General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.
Are you kidding? In BOTH cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.
__________________ (\_/) Searching the web for campaign settings? (Ovo) HOMEBREW WORLDS <(..)> The Wiki Campaign Settings' URLs page
Imagine a game with so many rules that the Players are completely paralyzed and unable to play at all. Reading the rules sucks all the imagination out of the reader's brain, and he is left an automaton.
:-)
Quasqueton
The problem lies in expectations. People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can. The system isn't going to change what kind of person you are. Thus far, I've never had my imagination sucked out by a book, but if I ever run into it, I'll let you know.
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
Are you kidding? In BOTH cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.
In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.
In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.
If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.
EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
I don't know if I'd call a game with rules scattered over 4 rule books (over 120 pages total) with at least 5 different combat resolution systems Lite. ( Chainmail, chain mail man-vs-man, fantasy combat matrix, aerial combat and the "new" optional combat system )
The problem lies in expectations. People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can. The system isn't going to change what kind of person you are. Thus far, I've never had my imagination sucked out by a book, but if I ever run into it, I'll let you know.
Quotable and true!
I remember playing 2E and feeling that combat was pretty boring. There was little you could do to increase tactical advantage, and so there was little reason to do so -- unless you had a DM who encouraged things that were outside of the scope of the rules (winging it on a case-by-case basis). One thing I like about more elaborate combat rules is that it makes combats more interesting, at least in my games. On the other hand, when the rules state that you can do X, Y, and Z, does it mean you can't do A, B or C unless explicitly stated? I think that's what some rules-lite proponents believe. I personally don't.
I was saying that what RD and MM have been saying gives the appearance of d20 not only being more popular (which it is), but feels the need to put down so-called "rules lite" systems. This paints them with the Microsoft vs. the world brush (as an aside, I don't view MS as the big, bad evil thing Linux people make it out to be).
And my point was, why? Could D&D really exist totally in a vacuum? In my opinion, no. Nor is D&D threatened by *any* other company. So why engage in such talk to begin with.
Again, even though Dancy is no longer in the d20 business, his words obviously carry weight, or this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. So, I made an incorrect assumption about one of the two speakers. I was wrong. But, the impression they give, which is what my point was, does not change. And I consider their exclusionary talk and practices not only in bad taste, but not good business sense, in the long run.
How much would WOTC suffer if Dragon magazine contained stories dealing with other systems, like it did long ago? Would that suddenly make D&D less popular? I seriously doubt it.
So, I got a little hot under the collar when you seemed to imply that RD's employment was the total underpinning of my post. It wasn't. So I have strived here to make it clearer, which is hopefully the course I will endeavor to take in the future. Doing so will help me avoid having to chew Tums...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Dyal
OK. :\ It would have been nice if you could have addressed my questions though--y'know, in the interest of promoting better communication and understanding or something. It seems you made a claim based on some information which was shown to be faulty, but you stuck to your claim anyway. I don't know what you're trying to say--or perhaps more accurately, I don't see any evidence of anything you're trying to say. I'm still trying to reach some understanding here of what you're getting at, though. It's quite possible that I'm just not seeing something obvious--it happens to me all the time.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
when the rules state that you can do X, Y, and Z, does it mean you can't do A, B or C unless explicitly stated? I think that's what some rules-lite proponents believe. I personally don't.
Me neither, and ironically, with d20's relatively robust skill system, you've got a great set of tools in place to adjudicate all those things that aren't specifically called out. I don't know how many times I've called for Balance, Jump, Tumble or other checks to cover some cool action my PCs have attempted to do in combat.
I think the kind of rules system you prefer greatly depends on what kind of game you want to play. I feel like I've matured quite a bit when I say that one system is not better than the other. There is a time and a place for both systems.
I think that's what I was trying to say with my earlier post, but in a less elegant way.
Yeah, that is kind of funny isn't it. I just don't understand how some folks read something like:
Actions you can do: attack.
...and they can be all creative and imaginative with their game. "I can do all kinds of stuff, and attacking is just one option."
But if they read:
Actions you can do: attack, grapple, charge, disarm, trip, bullrush.
...and they suddenly get all restricted and limited. "I can only do 6 things? That's terribly limiting."
Quasqueton
Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.
Edit: I remember clearly a GM (who was an old school AD&D veteran) telling me I couldn't charge an enemy because the movement had to be in a straight line. His reason: my character didn't line up so that it could charge a straight line going by the battle grid. I had to remind him that the battle grid doesn't exist and straight line is the shortest distance between two points. d20 had contracted his ability to conceptialize actions during the game.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
Last edited by Gentlegamer; 6th July 2005 at 10:33 PM..
Of course. But, that's going into railroading. Most people on these boards hate railroading, and you are indirectly advocating it through your scenario. What the GM determines is the best solution, whether or not the PCs have spent resources (points in Strength) or not (points in something else) is irrelevant. The situation is taken out of the PCs hands and put into that of the GM, making their abilities and actions largely irrelevant.
This is perfectly valid, but not my playstyle.
I'm realllllly not expressing myself well, I think. My apologies.
Part of this is my lack of ability to relate to the whole "Well, then it's just GM fiat" argument. We have as much "Player fiat" in the games I run, if anything. I give players pretty broad narration rights. I don't have prepared plots, and the players are responsible for deciding the direction they want to take their characters. So if you're reading what I'm saying as advocating railroading, we've got a big disconnect.
I'm not saying anything about what the best solution is. I am saying that it's the responsibility of the GM to come up with challenging, interesting situations. I sort of assumed that "what the GM determines is the best solution" isn't done anymore.
I probably got off track with the whole silly boulder scenario. Someone was advocating "The rules should handle X specifically", where X was "how much can a character lift". What I was trying to say was, why is X so important that it's front and center stage? If it's part of an interesting conflict (or challenge, or whatever), then assign a difficulty. If it's not, then it's not worth spending "screen time" on.
Help me out here. Are you saying that if I go "Oh, those are pretty heavy, DC 25", instead of having predetermined the size of boulders that might fall randomly based on the stone makeup of the tunnel, that I'm railroading? I feel a little lost here.
Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.
Can I see an example of something you would do in a rules-lite game but not in D&D?
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
I'm afraid that is putting words in the rules-lite game's mouth.
Rules-lite systems I have seen cover the basics. Notice being one of them. They just might not have 5 different ways of going about it.
Like I said, the example wasn't important. He just didn't like the boulder example for some reason.
Do you share the oppinion that all actions in the game are actually GM railroading and rules-heavy systems are just trying to cover up this fact?
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
Well, this has been about as fruitful as a version war.
We each have our preferences, and our levels of tolerance for trying new things. Some of us have never tried X, and are sure they wouldn't like it. Some of us have tried X, Y, and Z, and have settled on X.
And, like in version wars, nothing that is said here by anyone is going to change anyone's mind.
Personally, I don't know how these things suck me in, but they do.
Whatever game you play, have fun, and you'll be doing it correctly.
Over and out.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
I don't really disagree with the Dancey quote. The complexity of the rules is, for the most part, othogonal to how easy the game is to learn. e.g. I would never give Fudge or Risus to a group of novices. Now, Fudge is actually a pretty great first system if you've got an experience GM. But, guess what, that's pretty much true of every game.
As Eric Noah pointed out, how fast you play the game really isn't an important metric. It is also somewhat orthogonal to complexity. It will take me a lot longer to create a RAW Fudge PC than a D&D3e PC because Fudge doesn't lay out some options for me to use as starting points. I actually have to spend time coming up with a character concept.
(Please note that I don't consider either better. I actually prefer having almost no character concept & letting the concept evolve with the character rather than having a concept up front.)
& even beyond chargen, I don't prefer lighter systems because I think they save time in play.
It is certainly true that its easier to figure out how to build a business off a complex system than a simple one. I believe it is possible for the publisher of a simple roleplaying game to be successful, although it may require measuring success in different terms than Hasbro does.
Though, business models don't matter much to me, & as much as it would sadden me, I think the hobby could survive the death of the industry.
Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.
I don't. Not picking on any one person, as I've got no idea who's said this, but a common complaint (or perhaps insult) from rules lite folks is that rules heavy systems cater to gamers with little imagination who can't think of things to do with their character unless it's spelled out for them. And then ironically, those same folks seem to be stymied that they can't figure out how to do something that's not specifically called out in the rules of a game like d20. Who is it that lacks imagination again?
To me, d20--five foot squares, move equivalent actions, attacks of opportunity, etc. and all, is one of the most robust toolsets out there for doing any action I (or my players) can imagine. We have games that range from fragile, PC-death horror games to games that would make any Feng Shui player proud, all using the d20 tools at our disposal, and without turning into micromanagement of rules and books. As has been said more than once in this thread, it's more about the personality and taste of the players in question than anything else. Yes, we could be little d20 accountants, cross-checking every point of Difficulty Class against the rules, or we could accept that for some wild, swashbuckling attack by swinging in on a rope, smashing your feet into the orc's face and knocking him off of the balcony -- "uh, make a Use Rope check DC 20, and if you're successful, you can make a Bull Rush attempt with a +3 circumsance bonus."
We prefer the latter. And for us, d20 offers a very robust toolset with which to work.
IME, setup usually takes the same amount of time regardless of the system, as long as you aren't figuring out the total encumberance for every item that every NPC is carrying
Generally speaking, I play a sort of rules-lite D&D 3E, with a lot of stuff left by the wayside because it slows down play (fatigue, encumberance, cover and the like are handled off the cuff and follow common sense more then rules).
I don't agree that play is the same however. Most rules-lite games (Risus, TFOS, Sketch, Fudge and it's variants, Original D6 Star Wars, etc.) do play alot faster. With these games there is little to no looking up rules in the middle of play and no charts. I find there are few arguements, though this is mostly because those players who want to play a rules-lite games expect the GM to wing it.
My main question with Mr. Dancey's experiment is whether the players were given Toon and like Rolemaster ( The Game for People who Enjoy Charts(TM) ). If I slow down to look something up, it ruins the often manic flavor of my games and my players will think I'm getting old and losing my touch (well not re...actually yes, they would think that). That is of course, my players. This may not be true with all groups and certainly your speed and mileage may vary.
I happen to be startng a new campaign with my group this Sunday after not having run anything with them in almost a year (I've been running pick-up games with my wife and some other friends). The campaign is set in Terry Pratchett's Discworld universe. The system is homebrew, but largely resembles a more detailed Risus or simplified WEG D6 system. Why this system? It's easy for me as the GM to create NPCs, combat is quick and my group is more concerned with the story and doing cool and dramatic stuff then they are with rules.
Can I see an example of something you would do in a rules-lite game but not in D&D?
Finish combat in a timely manner! *zing!*
Seriously though, you can do anything in both. The point I make is that the more rules there are, the more likely they are to constrict and guide your conceptualizing in game actions. They also can encourage the GM to dissallow actions not explicitly allowed or spelled out by the game.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
I don't really disagree with the Dancey quote. The complexity of the rules is, for the most part, othogonal to how easy the game is to learn. e.g. I would never give Fudge or Risus to a group of novices. Now, Fudge is actually a pretty great first system if you've got an experience GM. But, guess what, that's pretty much true of every game.
Whereas I, on the other hand, introduced my smallish children to roleplaying games with The Window, which is equally non-complex, and I'd recommend a similar set-up to any RPG novice. And I did it without using fancy words like orthogonal (what's wrong with perpendicular, anyway?)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
