Managing the Trifecta of Complexity
Types of Complexity: Mechanical, Emergent, & Strategic
For a long time I mentally bucketed complexity into two categories: Mechanical, and Strategic. In my mind a game or a decision was challenging because of a heavy load on the mechanical front, or because of a branching strategic decision tree.
But, as is often the case, the world is a lot more nuanced, and I think it is worth talking about the third kind of complexity: Emergent.
Before we get to that though, it is worth noting that we are not talking about game theory combinatorial complexity. While interesting stuff, it isn’t particularly applicable in a practical sense to game design or our experience as players. Instead, we are talking about more intuitive ways of framing and understanding game complexity – both as designers and as players.
Mechanical
Mechanical or rules complexity is game complexity derived from understanding game mechanics and rules interactions. For example: chess is more complex than checkers.
High Frontier 4 All with a 4.78/5 complexity rating on BGG
Mechanical complexity can often add strategic depth and create interesting decisions. In fact, I would argue that a base line of complexity is necessary for a game to have strategic depth and present players with interesting decisions.
The danger is of course that additional mechanical complexity increases the barriers to entry.
One way that smart designers offer high levels of mechanical complexity, while also maintaining a lower barrier for new players is by introducing more complicated mechanics in a piecemeal fashion. Magic: The Gathering is a famous example of this, the base game is complicated, but the real complexity comes from the tens of thousands of additional cards that have been printed. Players encounter that additional complexity only as they explore the game farther.
Emergent
Have you ever stared at a massive menu and had decision paralysis? Or how about choosing the right outfit for that date? That is Emergent complexity. It is the decision complexity that arises from having too many options without a clear way to cull them.
Traditional GO board with 361 legal opening moves
Games like GO are famous for there Emergent complexity – at the beginning of the game they offer a wide open board with near endless possibility.
In the past I mentally bucketed Emergent complexity with Strategic complexity, but I think they are distinct enough to address separately. Emergent complexity is complexity because of too many options, not because a player understands the implications of decisions and the nuance of strategy.
While generally a lower barrier than mechanical complexity, too much emergent complexity can sour play experiences for new players.
A good way that games combat emergent complexity is by providing players with signposts, or more directed goals. This can be in the form of variable player powers (that incentivize a specific strategy), or clear victory tracks that players pursue.
An alternative method for designers to limit emergent complexity is by simply reducing the set of options that players have – especially early in a game. An example of this is the limited the menu of cards available at any given time in a game like The Quest for El Dorado.
Strategic
This is where things get interesting. There is a broad range of strategic complexity that might be worth further segmenting. It can include things like decision trees, bluffing, push your luck, deduction, or designing an engine. Really, any strategic decision or puzzle element in a game adds to the strategic depth.
1829 Mainline is one of the 18xx series of games, known for crunchy, heavy strategy
Like Emergent complexity, Strategic complexity can be overwhelming. Too many branching decisions presented at once can cause decision paralysis, or worse feel bad moments where players know they are making sub-optimal plays.
There are a number of ways to segment strategic depth into more digestible and approachable decisions. Some examples would be presenting short term goals that players can plan towards, introducing uncertainty to create a planning horizon, offering simple holistic solutions which only advanced players will delve beneath the surface of.
There is no right type or level of complexity and different audiences will have varied appetites and preferences. As designers it is important for to keep in mind where we are adding complexity and to what end – does our complexity create interesting gameplay and fun moments, where can we simplify or offer our players sign posts?
What design choices have you seen to help manage complexity?
