyone needed to be able to 'talk the talk.'

Some games require you to put in the time, which is fine. There are alternatives, World War II strategy games made for everyone and easy to pick up and play at a high level with minimum effort. The Panzer General series (and the modern Panzer Corps II) are good examples of games that are easier to approach but still have depth when you put the time in. Plenty of others, including the classic Axis and Allies series, are even more accessible to approach.

I would get why someone would want to play OSRIC over Swords & Wizardry or Castles & Crusades. The community that forms around a game that requires some effort will be better than games where anyone can play. This isn't 'elitism,' but it is a natural formation of a community that appreciates a little more depth and complexity, and the people who put the time in to be a part of that community will be able to play with people who have the same interests and commitment to the game.

This is also why the 'mainstreaming' of a game isn't always to the game's benefit. You invite everyone in, and you will get a lot of less-than-interested players who will drag the community down. They will also chase fads and leave when something else better comes along.

Accessibility and simplicity are not always ideal goals to strive towards.

The significant problem with complexity is if it serves no purpose, nor does it create an emergent strategy. If all that complexity adds nothing? It is a terrible design. This is why great game designers matter, not people paid by the word or can argue the loudest in front of a corporate whiteboard in a design meeting. A great designer can use complexity to significant effect and create strategies you need to discover - and the only way to get there is through putting the time in.

Even if you were told the strategy on a website or YouTube video, you can't walk in and pretend to be an expert if you can't understand the game. I have had this happen since D&D 3E, players with a cocky self-assurance that they are some 'great player' when all they do is read message boards.

I read the same board. I know exactly who you are and what you are doing.

Some companies write games with these 'fake experts' in mind. The people who do this are often very vocal advocates of a game since they can pretend to be something they are not. This is the social media age of the lie. You give people a chance to shortcut and impersonate knowledge and experience, and they will be very vocal in getting others to go along.

The classic Aftermath! is one of those games where you need to learn how it works. We were lost in this game when all our friends were playing AD&D. Few knew why we loved this game so much, and we dove into the complexity and depth - only approached by GURPS today, and knowing how everything worked and being fluent in this game put us in a very select few gamers. Did we have many to play with? Not really, but the players we did find were exceptional and an incredible group of friends to hang with.

These days, companies don't use depth to draw you in; they sucker you in with hundreds - or thousands - of dollars of book purchases and 'sunk costs' you put into a game - and you can't leave. And the books are expensive, low content, and full of filler. Aftermath was just one game that cost us twenty bucks back in the day, and while that would be more today, it was only three books (plus an 8-dollar module) - and that was all we had for the 15 years the game lasted us.

I get the same feeling from GURPS today that I did Aftermath back in the day; the more time I put in, the more rewarding it gets. Yes, it is insanely complicated and deep, but the community is excellent, and the rules are immortal. Sometimes, I play a simple game and create characters - it goes nowhere. It doesn't have anything to keep me invested.

And complexity isn't 'knowing the cheat builds' like in some games, where you 'dip' and take levels in this and that to snap together a rule-breaking build. There are 'cheats' in GURPS, but those are quickly banned at tables where you don't want the cheese. GURPS is a game where you use the rules to build a game, so both players and the referee come in with a different attitude - you aren't playing to break the game. You are playing to create a game together.

But to equate complexity with gatekeeping is just silly and foolish.

Some people like depth; to them, the complexity isn't a waste of time.

And the simple 'mass market' games just don't hold their interest.