Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[Ariosto]

If it's pouring rain, then I, as GM, can whack in penalties to your roll (or bonuses if it's really dry).

If this is not contingent on the rules-book (not the GM) mandating the bonuses and penalties, then it is directly contrary to what I took to be your point -- the only thing left after you denied that you meant any of the other things you appeared to be saying.

The GM gets to keep power over the chances of success

This is the very state of affairs to which you have vehemently objected!

Ariosto - I really don't know where you're you're getting the whole Older D&D is bad thing from.

Try what you wrote immediately after that for a hint:

Basic D&D does not have any skill mechanics. None. They are completely absent from the rules. As they are in AD&D as well. IMO, free form doesn't work over the long term because, once you've established how difficult a task is, the next time it comes up, it will be just as difficult (all things being equal) so what have you gained by using a system that lacks mechanics?

It sure doesn't look as if you think the "lack of mechanics" is a good thing! You have (repeatedly) expressed the same view in more colorful terms.

You have also received the answer, that what he have gained by not having a given table or paragraph or several paragraphs in a book is not needing to look up that table or paragraph or several paragraphs in a book.

What do we gain by looking up something in a book when we already have an understanding that is pleasing to us?

It simply would not do to have to verify in a dictionary the meaning of all the very words in which the dictionary gives its definitions. It would not do to have to .... look ... up ... each ... word ... in ... each ... sentence in order to carry on the conversation upon which the game depends.

No, we depend upon the simple fact of our apparent mutual understanding to get on with the affair in timely and not obnoxiously irritating fashion. When we turn to a codex, it is because that works better for us.

Perhaps it has somehow escaped your attention that there are in fact some tens or (in AD&D) hundreds of pages that do contain material meant to be consulted. I strongly suspect that you would find at least a few of those superfluous to your needs.

It just happens to be that the books were written (and are employed) by people who don't happen to share your personal preference in a whole lot of things.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There seems from my perspective to be some sort of "wainscot society", a vale of gaming tears somehow parallel to the world through which I move.

I just don't encounter all this drama over referees considering situations and setting odds.

What very little I have seen was from fellows who certainly were not satisfied by citation from a list of example situations (a la the 3.5 PHB). That just meant Plan B: Semantic Quibbles, and Plan C: Argument Over What Is "Realistic".

Somehow it never occurs to them that it might be significant that they are alone in their complaints. GMs stay in 'business' because their players approve of how they conduct their games.

In my world, GMs are in it for the same reason as players: to have fun playing with friends! They are not out to be unfair.

If the GM gets something significantly wrong, the players just say,
"Hey, 'G.O.D.', did something change about thing x, because last time it was like such and so?"
And the GM says,
"D'oh! Right you are."

Indeed. " Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

If the guy behind the screen is a total jackass then odds are he will be presiding over an empty table soon enough.

Not only that, but a rigid set of complex rules will not make a DM bent on being a jackass a better DM on their own.
In fact, a DM weaned completely on paint by numbers instructions is more likely to either shut down or get mired in referencing rulebooks when faced with situations requiring ad-hoc calls.

 

[Ariosto]

Complicated rules are their own justification. They increase fun when, and for whom, dealing with them is in itself fun.

Sometimes, that's me. There are many games less complicated than Advanced Squad Leader, or Chivalry & Sorcery, or Champions, or From Valmy to Waterloo.

Sometimes, that's not me. When I want to get down to fast-paced sword-and-sorcery adventure, lean and focused D&D hits the spot. It knows what it's about, and doesn't make me, on some quotidian question, wade through 45 subsystems to determine that the applicable rule is ... either this one or that one, and feat x applies to that one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I guess "3-5 minutes max." might be right if one were just rehashing familiar "builds", but in my experience people tend to take more time considering the character. There's a list of about 90 Talents, not counting Languages and Mundane Talents.

<snip many good points about a great game>

The balance between Hero (cheap Talents, costly Spells) and Wizard (cheap Spells, costly Talents) is brilliant.

You're right about all of that- its only been 20 or so years since I played TFT, so forgive my faulty memory of details- but even with all of those options*, our group was accustomed to the system enough that ChaGen only took more than 10 minutes if someone went to the kitchen for snacks.

In all fairness, though, we were often playing variants of similar PCs, as you so rightly sussed out.


* TFT's system was, in many ways, the inspiration for SJ's later game, GURPS.

 

[Hussar]

If this is not contingent on the rules-book (not the GM) mandating the bonuses and penalties, then it is directly contrary to what I took to be your point -- the only thing left after you denied that you meant any of the other things you appeared to be saying.

Then I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote. Repeatedly. I do not want a 3e system of skill resolution with a separate rule for everything. I have repeatedly stated that I want a single (or at least a small number) rule that covers almost all situations.

/snip
It sure doesn't look as if you think the "lack of mechanics" is a good thing! You have (repeatedly) expressed the same view in more colorful terms.

You have also received the answer, that what he have gained by not having a given table or paragraph or several paragraphs in a book is not needing to look up that table or paragraph or several paragraphs in a book.

What do we gain by looking up something in a book when we already have an understanding that is pleasing to us?

It simply would not do to have to verify in a dictionary the meaning of all the very words in which the dictionary gives its definitions. It would not do to have to .... look ... up ... each ... word ... in ... each ... sentence in order to carry on the conversation upon which the game depends.

No, we depend upon the simple fact of our apparent mutual understanding to get on with the affair in timely and not obnoxiously irritating fashion. When we turn to a codex, it is because that works better for us.

Perhaps it has somehow escaped your attention that there are in fact some tens or (in AD&D) hundreds of pages that do contain material meant to be consulted. I strongly suspect that you would find at least a few of those superfluous to your needs.

It just happens to be that the books were written (and are employed) by people who don't happen to share your personal preference in a whole lot of things.

Actually, nothing you've written here actually contradicts what I'm saying. Particulalry this bit from an earlier post:

In my world, GMs are in it for the same reason as players: to have fun playing with friends! They are not out to be unfair.

If the GM gets something significantly wrong, the players just say,
"Hey, 'G.O.D.', did something change about thing x, because last time it was like such and so?"
And the GM says,
"D'oh! Right you are

How is that not establishing a rule for that table? If the players can recall how something was adjudicated previously and the DM will uphold that adjudication in the future, how is that any different from having a rule in the first place?

Again, what have you gained? You still have a rule at the table for adjudicating a particular action. The only difference is, the players have no idea what that adjudication is before it occurs the first time. However, after that first time, you're in EXACTLY the same position as if you had a "codex" rule.

I completely agree with the idea that you don't want to have to look up rules to adjudicate every time. Totally down with that. What I want, is to have a standard adjudication that can be broadly applied.

To me, that's far superior to having either many rules or no rules at all.

Where you are going wrong is that you think this is some sort of 3e vs older edition thing. My point is, BOTH ARE NOT AS GOOD. There is a lovely land of the middle option, which I think is probably the best of both worlds.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar's Solution to Increasing Fun (tm)

This is how I would do things.

Take 1e's secondary skills list (which is actually pretty comprehensive and nicely flavourful) and wed it to d20 mechanics. A character gains a single secondary skill (or perhaps 2) and his score in that skill is applicable ability score (determined by the DM and the player) + 1/2 level.

Any time the player wants to do something that can be tied to that secondary skill, he uses that score for his roll. Using the modified DC's in the 4e ruleset (found in one of the FAQ doc's - PHB 2? I think) the DM can use that chart to ballpark DC's for various actions. The further away from the secondary skill the action is, the greater the DC and/or the greater the penalty to the roll.

There, a nice rules package that you pretty much only have to reference once in a very long while (for the DC's - tacked to your DM's screen if you like) and I have a pretty robust skill system for Basic D&D.

Older races - elves, dwarves - might get a bonus secondary skill or two if the DM is feeling generous.

Me, that's how I would reduce options (since you only have a single skill choice at first level to worry about) to increase fun.

 

[ancientvaults]

After reading through this thread it is apparent that people will always be quite rabid about their likes and dislikes.

I run oldschool games, I also run Pathfinder, Barbarians of Lemuria and CoC (and one-offs of games like vs. Monsters). You know what? It doesn't matter what the rules are, all that matters is that the group has fun. That is the only rule to worry about, just have fun with the rules and make some good memories at the table. Edition should never be a factor. Don't let rules get in the way, all of the rules, as was written by Mr Gygax, are just guidelines.

 

[pemerton]

That is just the opposite of what I have ever -- over decades of actually using them -- seen in the rules for introducing new spells and magic items!

Fair enough.

By what logic did you arrive at this notion?

The bits of the text wear it is stressed how difficult magical research is, how careful the GM must be not to allow it to break the game, etc, etc. The bits where it's impossible without a laboratory which is quite expensive to build and maintain. The low chances of success. The requirement for a Permanency spell (and hence the permanent loss of a point of CON) for most magic items.

I'm not expressing a view on how your table plays these rules. Or even how most tables who actually began playing the game in the 1970s play it. I am reporting the lesson I learned from those rules - that magic research is hard and to be very very carefully scrutinised and managed.

By contrast, all I have ever seen from 3e/4e players seems to imply that it is basically unthinkable to do such a thing.

I'm not sure what the contrast you're drawing is, but if you're saying "magic research doesn't easily fit into the spirit of 4e D&D" then I'd agree.

This is suddenly not true in 3e? In 4e? I guess Living Forgotten Realms is just breaking the rules left and right!

I don't think I drew a contrast with more recent editions. I was simply responding to your comment that the GM does not make items available, and disagreeing with it.

That said, if 4e is played in accordance with the guidelines in the DMG then it involves placing a significant number of items based not on the GM's discretion but on the wishes of the players - and this is consistent with 4e's treatment of items as part of the character build metagame. In my view, at least, this is a long way from the approach to magic item placement articulated in the AD&D DMG.

What I have seen is just the opposite! In 3e and 4e, what the players encounter in every way -- not just treasures -- is tremendously more decided by what the DM has planned. Players are by design more "along for the ride". The player-culture has taken this even beyond the 3e books.

This thread probably isn't the place to rehash discussions about "railroading" vs "sandboxing". But if items are placed in accordance with a player wish list, then the treasures the players are encountering are chosen by them, not the GM.

 

[pemerton]

The thing is, the DM isn't setting a new DC every time. If Character A jumps over the ditch (to continue beating this horse) and has to roll X, it's pretty much assumed that Character B has to beat the same DC.

I thought that Ariosto had denied this earlier on, in his discussion of how actions are resolved in Basic RP:

I don't think it would tend to go over very well to go into a CoC game and start demanding itemized written accounts of the particulars of every single roll, and then insisting on poring through them every time anyone wants to do anything. ("Hold on, I know someone tried to grab a cat leaping out a window once about three years ago, and I'm sure it was harder than DEX x 5%. It's not under 'c' for cat, though, so maybe 'g' for grab ... just a few more pages ...")

But he now seems to be agreeing with you:

If the GM gets something significantly wrong, the players just say,
"Hey, 'G.O.D.', did something change about thing x, because last time it was like such and so?"
And the GM says,
"D'oh! Right you are."

I guess the question might be "what counts as significantly wrong?" Presumably that's relative to the priorities of the group at the table. If the main aim of the game is tactical victory by the players over the challenges set by the GM, then any inconsistency is potentially a source of unfairness. I think that's why CoC was a good example for Ariosto to pick for his original point, because that's not a game where the tactical challenge thing looms very large.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar's Solution to Increasing Fun (tm)

This is how I would do things.

Take 1e's secondary skills list (which is actually pretty comprehensive and nicely flavourful) and wed it to d20 mechanics. A character gains a single secondary skill (or perhaps 2) and his score in that skill is applicable ability score (determined by the DM and the player) + 1/2 level.

You might find this worrisome -- that you and I think alike in this -- but that is actually a scheme I considered for RCFG. I only rejected it because, in the end, I decided that something closer to the 3e scheme worked better overall.

I lowered skill ranks, and included a -4 Untrained penalty, so that buying 1 rank was essentially the same as buying 5. (Reason to spread your skills around, and have at least a smattering of many skills.) Max skill ranks are 2 + class level. A basic skill set is determined by your class, so you have fewer skill points to track and decide on at CharGen.


RC