The Rules: Who cares?

[Korgoth]

For the polearm example, if the DM had said as a rule that all polearms go first, that's cool with me, so if I have a fighter who has a polearm, I know I'm going first and if I don't, I hope to go a close second or if I got a dagger, then I know I'm going dead last. But if one battle the pole arm folks go first, then the next battle the halfling with the dagger goes first, and then the next battle monsters just go first, and the next battle after that the characters go first, it gets frustrating.

But why would the halfling with the dagger go first? All other things being equal, I'd think he would never go first.

Or are you saying that a "judgment call" and a "fit of pique" are indistinguishable? Because if a Ref told me that the halfling with the dagger that charged the line of halberds gets to strike first, I'd think he was totally irrational (now, the turn after moving to contact, I can see why Bulbo would go first... he's inside the reach).

I in no way meant to suggest that going by judgment calls and common sense meant that you should have Two Face as your Ref. Some sort of grasp on reality is needed.

And if the retort is that rules are needed because your Ref doesn't have a grasp on reality... well, if that's the problem then you've already made a drastic mistake!

 

[Korgoth]

I've been playing by the rules for over 25 years. I want 'game' in my game. If I wanted to just sit around and tell stories I would do that.

There are plenty of 'pass the stick' style games out there...drop by The Forge, D&D has never been one of them.

More power to those that don't want rules (or less of them), just not my cup of tea.

I hope you didn't think I was talking about cooperative storytelling or any of that jazz! The furthest thing from it.

Take Classic Traveller for example. There's no unified task resolution system. There are a fair number of skills... it's up to the Ref to make a judgment call for each and every skill check (2d6). You want to reroute emergency power to the intercom system? You can attempt it if you have Electronics: 6+, +1 per level of Electronics, +1 if you have Computer at all, +1 if your INT is 7+. Or whatever.

But Traveller is not a Forge game. It's not about passing some stick. It's just that the Ref is supposed to make the call. That's different from some community theatre improv game about Marxist bacteria that suffer from ennui in the digestive tract of a giant space whale, or whatever those games are about.

So, anyway. False dichotomy and all that.

 

[MichaelK]

For example, one side moves up to a group that has pole weapons. The pole side gets to strike first that round. The next round, the other side gets to go first (if they're still standing) because they're now inside the reach.

Not to get overly pedantic but in third edition that's covered by Attacks of Opportunity, specifically reach weapons and moving through a threatened square.

Why would you object to 3rd ed following the rules when it seems like the rules it presents are the same ones you've introduced yourself?

 

[ST]

And a lot of those indie games work just the same as regular games, too. People notice the ones that don't look much like RPGs for precisely that reason. Some of those games are fairly crunchy.

 

[frankthedm]

into the glooms wherein Ogreish Weregamers lurk...

_{you rang?}

 

[mmadsen]

My intention isn't to create a false dichotomy, rather to present two polarized examples for maximum illustrative purpose and allow the reader to extrapolate the in-between results.

Right, but that continuum, from rules-heavy "gamist" D&D 4E to rules-light "narrativist" indie game is not what the original post was about.

The contrast at hand is modern, rules-heavy D&D vs. old-school, rules-light D&D. In this case, rules-light means that the DM makes judgment calls about what would "really" happen in a given situation -- aided by dice, of course -- not that the group decides what "should" happen to make an entertaining story.

Through a highly complex method you've basically created a rule system that isn't written down. Why not just write these rules to begin with? It'll make it easier if a new gamer, unfamiliar with your social contract, sits down at your table.

The trick is to codify the parts that can be codified, while keeping the flexibility to adjudicate whatever "out of the box" situation might arise. It's quite a bit like our legal system, really, which can't codify anything and everything that might happen in the real world any more than a rulebook can can codify everything that might happen in a fictional, fantasy world -- without constraining the players' options considerably.

 

[Hussar]

The contrast at hand is modern, rules-heavy D&D vs. old-school, rules-light D&D. In this case, rules-light means that the DM makes judgment calls about what would "really" happen in a given situation -- aided by dice, of course -- not that the group decides what "should" happen to make an entertaining story.

My problem with this is that I don't find AD&D to be any rules lighter than 3e. It's just that in 1e, I ignored the rules or made up my own far more often, because I was 14 years old at the time and had a bajillion hours of free time to do so.

I do think that you can't really call 1e a rules light system. Basic/Expert? Sure, no problems there. But 1e? Really?

Take this as an example:

My 3rd level fighter has no Dex bonus, is wearing chain mail and a small shield. He's being attacked by four orcs. Two of the orcs are wielding maces and two are wielding long swords. One of the mace wielding orcs is standing on a bit of ledge, and has a height advantage over my fighter.

What do those orcs need to hit my fighter?

I think you get my point. The thing is, when I played 1e, I simply ignored so many of the rules - the shield only working against two opponents (and which two matters), the weapon vs armor thing, stuff like that.

1e is rules light in the sense that a lot of people played it that way. People simply ignored buckets of rules. But that doesn't make it a rules light system.

Going back to the original topic - I tend to play my 3e a lot faster and looser now. For example, my last adventure had one monster. Oh, the players fought all sorts of different stuff - undead, monsters, critters galore. But the stats were all the same, with a bit of variation on movement rates, hit points and maybe an AC point here or there for flavor. I'm pretty sure they had no idea. They certainly never said anything about it anyway.

I know the standard at my table is roll first. If you roll high, we don't even bother looking up rules, you succeed. If you roll low, you fail, if it's in the middle, then we break out the books.

 

[Hussar]

The contrast at hand is modern, rules-heavy D&D vs. old-school, rules-light D&D. In this case, rules-light means that the DM makes judgment calls about what would "really" happen in a given situation -- aided by dice, of course -- not that the group decides what "should" happen to make an entertaining story.

My problem with this is that I don't find AD&D to be any rules lighter than 3e. It's just that in 1e, I ignored the rules or made up my own far more often, because I was 14 years old at the time and had a bajillion hours of free time to do so.

I do think that you can't really call 1e a rules light system. Basic/Expert? Sure, no problems there. But 1e? Really?

Take this as an example:

My 3rd level fighter has no Dex bonus, is wearing chain mail and a small shield. He's being attacked by four orcs. Two of the orcs are wielding maces and two are wielding long swords. One of the mace wielding orcs is standing on a bit of ledge, and has a height advantage over my fighter.

What do those orcs need to hit my fighter?

I think you get my point. The thing is, when I played 1e, I simply ignored so many of the rules - the shield only working against two opponents (and which two matters), the weapon vs armor thing, stuff like that.

1e is rules light in the sense that a lot of people played it that way. People simply ignored buckets of rules. But that doesn't make it a rules light system.

Going back to the original topic - I tend to play my 3e a lot faster and looser now. For example, my last adventure had one monster. Oh, the players fought all sorts of different stuff - undead, monsters, critters galore. But the stats were all the same, with a bit of variation on movement rates, hit points and maybe an AC point here or there for flavor. I'm pretty sure they had no idea. They certainly never said anything about it anyway.

I know the standard at my table is roll first. If you roll high, we don't even bother looking up rules, you succeed. If you roll low, you fail, if it's in the middle, then we break out the books.

 

[catsclaw227]

Assuming we agree that D&D is, at some level, a game, then it follows that some level of skill is involved. All things being equal, I prefer to use the fact I know how to play the game well to my advantage, and to be effective.

Having a DM change how the world works from round to round because he thinks it'd be fun is just not my cup of tea - but it's not just a matter of what happens in combat, not being able to count on simple cause and effect also dramatically reduces my involvement in the storytelling and my ability to identify with my character, because I no longer feel like my decisions matter nearly as much.

Since one of the key design goals of 3.x was to allow for system mastery, it appears that the more modern editions of D&D might be better suited to your preferred style of play.

Personally, I kind of like it in the middle. I am running 4e and I like the little bit of leeway that a DM gets regarding NPCs and Monsters and making decisions because not every little thing is not accounted for in the mechanics. I did prefer 3.x over AD&D after a while, because as I got older, I didn't like the wonkyness (as coined by an old-school style gamer) in the mechanics of AD&D as much as I did when I was younger.

Different strokes, as they say.

But sorta back on topic... We once played a game in the late 80's that was rooted in D&D, but we didn't have formal rules for much of anything except the vague references to AD&D PHB, DMG and MM. We had PCs with generic descriptors for abilities. So, for example, my PC was average strength, pretty smart, exceptional dexterity, not very charismatic, etc...

We weren't even sure what our class and race was, because we were asked to describe our "profession", and the DM sorta went with the flow.

The campaign lasted a long time, though the DM was exceptional and we also slowly migrated tighter to the AD&D rules as time went on and we got to know our PCs better.

We RPed our development almost entirely with descriptors until we were about 5th level and then we knew what class we were. We grew into the class.

It was interesting, but I am not sure if I would want to do that again.

 

[Ariosto]

1e is rules light in the sense that a lot of people played it that way. People simply ignored buckets of rules. But that doesn't make it a rules light system.

Because it's not a system in the first place! The many methods offered are not rules in the "you must do this" sense. They are simply available -- to people with Basic and Expert books, too. (Or do you find somewhere a "rule" prohibiting that?) The AD&D works are compilations of material from supplements and magazines. Take what you like and leave the rest; that is the old D&D way!

3E is much more systematic. Things are integrated from the foundation up. There is a beauty in that, in the smooth meshing of gears in a game "engine". It calls for more care, though, in removing or replacing parts, and even in bolting on additions.

That is enhanced by players' appreciation of the engineering. Players tend to have fairly comprehensive expectations of a game billed as 3E, relative to the scope of expectations of one billed as D&D or even Advanced D&D.