I am trying to write my own TTRPG system and there are a lot of different crazy numbers and maths involved.
Is it a bad thing if you use more complicated maths that most people won't be able to do in their heads for character building or leveling up?

You want /tg/, and yes. Yes it is.

>>3792129 (OP)
As someone that has designed systems professionally, it all depends.

You don't really need complex (under the hood) systems to make deep or complex gameplay and vice versa.
But if any more advanced math is involved, it should always be under the hood. Even stuff like basic probability is beyond 99% of all players.

You could make an armor system that used % based mitigation and have various other things adjust this positively or negatively, but this can easily become complex, especially if you don't just stick to additive or subtractive.
Dota 2 for instance uses a more complex armor mitigation system with more advanced math beyond what most players would be able to grasp
https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Armor
So the game just does all the calculations for the player (but even then it might be hard for players to more accurately understand how things affect armor and mitigation.
Meanwhile other games like Rogue Trader just uses flat % mitigation, which can get pretty crazy when you reach like +80% damage mitigation.

On the other hand, the armor system could just be flat damage reduction (i.e. reduce damage by X amount), which is easier for most designers to work with (not much complex math will be involved) and easier for players to understand.
This applies to non-digital games too, like say board or cardgames. Magic the Gathering is a very complex and deep game that requires basically zero math for the player and just some low level probability for a designer.

Ultimately, System Design is as complex or not depending on your approach. Pretty much no game needs complex math if you know what you're doing, since the end result is what matters. many (bad) designers have a tendency to needlessly overcomplicate things (often because they focus on making the designing of the game itself be a 'fun challenge' for them, which the entirely wrong way to make games).

>>3792129 (OP)
>Is it a bad thing if you use more complicated maths that most people won't be able to do in their heads for character building or leveling up?
The more time you spend making the system work during play, the less time you are spending actually playing the game. Also, wrong board.

>>3792153
My main problem is movement action point cost. I tried to solve this with a system where you have an action point cost per tile, kind of how Caves of Qud or ADOM did it, however, this would cap your speed at 1 tile per action point which wouldn't work with large monsters.
So I made a system where you have a "[number of tiles] / 10 action points". But this means that you would have to calculate the movement action point cost based on this number like "3,5 tiles / 10 action" means that one tile costs 3 action points because 3,5 / 10 * 3 = 1.05 . I feel like having to do these calculations would turn off people but I have no clue how to do it better.

Also, I wanted the endurance modifier on health to be retroactive, because stats change my game, so I did "Max HP = (10 + Endurance modifier) * (Level + 1)".
This takes some multiplication with huge numbers which is fairly simple to me personally but may turn many players off.

>>3792165
Just to put it out there, tiles usually don't work well for large monsters (i.e. taking up 2x2 squares), it tends to make environments and movement awkard, generally requiring large open areas where they might pop up.

But I can tell you right now you're overcomplicating things needlessly in terms of costs and math, even without full context. No math beyond basic substraction of cost should be needed for a basic actions like movement that players will do a lot.

And if your game has something that is even moderately time consuming/difficult in terms of math, it should be under the hood and presented in a way so players don't need to do math.
Not only due to usability, but math would most likely not be part of the core challenge or focus of your game. Unless you think frequent math should be part of your game.

>>3792129 (OP)
>>>/tg/ is that way, anon.
But yes. You *might* be able to get away with it if it's designed for online play and you set up VTT tools, or if it's only necessary for character creation (even then it'll be a massive filter for your game, which will already be niche as a no-name indie dev).
I think >>3792153 is mostly talking about video games, but they're still right. Complexity should be under the hood. There might be complex maths involved in determining how much every +1 bonus affects probability, but the player shouldn't need to be thinking about it, their lot is to think "I have a +1 so I'm better at doing the thing".

>>3792167
I wouldn't word it exactly like that, try and make it sound simpler. Does it need to be level + 1? May be slightly easier to word if it were just level.
In general you don't want players crunching numbers beyond basic adding or subtraction. Multiplying and division should probably be kept as multiply/divide by 2 only. Maybe 10, but anything else gets messy unless it's a rare exception.

>>3792129 (OP)
Unquestionably yes. If you need more than basic arithmetic you're overdoing.

>>3792129 (OP)
people already struggle with additive formulas in CRPGs and RPGs
lot of these type of game also love obscuring stats
if your formula can fit inside description box you're gucci, otherwise simplify or obfuscate

>>3792165
I don't get your movement.
I have 8 action points, how far can I go?
I want to move 4 tiles, how much does it cost.
Just say 3tiles/actionpoint or w/e. Why 3.5/10, just scale it to 1/X or X/1.

>>3792129 (OP)
It's not bad per se. But if you use anything advanced it's better if you calculate it and make lookup tables, that way your players don't need a calculator and you can still make something very complex if you want to