EZ Mode Classes, Complex Classes, and Resentment

[Lago PARANOIA]

So we all know the TTRPG tradition of giving players new to the game training wheel classes that are mechanically weaker than the more complex classes. And there's good reason to stop this.

On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if there's any downside to making the EZ Mode classes in gestalt as effective as the complex classes. For example, a class like Dread Necromancer or Beguiler is just a greater mental investment at and off the table than a class like Tome Barbarian. While I'm sure some people will like the challenge in of itself, I'm sure a lot of people will similarly resent that they have to put in the extra effort just so they can be equal to the guy who's playing the class that's meant for beginners. Maybe not immediately, but certainly over time.

Do you see this negative side effect as significant enough to have to write your game around it? Why or why not?

[deaddmwalking]

I don't see a problem with a complex class being 'only' as good as a less complex class. Some folks like complexity and exploring the intricacies. But having everything 'given' to another player doesn't take that away.

If Timmy can NEVER be as good as the person who mastered the rules (because of his class choice) I see that as a bigger problem than if a rules expert has to work to be as good as Timmy's 'EZ Mode' character.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If Timmy can NEVER be as good as the person who mastered the rules (because of his class choice) I see that as a bigger problem than if a rules expert has to work to be as good as Timmy's 'EZ Mode' character.

So why shouldn't a rules expert just pick an EZ Mode class for themselves and get the same results with less work?

[Stubbazubba]

If Timmy can NEVER be as good as the person who mastered the rules (because of his class choice) I see that as a bigger problem than if a rules expert has to work to be as good as Timmy's 'EZ Mode' character.

So why shouldn't a rules expert just pick an EZ Mode class for themselves and get the same results with less work?

Because he's not acting rationally? That's not really an argument, just an observation. We'd have to see; would people still do it for the fun of it, or would they really respond to that lack of power incentive? I'm not sure which way it would play out.

[Laertes]

If Timmy can NEVER be as good as the person who mastered the rules (because of his class choice) I see that as a bigger problem than if a rules expert has to work to be as good as Timmy's 'EZ Mode' character.

So why shouldn't a rules expert just pick an EZ Mode class for themselves and get the same results with less work?

Who loses if he does?

[Mistborn]

Who loses if he does?

The person who put lots of effort into mastering your game who never gets rewarded for it. The idea of the "Timmy class" is for him to have a simple option to get into the game without feeling like he's drag on the rest of the party. The purpose of easy mode is to give people a bridge into your game if the easy mode class is also flat out the best you've failed as a designer because there is no incentive to move on to the rest of the game.

Of course this a big question over this whole process is what makes one "skilled" at TTRPGs anyway?

[momothefiddler]

If Timmy can NEVER be as good as the person who mastered the rules (because of his class choice) I see that as a bigger problem than if a rules expert has to work to be as good as Timmy's 'EZ Mode' character.

So why shouldn't a rules expert just pick an EZ Mode class for themselves and get the same results with less work?

If that's what they want to do, great! They can. Why should they be shamed or punished for not putting in enough work to get to the fun part? Do you demand that levels 1-4 be unpleasant and that people play through them so they Earn The Right to have fun?

Sometimes I wanna have more and more complex options so I can better fit character to concept, or so I can take longer to get bored of my abilities, or so I can tune my approach to each encounter a little better. Sometimes I just wanna punch things. If these things can be balanced against each other to the point that I can pick either one and still contribute meaningfully to the party and the game and the story, that's wonderful.

I don't see the issue.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Who loses if he does?

The person playing the complex class. For a given amount of effort they get the same results.

Which brings us back full circle -- does the resentment caused by someone having to put in more effort for a same or lesser result outweigh that of the resentment of people who hit a ceiling on effectiveness until they play a more complex class?

Why should they be shamed or punished for not putting in enough work to get to the fun part?

There's no activity that I know of that doesn't posit some amount of minimum effort from the players before things start getting fun. A chess player doesn't have to know the various openings and endgames in order to have fun with the game, but at the very least we demand them to know how the pieces move.

In the end, we're talking about where to draw the line and why for 'how much of the rules do you need to know before your fun starts drastically dropping off'. So I think that it's a fair question.

[deaddmwalking]

Here's the thing, people who enjoy MASTERY usually aren't in it to show how awesome they can be - at least, not in real games. Breaking the game isn't fun for anybody - but showing how it can be done IS FUN.

The best as rules mastery are going to make a character that does the things they want to do, but those things aren't necessarily optimal. If berserkers are 'the best class', and somebody wants to be that, your rules mastery folks are going to challenge themselves by making an Expert into JUST AS FORMIDABLE an opponent.

And if they think an 'easy mode' character is fun, they'll choose that. If you offer some additional mechanical tweaks (such as alternate class features) maybe they'll experiment in those areas - while they may not be anymore POWERFUL than another character, they will be DIFFERENT.

[ishy]

If Timmy can NEVER be as good as the person who mastered the rules (because of his class choice) I see that as a bigger problem than if a rules expert has to work to be as good as Timmy's 'EZ Mode' character.

So why shouldn't a rules expert just pick an EZ Mode class for themselves and get the same results with less work?

For the exact same reason the game designer is offering more complex classes in the first place.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Here's the thing, people who enjoy MASTERY usually aren't in it to show how awesome they can be - at least, not in real games.

Keep in mind that people besides optimizers and rules monsters play complex classes as well. Wizard is a difficult class to get rolling but new players and low optimizers still wanted to be wizards.

For the exact same reason the game designer is offering more complex classes in the first place.

What reason would that be?

[momothefiddler]

Who loses if he does?

The person playing the complex class. For a given amount of effort they get the same results.

Or they could spend even less effort by not playing the game at all and end up with the same results. It's not like being good at D&D will improve your love life or financial status.

It's a game. A non-competitive one, even. Someone who plays chess doesn't play chess because they get more Power Points than if they played checkers, they play it because they enjoy it (or, very occasionally, can make money, but...). If the simple class provides a better ratio of fun:not-fun for you, then play that. If the complex one does, play that. Saying "I'm doing this thing that's not as fun as that thing that other person's doing, so they need to have less fun" is really gross, especially in a situation like where you could just, you know, do the more fun thing.

Personally, I like complexity. I enjoy learning game systems and toying with fiddly bits. So the fun:not-fun ratio on a complex class is really high because the effort part is also fun. If someone resents putting in that effort, then they should probably play a simpler class.

As far as I can tell, the resentment comes from the fact that the complex classes are more powerful. The resentful player feels forced into something they don't want to do in order to "keep up" or "be better" or otherwise access that extra power, and then they resent anyone who gets there without the same amount of travail because people are shitty.

[Stubbazubba]

Which brings us back full circle -- does the resentment caused by someone having to put in more effort for a same or lesser result outweigh that of the resentment of people who hit a ceiling on effectiveness until they play a more complex class?

My gut tells me no, it doesn't; it's much harder to notice that you're not doing a whole ton better than the basic class, and if your build is working as well as you expected, there's not actually that much incentive to start comparing it to everyone else at the table (Precisely how effective are they? How many hours did it take them to get there?). You wouldn't notice this on a regular basis; more likely you would be told or otherwise find out that mathematically you're not better off. It's not something you directly experience very often.

People who are ineffective on their own, however, are much more likely to notice it. If your build is not doing what you expect it to do (like having anything to say to flying enemies or magic users), then you will directly notice that in a relatively high percentage of play experiences. It's much more immediate and therefore has more impact.

But that's just my gut. In something as fickle as players of RPGs, I can't comfortably say we can really measure the price elasticity of power.

[momothefiddler]

Why should they be shamed or punished for not putting in enough work to get to the fun part?

There's no activity that I know of that doesn't posit some amount of minimum effort from the players before things start getting fun. A chess player doesn't have to know the various openings and endgames in order to have fun with the game, but at the very least we demand them to know how the pieces move.

In the end, we're talking about where to draw the line and why for 'how much of the rules do you need to know before your fun starts drastically dropping off'. So I think that it's a fair question.

I think "How complex can your quickstart rules be?" is a fair question and should be discussed. I think "Are quickstart classes allowed to be as influential on the story as full-rules classes?" is a simple question and the answer is yes of course if you can pull it off. I think "Are people entitled to be bitchy when the quickstart player gets to have as much fun as they're having?" is also a simple question and the answer is no of course not.

[Laertes]

Who loses if he does?

The person playing the complex class. For a given amount of effort they get the same results.

Which brings us back full circle -- does the resentment caused by someone having to put in more effort for a same or lesser result outweigh that of the resentment of people who hit a ceiling on effectiveness until they play a more complex class?

You're assuming that the results they're looking to get out are "character effectiveness." That's often (usually?) not the case. In my experience, most players are motivated by one or more of the following
- Spotlight time.
- Escapism.
- Power fantasies.
- Feeling like they've defeated the game by coming up with an unforeseen combo.
- Feeling like they're pulling their weight.
- The experience of being another person in another world.
- The feeling of being good at something (very common for people who don't have fulfilling jobs.)
- Just hanging out with their friends.
- Wanting to, as momothefiddler says, hit things.

Personally, I'm a spotlight whore with a bit of tinkerer. I don't really care that much whether my character is powerful as long as I got to build them myself and they get to play a speaking role in every scene. Other people may be fine with playing the guy who sits quietly in the back doing nothing, safe in the knowledge that if it came to a hand-to-hand fight, they would win. It takes all sorts.

[Stubbazubba]

Keep in mind that people besides optimizers and rules monsters play complex classes as well. Wizard is a difficult class to get rolling but new players and low optimizers still wanted to be wizards.

This almost certainly has more to do with Wizard fitting the concept they want to play than it does with their desire for more power.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's a game. A non-competitive one, even.

I don't buy this premise. Even in games that are presumably not competitive people compare themselves to the other players and even to themselves all the time. Even if the results are the same, the process can be in of itself a point of comparison.

Personally, I like complexity. I enjoy learning game systems and toying with fiddly bits. So the fun:not-fun ratio on a complex class is really high because the effort part is also fun.

How many people does that hold true for, though?

You're assuming that the results they're looking to get out are "character effectiveness." That's often (usually?) not the case.

This almost certainly has more to do with Wizard fitting the concept they want to play than it does with their desire for more power.

So why wouldn't these find the additional requirement of 'you have to put in more effort to run your class' demotivating? They're not in it for the complexity of the class, they're in it for the aesthetics. They want to be a wizard or an engineer or a warlord because it fits the idea in their head the best and they're really interested with how the class interacts with the world and their favorite movie character is that class. And now you're making them jump through another hoop just for the chance to be as good as someone who doesn't have to jump through the hoop.

[ishy]

For the exact same reason the game designer is offering more complex classes in the first place.

What reason would that be?

Mostly, different people liking different things. If you feel your game does not gain anything from adding more complex classes you shouldn't do so in the first case, obviously.

- Edit: Same reason why many people find Fox only, no items, 1 stage only, final destination, to be unsatisfying.

[Stubbazubba]

This almost certainly has more to do with Wizard fitting the concept they want to play than it does with their desire for more power.

So why wouldn't these find the additional requirement of 'you have to put in more effort to run your class' demotivating? They're not in it for the complexity of the class, they're in it for the aesthetics. They want to be a wizard or an engineer or a warlord because it fits the idea in their head the best and they're really interested with how the class interacts with the world and their favorite movie character is that class. And now you're making them jump through another hoop just for the chance to be as good as someone who doesn't have to jump through the hoop.

They're not generally aware of the difference in complexity, or at least its magnitude. And I don't advocate putting certain generic character concepts behind complexity pay walls. If they had perfect information, they would find it demotivating and might content themselves to play something less complicated. But information is imperfect, and people get into classes based on what the tin says, which notably lacks complexity ratings.

[momothefiddler]

It's a game. A non-competitive one, even.

I don't buy this premise. Even in games that are presumably not competitive people compare themselves to the other players and even to themselves all the time. Even if the results are the same, the process can be in of itself a point of comparison.

and then they resent anyone who gets there without the same amount of travail because people are shitty.

This is the same basic approach that leads to enforced scarcity. In a way, this is enforced scarcity, with 'power' getting an arbitrarily higher cost just so it'll feel more valuable to the people who can afford it. And I think that's fucking bullshit. But hey, you're in... if not good company, at least lots of it.

Personally, I like complexity. I enjoy learning game systems and toying with fiddly bits. So the fun:not-fun ratio on a complex class is really high because the effort part is also fun.

How many people does that hold true for, though?

Probably not enough to justify the current ratio of complex classes to simple ones. We should have more "throws fireballs" and "roars intimidatingly" and less "uses diversion to gain stealth to gain sneakydamages"

[deaddmwalking]

And now you're making them jump through another hoop just for the chance to be as good as someone who doesn't have to jump through the hoop.

I don't see it that way. You're giving them more flexibility so they can play what they want. A simple class is going to have all the options (or most of the options) pre-selected.

There's no reason to automatically select weak options for the EZ class.

Flexibility is good. Customizability is good. In terms of raw power, it might or might not be good depending on what they design their concept around. But ultimately, they're going to get to enjoy playing exactly what they wanted to play (strong or weak) while Timmy gets to enjoy playing something easy (that happens to be strong).

If Timmy is forced to play something weak then he has two reasons to be upset - he didn't get to extensively choose his own concept AND he doesn't get to be powerful or contribute to the game in a meaningful way.

If you want Timmy to realize how much he sucks, just make him play a henchman character at a lower level - don't make the classes deliberately suck so he can understand how much contempt you have for him.

[Lago PARANOIA]

They're not generally aware of the difference in complexity, or at least its magnitude.

Do you mean in general or just for TTRPGs? Because, like, even though the maximum score people can get on a school paper is 100% people will still notice and resent pity-As.

and then they resent anyone who gets there without the same amount of travail because people are shitty.

Hate to tell you this, but there's nothing ethically wrong with resenting someone because you feel like they had an unfair advantage and then forming policy off of it. In fact lots of times it's just impossible; no matter what option you choose including nothing at all you're going to offend and cause resentment in someone. If you really do feel this way then discussing game balance is a priori pointless.

But ultimately, they're going to get to enjoy playing exactly what they wanted to play (strong or weak) while Timmy gets to enjoy playing something easy (that happens to be strong).

But when everyone selects the class they would've enjoyed playing and then start doing comparisons, you're back at Square One. For example: people enjoy playing suboptimal builds in groups or games where the suboptimality isn't obvious; a lot of people who later realize that monks suck genuinely enjoyed playing them before that dawning realization. But said dawning realization came as a result of the comparison.

I posit that human beings compare and resent from the process as well as the results. This is why some people sneer at the concept of participation trophies at all even if there are valid reasons for handing them out.

[Laertes]

[quote="Lago PARANOIA]So why wouldn't these find the additional requirement of 'you have to put in more effort to run your class' demotivating? They're not in it for the complexity of the class, they're in it for the aesthetics. They want to be a wizard or an engineer or a warlord because it fits the idea in their head the best and they're really interested with how the class interacts with the world and their favorite movie character is that class. And now you're making them jump through another hoop just for the chance to be as good as someone who doesn't have to jump through the hoop.[/quote]

I now get what you're saying, and I apologise for not understanding it earlier. It's a fairly subtle point, I feel. Also I'm hopped up on caffeine because I'm pulling overtime doing some really menacing Excel so I'm a little jumpy.

This is probably the reason why I don't play D&D, or at least one of the reasons. See, my favourite class in terms of aesthetics is the entirely mundane fighter who has no magic skills or abilities of any sort, and no superpowered or special-move-y feats. I'd probably build him as a human. On the other hand, mechanically I really like to build a veritable Rube Goldberg Device of powers which key off of one another in weird and unusual ways and produce emergent outcomes that nobody ever intended. As you point out, this causes a conflict between the aesthetics I want and the mechanics I want.

The obvious solution to this, of course, is to have several classes which are mechanically very different but have the same aesthetics. So you would have the beginner fighter, the advanced fighter and the expert fighter, all of whom perform the same party function and have the same aesthetic but are mechanically distinct under the hood.

[momothefiddler]

and then they resent anyone who gets there without the same amount of travail because people are shitty.

Hate to tell you this, but there's nothing ethically wrong with resenting someone because you feel like they had an unfair advantage and then forming policy off of it. In fact lots of times it's just impossible; no matter what option you choose including nothing at all you're going to offend and cause resentment in someone. If you really do feel this way then discussing game balance is a priori pointless.

Lago, the entire point of our species is that there are different ways to get to the same destination and some require less effort than others. Are you going to get rid of force multipliers entirely because a lion might get pissy that we can project more force despite having smaller muscles and spending less time exercising?

I totally get feeling regret when you find that you've wasted energy, but saying that the answer is to make everyone else waste just as much energy (and thus have just as little fun as you) is massively shitty.

It's the thing that makes people want to be medieval kings rather than modern middle class, because somehow comparative luxury is more important than absolute luxury. What the fuck.

[Lago PARANOIA]

On the other hand, mechanically I really like to build a veritable Rube Goldberg Device of powers which key off of one another in weird and unusual ways and produce emergent outcomes that nobody ever intended.

I don't think that this desire is compatible with 'and have it be mechanically equal with a simpler fighter while not demotivating people who pick it'.

My basis for this belief is pretty simple: for as much as gamers and DMs go on and on about stunting and knot-cutting, they happen pretty rarely if simpler solutions are generically incentivized. For example, let's take 4E D&D's page 42. Using only the core rules, people are generically encouraged to stunt because the Limited Damage Expression gives a better payoff than your typical At-Will, even the vanilla damage powers. But you know how many times I saw people invoke this rule in my 4 years of running 4E D&D games despite being aware of it? Exactly once. And the situation where it happened was so demotivating for the player that they didn't attempt it again even when I said I would allow them to do it again for full credit.

Thus I believe that even if you heavily pad the option with incentives like aesthetics and variety, people shy away from the mental investment of an option whose game result is equal to that of a simpler but equally generically effective option.

I totally get feeling regret when you find that you've wasted energy, but saying that the answer is to make everyone else waste just as much energy (and thus have just as little fun as you) is massively shitty.

Look, I'm just saying that the reply of 'just ignore those feelings of resentment you selfish man' is not only unconvincing but hypocritical. Hell, I could flip the question onto you: why doesn't Timmy swallow his resentment and pride and accept it as the cost of not knowing the rules?