Monte Cook IS working on 5th edition...

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't like it as "separate" classes, it disrupts the attachment that people have to their characters. Rather have it as something that is optional on the main classes.

If you did that that would completely destroy the point of having 'basic' classes. The point of having 'basic' classes is so that they can avoid the rigamarole of having to sort through 80+ different maneuvers and have to flip back and forth between the glossary and character pages to see what they do.

As crazy as it sounds, having a 250-page book to look through even when you assure them that they only need to read 20 pages of it demotivates new players more than just going 'here's a 25 page pamphlet, everything you need to know to get started is in this'. Aside from the fact that releasing small pamphlets will be cheaper for the player than plopping a PHB in their laps.

[Juton]

If you really wanted to create a beach head in the main stream for RPGs, your best route would be a related board game.

You mean like a boxed set? One that comes with tokens, QuikStart rules, maps/boards, and some feelies? The kind of thing I've been arguing for for several months?

As long as the box set is less complex and more fun than 4e's box set, then sure. I'm thinking something on the lines of the Zombies! board game, maybe just sub in orcs for zombies. No DM, lots of little figures, the rules can fit on one piece of letter size paper. When you get more complex than that I find board games stop working as board games.

[jadagul]

I wonder how big the market for rules light games really is.

If you want to grow the pie higher you start with rules-light. People just don't have the attention span and/or riskiness with their money to give something a try. When you get them hooked is when you start pimping out expansions.

The pre-3DS Nintendo company did not become market leader by a country mile again by putting out awesome games that kicked the shit out of all of the competition, although they did do that. They kicked the shit out of the competition by offering a hand to the market that didn't normally play video games and after they had Wii Sports or Nintendogs or whatever then started pimping out Sonic Colors and New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Mario Galaxy all that jazz.

Your Nintendo analogy is good for something main stream, but RPGs haven't been mainstream for a long while now. RPGs really only appeal to people who play RPGs, the way the hobby spreads now-a-days is friends showing it to other friends. That was the way I was introduced to RPGs, and that was the way everyone else I play with was introduced to RPGs, anecdotal as that is.

Normally I just enjoy reading this thread, but Juton, this is totally crazy. Video games were totally something that nerds did. Not that long ago. Like, when I was a kid. They now have basically 100% market penetration, but that's because Sony and Microsoft went after the jocks and at the same time Nintendo went after old people and people's girlfriends, and then Zynga cleaned up the rest by catering to the "Likes to talk loudly about themselves" demographic. This is a perfect example of why Lago is right.

[Juton]

Normally I just enjoy reading this thread, but Juton, this is totally crazy. Video games were totally something that nerds did. Not that long ago. Like, when I was a kid. They now have basically 100% market penetration, but that's because Sony and Microsoft went after the jocks and at the same time Nintendo went after old people and people's girlfriends, and then Zynga cleaned up the rest by catering to the "Likes to talk loudly about themselves" demographic. This is a perfect example of why Lago is right.

I miss the part where either Lago or I where referring to video games more than a decade ago. In fact he mentions the Wii, Sonic Colors (2010) and new Super Mario Bros (2006), nothing pre 2000. I don't know how long ago you where a kid, my frame of reference for the ubiquity of video games is maybe 5-10 years. I'd say Nintendo has been main stream with kids my age since the late 80's, which is nearly my life time.

I have never seen anyone in my age cohort ridiculed for playing video games. For playing the wrong type of games, or playing poorly, sure, but you always had to do more than play video games to be labeled a nerd growing up. Programming a game would get you called a nerd though. As people my age start getting into their 30's we are starting to see nearly half the population who has grown up with these games, making them damn ubiquitous.

Lago makes the analogy that you should market a Light RPG like Nintendo markets products like the Wii or the 3DS. My argument is that is not a valid strategy because in every age cohort I am familiar with, playing RPGs is enough for people to call you a nerd. I am told this was different back in the early eighties, and diminished over time. So no RPG, no matter how accessible or fun to play should expect an adoption rate as wide as a popular console title, because there is a very large stigma around and that is not going away any time soon.

[jadagul]

Normally I just enjoy reading this thread, but Juton, this is totally crazy. Video games were totally something that nerds did. Not that long ago. Like, when I was a kid. They now have basically 100% market penetration, but that's because Sony and Microsoft went after the jocks and at the same time Nintendo went after old people and people's girlfriends, and then Zynga cleaned up the rest by catering to the "Likes to talk loudly about themselves" demographic. This is a perfect example of why Lago is right.

I miss the part where either Lago or I where referring to video games more than a decade ago. In fact he mentions the Wii, Sonic Colors (2010) and new Super Mario Bros (2006), nothing pre 2000. I don't know how long ago you where a kid, my frame of reference for the ubiquity of video games is maybe 5-10 years. I'd say Nintendo has been main stream with kids my age since the late 80's, which is nearly my life time.

I have never seen anyone in my age cohort ridiculed for playing video games. For playing the wrong type of games, or playing poorly, sure, but you always had to do more than play video games to be labeled a nerd growing up. Programming a game would get you called a nerd though. As people my age start getting into their 30's we are starting to see nearly half the population who has grown up with these games, making them damn ubiquitous.

Lago makes the analogy that you should market a Light RPG like Nintendo markets products like the Wii or the 3DS. My argument is that is not a valid strategy because in every age cohort I am familiar with, playing RPGs is enough for people to call you a nerd. I am told this was different back in the early eighties, and diminished over time. So no RPG, no matter how accessible or fun to play should expect an adoption rate as wide as a popular console title, because there is a very large stigma around and that is not going away any time soon.

You know, playing video games was still a little odd at the turn of the century, at least for people who weren't "males in their teens or twenties." Now it's...not. And even when I was a kid in the nineties, it was a bit on the nerdy side even for that demographic.

One of the biggest generation shocks I've ever gotten was when I was dating a girl born in 1990 and she said, "Wait, you played video games growing up? You don't seem like a jock to me..."

[tussock]

Dude, character classes as a way to give optional complexity is a really bad idea.

People keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.

I mean, people already know that the high armor, high HP warrior will be more easy to play than the low armor, low-hp wizard, but they don't like when the game system treats them with contempt about it.

Fuck your superior attitude and the elitist horse it rode in on. Plenty of people, including me, are happy to play the game through a simple-ass Fighter mechanic and personalise it with a personality rather than a dozen feats.

I sit in the DM's chair when I want mechanical complexity, and when I need a break from that I want something really simple to vicariously beat shit up with. Freudian, eh.

Besides, you can't introduce much difference in complexity on that way before ending in a no-win scenario: If the easy to play classes can keep up, the the hard to play classes ask: Why I'm bothering with this shit?.

So you never played AD&D. That's cool, but you're wrong. Some people genuinely enjoy fiddling with mechanical complexity for very small material gains, even enjoying it more when they have to work harder for a smaller gain.

If the hard to play classes end up being more powerful (like the 3.5 wizard), then the easy to play classes just stop bothering, given that they don't make much of sdifference anyways.

Again, AD&D, casters totally win at high levels, but the mechanics simply do not allow them to complete any serious task without a Fighter to take the hits for them. You can't teleport everywhere because it kills you 1% of the time. You can't solve everything by asking the gods because it turns you into a non-spellcaster 1% of the time. You cannot reliably cast spells in melee. Your high level spells are not available every day. You get maybe 7 Wishes in your whole life, if you work really hard at it, and it takes 10 of them to bump your Int. You're the only one in the party who can't laugh at Fireballs, which can blow back on you.

Win, just not all on your own, not all the time, not without an escort team, and not without being pretty good at the details.

I mean, 3.5 can be championed all that you want, but a VAST segment of the TTRPG market will not touch it until that is adressed by the company selling it.

Oldschool, dude. AD&D mechanics are a horrible mess, and 2nd edition's worse in many ways despite being reasonably comprehensible. But 3e takes all the limits off spellcasters, which means you don't ever need anyone else.

They shouldn't be as simple as 1E/2E fighters.

ARGHGHGHGH! What was half the party in 1e/2e games? FIGHTERS! It wasn't mechanically all that advantageous, a lot of people just enjoy that shit. Like I do. For reals.

[OgreBattle]

Do you think 4e's Essentials/PHB classes are a good example of 'class as choosing your level of complexity'?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Do you think 4e's Essentials/PHB classes are a good example of 'class as choosing your level of complexity'?

No. In many cases creating or running an Essentials character (esp. Warpriest and Sentinel) is actually more complex than running a base 4E D&D character! I mean, as a Warpriest you continue to gain class features even after level 1, which is heresy. Not to mention that you still have to poke through about 20+ paragon paths per class, poke through hundreds of feat for 5-7 slots before you even reach the 1/3rd mark of the game, and don't get me started about treasure.

Essentials managed to find the sweet spot of 'overly complex customization' with 'meaningless customization'. I don't mind there being an option for complex characters as long as the differences are meaningful. I also don't mind there being simple characters as long as you can create them quickly. But that half-and-half waffling crap Essentials did is the worst of both words.

ARGHGHGHGH! What was half the party in 1e/2e games? FIGHTERS! It wasn't mechanically all that advantageous, a lot of people just enjoy that shit. Like I do. For reals.

Look, I can sympathize by feeling overwhelmed by a character that has too many options both in the character creation and combat phase, but at the same time I don't want to be bored out of my fucking mind hearing the two party fighters go 'I waste it with my crossbow!' or 'I 5 foot square and FULL ATTACK the orc!' for the billionth time. The minimal complexity isn't for you, it's for the other people at the table who don't want to suffer through your repetitive and unimaginative turns.

[ckafrica]

ARGHGHGHGH! What was half the party in 1e/2e games? FIGHTERS! It wasn't mechanically all that advantageous, a lot of people just enjoy that shit. Like I do. For reals.

Look, I can sympathize by feeling overwhelmed by a character that has too many options both in the character creation and combat phase, but at the same time I don't want to be bored out of my fucking mind hearing the two party fighters go 'I waste it with my crossbow!' or 'I 5 foot square and FULL ATTACK the orc!' for the billionth time. The minimal complexity isn't for you, it's for the other people at the table who don't want to suffer through your repetitive and unimaginative turns.

As much as I hate to use GNS terminology, you are arguing with a hardcore simulationist. anything you say wither has to directed in such a philosophical precept or it's wasted breath. Tussock has proven that if it isn't MC against player antagonistic rpgs he's not interested. If that is not the theme you're aiming for any discussion with him is falling on deaf ears.

[Gx1080]

@tussock

Fuck your superior attitude and the elitist horse it rode in on. Plenty of people, including me, are happy to play the game through a simple-ass Fighter mechanic and personalise it with a personality rather than a dozen feats.

Wait, *I* am promoting elitism by saying that the game system itself shouldn't be elitist?. The fuck?

Again, AD&D, casters totally win at high levels, but the mechanics simply do not allow them to complete any serious task without a Fighter to take the hits for them.

Listen, that worked on AD&D, but the assumption that people have now is that all party characters share somewhat-equal screentime, not that melee characters are a glorificated NPC escort.

Overall, your argument boils down to: "real roleplayers like crap mechanics". Come on, that argument doesn't fly from the rabid WW fanbase or shadzar, much less from you.

Try harder.

[hogarth]

How many do you play regularly? How many of those games have your friends bought supplements for? How many players are there for those 7+ games in your local community vs. how many players are there for D&D and Pathfinder in your local community?

Once again once AGAIN, you're asking the wrong question. Sure, you can point to those sales and go 'ha, see, complex games sell better!' but you're doing the wrong kind of comparison. Even if the sales of those simple games weren't all that large the question you then need to ask is would making it much more complex have reduced sales even further?

No fucking shit it'd be hard as balls to find a game and that people would be skeptical about buying the product even if he raved that it was the best game evar. It's running up against problem #3 in my list. I don't see how exacerbating problems 1 and 2 would have increased sales.

Right, that's exactly what I'm asking about -- problem #3 or "network effects".

Even if you make the most awesome rules-light game in the world, how do you prevent it from just cannibalizing your rules-heavy system? That's the crux of the issue. The reality is that many people who would prefer to play a niche version of their favourite game will (grudgingly) play the majority version instead, if that's all that's offered. And that may be a bad thing from the player's perspective, but that's a good thing from the game publisher's perspective.

Paizo's approach is to say "We will not provide any more support for our rules-light beginner system. Period. Maybe third-party publishers will print modules for it, but our official stance is that once you've played with the beginner system a bit, you should move on to the advanced version."

I'm not sure how successful that will be, but it makes a whole lot more sense than "Our new version will magically attract a previously undiscovered supply of players and will magically repel our old supply of players" or "There aren't two different versions, there's just one version that happens to come in two different flavours that are exactly the same except different" (i.e. the "Essentials is 4E" doubletalk paradigm).

[OgreBattle]

No. In many cases creating or running an Essentials character (esp. Warpriest and Sentinel) is actually more complex than running a base 4E D&D character! I mean, as a Warpriest you continue to gain class features even after level 1, which is heresy. Not to mention that you still have to poke through about 20+ paragon paths per class, poke through hundreds of feat for 5-7 slots before you even reach the 1/3rd mark of the game, and don't get me started about treasure.

the magic users were made more fiddly to fulfill 3.X fans who wanted more fiddly characters though.

I mean like comparing Knight and Slayer to Weaponmaster Fighter.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not sure how successful that will be, but it makes a whole lot more sense than "Our new version will magically attract a previously undiscovered supply of players and will magically repel our old supply of players"

Why the fuck did you even present this as an argument? Is there anyone outside the imaginary strawman game designers in your brain who would intentionally push this point of view?

There's no reason why attracting a new customer base has to end with you alienating old ones. I mean it sometimes happens and it ends in failure (see Nintendo Gamecube) but just as often within the same company you hold onto your old fanbase and attract a new one (see Nintendo DS and Wii).

"There aren't two different versions, there's just one version that happens to come in two different flavours that are exactly the same except different" (i.e. the "Essentials is 4E" doubletalk paradigm).

If you're going to do this project the whole point of it is not to pretend that the versions are the same. You want to push compatibility but you also want to emphasize that the gameplay experiences are different. D&D Lite is purposely designed to cater towards quick 90-120 minute dungeon crawls with new players, meaning that it takes place in the low levels with reduced rules, simplified character generation, and more of an emphasis on hack and slash than roleplaying. D&D Advanced plays like the current D&D experience. There are 'basic' classes so Trevor or Grandma can quickly hop into an established group and let 'er rip.

Paizo's approach is to say "We will not provide any more support for our rules-light beginner system. Period. Maybe third-party publishers will print modules for it, but our official stance is that once you've played with the beginner system a bit, you should move on to the advanced version."

Look, D&D's emphasis should be on trying to promote people to the advanced version because the profit margins are greater.

Regardless, there will always be a contingent of the playerbase who would find D&D-lite just ducky but will never enjoy D&D-advanced. Just because Wii Sports and Puzzle Quest is a hit in the nursing home doesn't mean that No More Heroes 2 or Mad World or even most of the Nintendo game database would be. You'll still want to try to get them to branch out because there are tween girl gamers who would enjoy Dead Rising if given the chance, but chances are they'll just be happy at the introductory level.

Fuming about this portion of the playbase being satisfied with D&D-lite or Nintendogs or whatever the fuck and not getting a per-player profit that's the same as a hardcore Nintendo nerd who buys games that they don't even play is a folly. Someone hooked on D&D-lite may never 'graduate' to D&D-core, but that doesn't mean that they won't buy a D&D-lite 2. That's like giving all of the feed of the three geese that lay silver eggs to the goose that lays golden ones and telling them that they'll get fed again once they start laying golden ones.

[hogarth]

Regardless, there will always be a contingent of the playerbase who would find D&D-lite just ducky but will never enjoy D&D-advanced.

[citation needed]

[Lago PARANOIA]

The whole 'hook 'em with a loss leader, then switch to your REAL product' strategy is not one I'm fond of, especially in the entertainment industry. If Nintendo announces that they're never going to make another Nintendog game ever again--because it's so good that the periphery demographic doesn't want to buy anything else--but they are going to continue to support all of their (more expensive) classic lines, some of the players might continue to stick with Nintendo but I bet the majority of them are just not going to go along with it.

I mean, really, here's the breakdown of the said fans for this Paizo experiment and how discontinuing it will affect sales:

[*] Regular ass gamers who think that the basic line is too kiddy so will stick with the core product. You cancel the sales, no change in profit.
[*] Completionist nerds with huge bank accounts who don't give a care what they're buying as long as it has a Paizo logo on it. You cancel the sales, profit loss from this group.
[*] People who are a member of two or more roleplaying groups with fundamentally different dynamics. They may prefer one or the other but buy from both lines to maximize the chances of getting a game. You cancel the sales, profit loss from this group.
[*] People who are happy with the lite line but 'know' that they won't be satisfied with the advanced line for one reason or the other. Even if their favored product is discontinued, they're not going to buy your advanced product. You cancel the sales, profit loss from this group.
[*] People who would eventually like both lines but at the moment finds the advanced line too daunting. They'll come to enjoy it eventually but they need a helping hand into the franchise. But without the helping hand they'll never migrate to your more profitable line. Look up 'loss leader' if this concept is too difficult. You cancel the sales, profit loss from this group.
[*] People who have no consumer preferences; they bought the lite line because they want to be in the Paizo/Roleplaying 'in-group' and it's the cheapest there is. So when the cheap option is cancelled you give them the ultimatum of jumping ship or buying more expensive products to stay in the 'in group'. You cancel the sales... profit loss/gain unknown. Will the sales from the people who stick around to gather around a brand outweigh those of the loss of sales from people, while wanting to be in the Paizo ingroup, don't want to be in it THAT much? Who knows.
[*] People who are sticking with the product line out of a status-quo bias and trepidation. They would like to try something better, really, but don't want to make the commitment because change is threatening and scary. Like the above group, you cut them off and make an ultimatum. Again, the profit change from this is unknown because you don't know the portion of the people who will be pissed off and will quite out of spite or decide that this is where they cash in their chips as opposed to the people who just need to be 'weaned' off of the product.

Now, Paizo discontinuing the basic line because they're worried about an oversaturated market or because the basic line wasn't profitable in the first place is one thing, but discontinuing it in an attempt to force the silver-egg laying geese to lay gold ones? Get the fuck outta town.

[Lago PARANOIA]

[citation needed]

Do you really find it that hard to imagine that there will be people who will enjoy Tetris and Bejewelled but not Puzzle Quest or Grandmaster Tetris? Or that people will like and enjoy Star Trek: TNG or Buffy but not Star Trek: DS9 or Angel despite many critics and crossover fans saying that the latter is better?

[hogarth]

[citation needed]

Do you really find it that hard to imagine that there will be people who will enjoy Tetris and Bejewelled but not Puzzle Quest or Grandmaster Tetris?

Why are you comparing single-player games to multiplayer games?

Specifically, I'm wondering how you know that there are more than a handful of tabletop RPG players out there who (a) are happy to play a rules-light version of D&D, AND (b) will never play a rules-heavy version of D&D.

[Username17]

[citation needed]

Do you really find it that hard to imagine that there will be people who will enjoy Tetris and Bejewelled but not Puzzle Quest or Grandmaster Tetris?

Why are you comparing single-player games to multiplayer games?

Specifically, I'm wondering how you know that there are more than a handful of tabletop RPG players out there who (a) are happy to play a rules-light version of D&D, AND (b) will never play a rules-heavy version of D&D.

Uh... because there are people who won't play Arkham Horror with the extra boards? Or because there are people who will play Settlers of Cataan but not Cities and Knights? That there is a complexity threshold beyond which certain players will not have fun is so thoroughly documented that to have you seriously question it at this point is just fucking bizarre.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

[citation needed]

Do you really find it that hard to imagine that there will be people who will enjoy Tetris and Bejewelled but not Puzzle Quest or Grandmaster Tetris?

Why are you comparing single-player games to multiplayer games?

My Lord in Heaven...

1.) Puzzle Quest and Grandmaster Tetris can not only be played single player, that's where they get the majority of gameplay.

2.) I love a side of 'these things are not exactly the same, so they can't be compared'. It's totally not a cheap and lazy debating tactic.

3.) WHO THE HELL CARES? How does that detract from my overall point that there are games with a level of complexity to them that will turn off fans of a highly similar but simpler game? Yes, Virginia, multiplayer is an added layer of complexity in the same way extra maps, extra moves, and extra characters add to complexity. So the fuck what?

Specifically, I'm wondering how you know that there are more than a handful of tabletop RPG players out there who (a) are happy to play a rules-light version of D&D, AND (b) will never play a rules-heavy version of D&D.

Because no one knows. The only way to find out is to offer both products simultaneously and--get this--poll the users and read sales statistics. Then you can look at my above list of potential crossover players and decide a course of action based upon that. But only a very specific proportion of player demographics would actually contribute to increased sales over the 'wean people off of D&D lite' tactics and they'd have to be the overwhelming majority, so, I'm not holding my breath.

[hogarth]

2.) I love a side of 'these things are not exactly the same, so they can't be compared'. It's totally not a cheap and lazy debating tactic.

If we're saying that network effects are the big issue, it makes no sense to bring up things that aren't networked.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And what does that have to do with the Tetris/Bejewelled/Puzzle Quest/Tetris Grandmaster crossover fanbase problem?

[hogarth]

And what does that have to do with the Tetris/Bejewelled/Puzzle Quest/Tetris Grandmaster crossover fanbase problem?

If you don't know what that example was supposed to prove, I'm sure I don't either!

[JigokuBosatsu]

Man, I wonder if there's a regional difference as well as a generational one. When I was growing up in rural VA(born 77, so I guess that would be the heyday of the NES) if you were a guy, you played video games. Period. If you didn't, there was something wrong with you. Usually poverty, which considering how dirt poor I was (I ended up with Master System and NES, somehow) is saying something. And as far as TTRPGs went, pre high school it was also cool, though much more limited in scope. Once high school hit, it was something all the nerds did, but you weren't necessarily a nerd for doing it. Vampire was really coming up by this point too. And of course it helped me greatly that while I was a complete nerd, I was basically The Dude, at least as far as appearance/mystery went. Go figure.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you don't know what that example was supposed to prove, I'm sure I don't either!

Look, you're the one who had that weird multiplayer example and tried to make some tenuous connection via 'word of mouth'. What the hell does that even mean?

All I said that the fact that Bejewelled/Tetris having players in the tens of millions and Puzzle Quest/Grandmaster Tetris--which use the same base gameplay mechanics but are a lot more/noticeably complicated--having players in the hundreds of thousands should be ample evidence that there is no reason to believe that just because someone likes a base game doesn't mean that they'll like all of the add-ons. Bringing up some weird multiplayer crap (which is not even true as Bejewelled and Tetris are about as multiplayer as PQ and GT) is just a total non-sequitur because the fact that the games are multiplayer has little to do with how any of those games caught fire. Not to mention that even if it wasn't it's totally unimportant; would you be satisfied if I came up with single-player games that have a large fanbase but the more complex versions of said games have a smaller fanbase despite both products existing at the same time with a significant crossover demographic?

[tussock]

@Gx1080; I may have the wrong end of the stick. Woods for trees. Happens.
@ckafrica; Meh, True enough, but it's kinda weird to read people talking about how players can't be having fun if the DM doesn't fudge everything to fit his story.

Do you think 4e's Essentials/PHB classes are a good example of 'class as choosing your level of complexity'?

Essentials isn't really an attempt at differentiating complexity. It's more along the lines of putting different mechanics on abilities derived from different sources. That's facing up to the complaint that 4e Fighters and Wizards feel the same to play, despite having different tasks in battle.

Some people have trouble with feeling like their character doing something different unless they are doing something different. I appreciate their point, but it doesn't much bother me.

Anyway, the Essentials Fighter powers work more on a Fatigue-like model, with "change stances" instead of choosing different spells like a Wizard. Subtle stuff about how the game is flavoured. Mostly the same 4e style though, Fighter kits in 2nd edition had as much mechanical variety.

ARGHGHGHGH! What was half the party in 1e/2e games? FIGHTERS! It wasn't mechanically all that advantageous, a lot of people just enjoy that shit. Like I do. For reals.

Look, I can sympathize by feeling overwhelmed by a character that has too many options both in the character creation and combat phase, but at the same time I don't want to be bored out of my fucking mind hearing the two party fighters go 'I waste it with my crossbow!' or 'I 5 foot square and FULL ATTACK the orc!' for the billionth time.

The beauty of really simple characters is I've rolled for hit and damage before it's even my turn, added them up, and I'm done in a few seconds to get on with everyone else's. I don't have options to check off. That's how you get on with the game with ten other people at the table.

Maybe take a moment to describe in full glory the decapitations and gutting falls of the mooks. But not all the time.

The minimal complexity isn't for you, it's for the other people at the table who don't want to suffer through your repetitive and unimaginative turns.

Yeh, yeh. I find the simplest characters stop being repetitive the moment something more complex than three Ogres in a square room happens.