I like Icons. I decided to pick it up because I wanted a role-playing game that I could play with my two children. I have an 11-year old girl and a 9-year old boy. They know I play Dungeons & Dragons with my buddies and have expressed an interest in it. However, I wasn't so sure that AD&D/OSRIC 1e, with its sword-play and (relatively) realistic violence, would be the best fit for them--especially for the girl. (She's sensitive.)
Instead, I decided that a light-hearted superhero game would be better. After looking around, I settled on Icons. After reading through it, it seems to be just what the doctor ordered. The rules are simple and straightforward. There are only a limited number of powers and options. The combat system is fast-moving and abstract. And the tone is light--more Teen Titans Go! than The Dark Knight. I'm cautiously optimistic that I can get a game going for my kids by summer. (Icons is available from Green Ronin here: Icons)
However, Icons is not a game for someone who desires "realism" in his or her role-playing experience. (Admittedly, realism is an elusive concept in a game genre in which people can fly around and shoot laser beams from their eyes.) Still, compared to, say, Green Ronin's DC Adventures (which I also have), Icons is bare-bones and requires the GM to make up a lot of stuff along the way. Great for some people, but not for everyone.
I mention Icons here because just last week I took a look at a game that would seem to be its polar opposite--at least in terms of game design. That game is Chivalry & Sorcery: The Rebirth (4th Edition).
This new version provides that in spades. Consisting of three volumes, it includes rules for damn-near everything. Character creation looks like it could take hours, and I can't imagine trying to conduct combat using its mechanics. C&S also has an entirely different and far more complicated magic system. It makes AD&D's Jack Vance-inspired spells look like childs' play.
C&S does have some interesting ideas. You can create just about any sort of medieval character you can imagine and can outfit him or her to the n-th degree of detail. It also looks like a GM could tailor his or her magic system to a low or high magic setting or to anything in between. And, C&S provides expansively detailed descriptions of the class and social structure of medieval Europe. Unlike AD&D with its never-was-worlds drawn from such scattered literary sources as J.R.R. Tolkein, Fritz Leiber, and Robert E. Howard, C&S assumes that the preferred campaign setting will closely resemble Western Europe in the High Middle Ages in most respects.
Nevertheless, despite these and some other interesting notions, I must say that I would never play this. C&S is just too much. I don't want my hobby to turn into one more chore. Life is too short.
In sum, Icons and C&S would seem to occupy two ends of the complexity spectrum in RPG design. One is straightforward and clear, but it might be too abstract and rules-lite for some people. The other is obsessively detailed, has rules covering everything, and promises a sort of hard-core "wargamer" experience for the guy who's played everything and wants a real challenge. I'd like to think that AD&D (especially OSRIC) falls somewhere between these two.
So, here's my question. How much complexity do you want in role-playing games? Is there ever too much? Ever too little? Is there a Goldilocks approach that's just right? Or, is complexity just one of many factors worth considering when you decide to play a particular game? Are there any RPGs that do a particularly good job balancing realism, complexity and playability? Let me know what you think.
I like realism, but I can't imagine playing anything that requires more time to be spent on details than AD&D. You would have to REALLY be into it. I can understand the appeal of Icons, too. When I was younger, we rarely stuck to the AD&D rules because we didn't have the patience to be bogged down, and we were easily bored.
ReplyDeleteA million years ago, back when people rented not just movies, but VCR's as well, I watched the movie "Dune". The tape came with a dictionary.
ReplyDeleteA DICTIONARY.
As soon as I saw that, I was pretty sure I wasn't going to like the movie.
And I didn't. I'm thinking that C&S is kinda like that. The only people who are going to like it are really, REALLY dedicated fans.
I'm primarily a player. In fact, I think I've only ever run one game. I can't imagine trying to run a game where the rules are extremely complex. I would think it would disrupt the narrative and invite rules lawyering. Of course, if you're the one who really knows the rules, TIME TO EXPLOIT LOOPHOLES!!
But that's just me.
I think I am in agreement with the first two posts. A Player should be able to pick up the game from zero to playing with about 20 pages of reading and a half hour of game time. The DM side will of course comprise much more knowledge and study.
ReplyDeleteI once was visiting Germany and played a session as a cleric in German. My German was 2 years of classes in America at that time. I was able to keep up and know what was going on even though there was a major language barrier. If you can do that with a set of rules, then I think that is about right.
Sidebar: what really stunk in this session was on character, who kept slipping secret notes to the GM and players, had as his goal to charm the whole group and basically to be playing solo with the GM while everyone else sat around the table. Luckily, our Assassin stuck a short sword in his back and we were all released to play with his death.
DnD is a relatively complex game - esp the earlier editions. We grew up with it, so it doesn't seem so complex to us now. Fifth ed DnD has been simplified in many ways. This article gives a good overview . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://io9.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-5th-edition-d-d-p-1624519882
I see there's a wikipedia page for C&S4, and it gives this bit of info . . .
"Despite the interest of a certain segment of the population for a type of game that is realistic and that C&S has been an example of, sales of C&S4 were not sufficient to ensure the continuity of the game and stopped producing."
So yes . . . some RPGers prefer more "realism" in their fantasy games - one of my former GMs was like that - but not enough to sustain a game series. That's why you picked it up for free. :-)