Here's a saying you can use to judge your design, from martial arts:

To a beginner, a kick is just a kick.

To an intermediate, a kick is posture, positioning, aim, and balance.

To an expert, a kick is just a kick.

If your system is simple to the degree that it limits players, it's too simple.

If it's complicated to the extent that players can't readily grasp it, it's not complicated enough.

If it's complicated to the extent that players can interface with simple representations of it and deal with it intuitively, it's an expertly designed system.

Instead of reducing the complexity of the statistics, give the player an easier way to relate to and interface with the statistics of the units. The player doesn't need to memorize the actual statistics of the unit, he just needs to know which unit is the best relative choice for any action. Add visual representations for the radii of actions like blocking to the unit display. Pop up some sort of reminder so that beginning players will remember their available maneuvers.

@makeshiftwings: That kind of complexity is one of the reasons I don't play D&D on paper. Even D&D inspired computer games can seem a bit neurotic. I think I'm going to put some more thought into using the AoO system that tstrimp brought up with a few special ability enhancements to spice it up.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq Here's a saying

I'm pretty sure Bruce Lee said that. Although, I'm not sure making a system more complicated will remedy the confusion players have over an intermediately complicated system. Perhaps you meant intermediate in design experience?

Quote:

Instead of reducing the complexity of the statistics, give the player an easier way to relate to and interface with the statistics of the units. The player doesn't need to memorize the actual statistics of the unit, he just needs to know which unit is the best relative choice for any action. Add visual representations for the radii of actions like blocking to the unit display. Pop up some sort of reminder so that beginning players will remember their available maneuvers.

This was mentioned earlier, and I'm thinking that's probably the best way to go about this. If I can have the game keep track of everything in a way that looking up information is intuitive, I can have the best of both worlds.

Quote:

Original post by templewulf @makeshiftwings: That kind of complexity is one of the reasons I don't play D&D on paper. Even D&D inspired computer games can seem a bit neurotic. I think I'm going to put some more thought into using the AoO system that tstrimp brought up with a few special ability enhancements to spice it up.

I somewhat agree, but I think it's really a matter of personal taste rather than it being universally true that simple is automatically better. There are plenty of people who do, in fact, love complexity just for complexity's sake, and who begin to salivate wildly when confronted by a statistic-packed four hundred page rulebook or a character sheet that looks like an enormous quantum physics equation. I sometimes have this feeling as well, but I think as I've gotten older and have less free time, I am not as excited at the prospect of learning a gigantic set of rules for each new game I pick up. While there are a lot of people who bemoan the over-complexity of D&D, there are even more people who revel in it, and who get excited by each new rulebook that adds yet more complexity on top of the existing game.

I guess what I'm saying is that as long as your game is fun and designed well, you will find an audience for it whether it leans towards complexity or simplicity.