Re: Olympia - Getting Too Complex?

From: skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)

Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 21:58:26 +0000

Olympia is definitely a complex game.  But is it too complex?

o	My goal is to produce a very rich world, but have
	the game still be easy to play.

o	Much of the complexity in Olympia come from features which
	the players themselves demanded.

o	There is a tendency for games to get more and more complex,
	because the most vocal players are the ones who relish this
	complexity.

Let me elaborate on these:

My goal is to produce a very rich world, but have
	the game still be easy to play.

I am definitely going for a vast, epic atmosphere in Olympia.
I think this is one of the appeals of the game.  It's a huge world.
It would take a long, long time to completely map it, to learn all
of the skills, to rise to the #1 position in a category.  There are
over one hundred players, and five times that many units roaming
about.  Still only 1/3 of the world has been seen by the players.

However, I am very sensitive to the fact that the size of the rules
may be intimidating to new players.  I've tried to keep complexity
out of the rules in a couple of ways.  Documentation on arcane game
details has been banished to appendices in the rules.  And skill
uses with lore sheets factor out a large number of commands which
players may learn about over time as they play.

[ Yes, I know I haven't written all of the lore sheets.  Don't send
me any more mail saying you haven't gotten lore sheets!  :-) ]

For example, the FORTIFY command has been moved into a construction
skill use, and Teaching is now a skill instead of a command.  The
command set would be quite a bit more complex if every skill use was
a top-level command, and they were all described in the rules.

Much of the complexity in Olympia is from features which
	the players themselves demanded.

Teaching itself was a command that many players had asked me for.
Turn after turn I received requests to make a guild system, so that
players could join together with a game supported mechanism.  There
seems to be no end of further demands for "realism" in combat.

But this leads up to:

There is a tendency for games to get more and more complex,
	because the most vocal players are the ones who relish this
	complexity.

So what are we to do?  Cater to the casual player, or pile on more
meat for the expert?  What I'm trying to do is add hidden depth,
while retaining a simple interface.  Entertainment is vastly more
complex this turn, although its interface hasn't changed a bit.
Combat is far more detailed now, but you can still attack and
kill units with the same command.

Why is it a problem if combat keeps track of a hidden fatigue
factor?  If you attack 12 units in one turn, your 12th attack will
be less successful than your 1st.  This is intuitive, so it shouldn't
be a surprise, and many players will be upset if they don't see
this behavior.

> Loyalty - what does this add to the game?

Loyalty is an integral component of the whole maintenance cost/
persuade/terrorize/impress system.  This is a large part of the
game for some players.

Zyzak tried to raise a huge army without paying for his men; it
was no doubt irritating when a different unit deserted each turn.
But this is correct -- it shouldn't be easy to raise a 350 man army,
especially without paying for them.

> Prisoners in combat - ditto

Several players asked for this.  Capturing units and ransoming
them back to their owners is a new way to make money.  Without
this, also, the only way to enforce "laws" is to punish by death.
If only capturing had been implemented when poor Gorby was caught
breaking the law in Drassa.

> Extra CANCEL options - ditto

Some players wanted to remove their waits or running orders
while leaving the rest intact.  Does this really count as
excessive complexity?

> Guilds - these are good, but IMHO should not be implemented in the
> rules, but rather left to player politics to work out.

In some sense I agree, but the players seem to enjoy them so much.
If you don't like 'em, don't join 'em.  They don't affect you at
all if you don't belong.

> Unit maintenance costs - do these actually add anything to the game
> except bookkeeping? All that happens is that units have to spend X
> amount of time WORKing.

You need to make money to fund your enterprises in Olympia.  Using
the WORK command is the least imaginative way to do this, but for
unskilled units it may be the only choice.  Wars are expensive.

> Varying month lengths - why not just make them all the same length?
> Easier to keep track then of how many days of activity you have per
> turn.

I'll remove the varying month lengths if enough players agree with
you here.  I should probably put a line in the turn report that
says how long the next month will be, so you don't have to look it
up in the calendar.  This was just for some flavor.

> Why have the TEACH command? There is already one way to learn skills and
> conceptual integrity suggests that extra ways to do something should not
> be provided without good reason.

Players asked over and over for a way to teach other units.  Currently,
it's expensive and difficult.  If players can find advantage to using
it, then great.

> Combat: bows are better weapons except in wet weather when the
> bowstrings are wet so swords are better. What does this add to the game?

The ability for a sneaky magician to summon rain to ruin your
campaign.  It adds a element of strategy.  The idea is that longbows
are supposed to be rather deadly, but highly susceptible to weather.

Most players don't need to worry about this.  The average fighting
unit has a randomly collection of armor and weapons; what do they
care if it's raining, the men will fight with whatever they have
available.  But if you're going to make a crack missile crew, you'd
better make sure that your enemy doesn't cast Summon rain just
before your big attack.

What do other players think?

--
Rich Skrenta

References

Olympia - Getting Too Complex?
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 11 May 1992 19:35:33 +0000

Referenced By

Olympia - Getting Too Complex?
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 11 May 1992 19:35:33 +0000