What is the downside to simple systems?

[Bagpuss]

For example, some D&D players ask, "why doesn't strength make me a better archer?"

It does, assuming you have a bow that can make use of that additional strength then you do more damage.

"should I use Wisdom or Intelligence to solve a riddle?"

It would depend on the nature of the riddle, but usually when DM's put riddles in adventures they expect the players to use their own Int or Wis, rather than the characters and just rolling the dice, but that's a whole other debate.

If your STR and DEX are part of the same score, or your WIS and INT are the same score, then the player can decide how that score translates into results.

You could say your high Physical score represents someone who is agile yet not particularly strong, or someone that is strong but not particularly fast, at which point why not have two attributes to help represent those characters?

Or you could say "You know what I'm Superman!" I'm good at everything Physical.

I know which one is tactically a better choice. So does the single Physical stat where everyone decides to be good at everything, because to not be would be crippling your character for no reason encourage more imagination or discourage it?

 

[Dethklok]

Lack of specificity, lack of options, lack of flavour added by the rules.

Disagree. A game with skills like "Bloodrage, Shadowwhisper, and Seek" could be quite specific, give lots of weird options, and be full of flavor. I'm not saying it would necessarily be any good, but I think it's quite easy to make a simple system handle a specific world with flavor. Making such a system broad or generic as well would be more tricky.

But if that's the way you're thinking

No, it isn't, but that example is closer to what most gamers will be familiar with.

For some people things like this can strain believability. How do your differentiate hardiness, physical power and quickness (or any other similar yet different attributes) when they are all governed by a single stat?

Agreed - but I also think games with large numbers of attributes also strain believability. It is not, for instance, believable that a large, healthy character not be strong, or that a healthy, agile character will not run quickly, or that a beautiful, wise character not be socially adroit.

After designing several RPGs, I can agree with Bagpuss and say that the optimal number of attributes is close to six; four is starting to get pretty spare, and eight begins to jostle with redundancy and clutter. Still, you can get away with more and fewer, and I've seen games I like that use no attributes at all.

Point in favor of simple RPGs:

Less rules can allow more imagination. For example, some D&D players ask, "why doesn't strength make me a better archer?" or "should I use Wisdom or Intelligence to solve a riddle?" If your STR and DEX are part of the same score, or your WIS and INT are the same score, then the player can decide how that score translates into results.

I've seen (and designed) games that allow you to combine attributes. Come to think of it, classic Dragon Warriors does this - Intelligence modifies your ability to attack and defend, and if I recall correctly, some ability checks might require you to take two abilities and roll on the average.

Why not go the whole hog and play TWERPS instead then? One stat represents everything.

TWERPS? Arguably, most editions of D&D do this! Because in D&D, there is indeed one primary stat which overshadows all others. That stat is called "Level."

In real life, natural ability overshadows training in importance. A 2003 Study in the journal Intelligence by Hambrick (et al.) titled "Deliberate Practice: Is that all it takes to be an expert?" looked at chessplaying ability and musical ability, and found that practice and training could only account for about a third of individual variation in either skill. One way to think of this in game terms would be to imagine that characters should start out at a level equal to their Prime Requisite -7, and then be allowed to increase only about 7 levels from there. That's right, roll a thief with 16 Dexterity, and he starts at level 9; another thief with 8 Dexterity will never be able to catch up.

Would this be fun? Probably not - the overarching Level characteristic common to RPGs looks like an example of popularity and fun outweighing realism. But it's not at all beyond the pale to consider weakening the importance of
experience - or even tacking it into the attributes themselves, and doing away with both classes and skills completely.

Imagine a game where everyone started at 2d6 in their six attributes, and then instead of increasing in "level" they increased an attribute by 1, to a maximum of 18. It's almost never done, but when you think about what fighters, runners, or gymnasts are really doing, most of their training consists simply in improving their physical condition (be it body mass, flexibility, coordination, or stamina).

 

[nnms]

This was a very valuable thread for me. I've ended up looking up games I had never heard of and learned an important lesson for a miniature game/RPG hybrid I'm developing: If you go simple, get specific.

So I'm going to concentrate on narrowing down exactly what the game is about and making rules to cover those areas and not try to make a system where "you can do anything" by having generic approaches to everything.

I'm also starting to see the wisdom of thinking in terms of "moves." As in, what are the legitimate choices a participant can make in a given situation? What "moves" can they make? What "moves" shouldn't they make? What's appropriate in terms of genre, tone, etc.,? And then I'm going to make rules to cover those areas.

But what about when players want to do things not covered by the rules? I think I'm going to break with RPG tradition here and instead of saying something like "The GM can make a judgement call" or "Use this simple universal mechanic", I'm going to say that players should not be doing things that aren't appropriate moves. Hopefully I'll have covered most things people will want to do with the categories various "moves" might fall into.

 

[GMMichael]

You could say your high Physical score represents someone who is agile yet not particularly strong, or someone that is strong but not particularly fast, at which point why not have two attributes to help represent those characters?

Two attributes would be less simple than one. And in D&D's case, let's say STR and DEX, having two attributes leads to oodles of new rules for calculating defense, handling different types of weapons, calculating a new type of roll (called saving throws), and making players ask "which one of these handles my physical toughness?"

I know which one is tactically a better choice. So does the single Physical stat where everyone decides to be good at everything, because to not be would be crippling your character for no reason encourage more imagination or discourage it?

DM: "The fire giant grins, sulfuric breath filling your nostrils as he presses down on you, his monstrous axe pinning your weapons to your chest. Well?"
PC with no imagination: "Well, since I decided at character generation that my high Physical was for quickness, I guess that means I have no strength. I sit back and die."
PC with imagination: "I yank on his moustache, hoping he'll cringe just enough to allow me to squirm out of the hold. Here's my Physical roll..."

But what about when players want to do things not covered by the rules? I think I'm going to break with RPG tradition here and instead of saying something like "The GM can make a judgement call" or "Use this simple universal mechanic", I'm going to say that players should not be doing things that aren't appropriate moves. Hopefully I'll have covered most things people will want to do with the categories various "moves" might fall into.

Players are like toddlers: they're always looking for what they "shouldn't" do. But if you can cover most eventualities, go ahead and design your system for it.

Note that 3E D&D didn't leave a lot of judgment calls to the DM. There were no degrees of success, just hit or miss. There were tables for how far a character could jump, how well he could persuade, and how many pounds he could lift.

I happen to like this idea: if the GM can break all outcomes into six subjective categories, he can assign his own numbers to the player's actions and not need a table to tell him how to do it.

 

[Dethklok]

This was a very valuable thread for me.

Oh yeah. I enjoyed it a lot, myself. This has been the one I log on to check.

I'm also starting to see the wisdom of thinking in terms of "moves."

Looking for a board game feel, eh? It can be done, but it's tough. Nikolas Lloyd has a legitimate gripe from 3:45 to 4:45 that you might want to look at.

Two attributes would be less simple than one.

One must always ask what is gained for what one pays. Compare GURPS to Moldvay's D&D and you'll see that the game with six attributes is far simpler than the game with four.

And in D&D's case, let's say STR and DEX, having two attributes leads to oodles of new rules for calculating defense, handling different types of weapons, calculating a new type of roll (called saving throws), and making players ask "which one of these handles my physical toughness?"

Who are these players that think Dexterity, Skill, Agility, Reflexes, or Speed might govern physical toughness rather than Strength, Might, Brawn, or Size? Are they like a bunch of toddlers or something?

Players are like toddlers

Oy.

I happen to like this idea: if the GM can break all outcomes into six subjective categories, he can assign his own numbers to the player's actions and not need a table to tell him how to do it.

What do you think about a game like Alternacy that has No attributes or skills, but sixteen talents?

 

[nnms]

But if you can cover most eventualities, go ahead and design your system for it.

It's not about covering possible eventualities, but what's appropriate to the genre and the game itself. It's going to take some brain storming and accepting that as we play we'll discover some responses we didn't anticipate but still feel are appropriate and have to make them work.

Looking for a board game feel, eh? It can be done, but it's tough. Nikolas Lloyd has a legitimate gripe from 3:45 to 4:45 that you might want to look at.

I happen to be, yes, but "moves" are not just about a board game feel. There are appropriate moves in improv theatre, for example, based entirely on story concerns and not on trying to capture a board game feel. If you want to see an example of these, check out Dungeon World or Apocalypse World. For example, Dungeon World has a player "move" called "defy danger" where you choose to carry out an action despite there being risks of injury or death. And when you choose to carry out an act despite the risks, you follow the procedure for the "defy danger" move.

It's about what's appropriate to the genre and the game and for Dungeon World, defying danger is an appropriate move to make given that it's heroic fantasy as the genre. Another move in Dungeon World is "carouse" where if you have your adventurer let off steam and splash some of his loot around, you follow a particular system procedure. This even applies to the GM. In Apocalypse World, the GM has moves like "Reveal an unwelcome truth" because finding out how the world has gone wrong and what the real state of affairs happens to be is part of the post apocalyptic genre. So when the GM wants to do that, the specific procedures and dice rolling mechanic is applied and you find out what sort of things is revealed and how, or how completely.

In terms of the example in the video, jumping on the back of the creature and smashing the stone of power is damn appropriate. In Dungeon World, for example, you'd be doing the defy danger move (as leaping on the back of a creature in order to smash it's power source is doing something despite the risk) and you'd roll dice and add modifiers and then: "On a 10+, you do what you set out to, the threat doesn’t come to bear. ✴On a 7–9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice" (Dungeon World, p 62).

 

[Bagpuss]

Two attributes would be less simple than one.

Although it can add clarity, and thus actually more simple in some respects. For example I know in an instant that a D&D character with high Strength and low Dexerity, is can carry a lot punches hard, but isn't particularly nimble. If I see a character with high Physical, what does that mean, is he very nimble, but not particularly strong, is he very strong but not agile, or is he both strong and agile? The system doesn't tell at a glance. So in some ways it is more complex.

And in D&D's case, let's say STR and DEX, having two attributes leads to oodles of new rules for calculating defense, handling different types of weapons, calculating a new type of roll (called saving throws), and making players ask "which one of these handles my physical toughness?"

Neither that's Consitution, and when presented with the six stats I've never heard anyone ask that question. I think the only confusion I've ever seen is where people are use to a system with a willpower attribute and it isn't clear if that is Wisdom, Intelligence or Charisma that it maps to.

DM: "The fire giant grins, sulfuric breath filling your nostrils as he presses down on you, his monstrous axe pinning your weapons to your chest. Well?"
PC with no imagination: "Well, since I decided at character generation that my high Physical was for quickness, I guess that means I have no strength. I sit back and die."
PC with imagination: "I yank on his moustache, hoping he'll cringe just enough to allow me to squirm out of the hold. Here's my Physical roll..."

Smart Player: Well at character generation, I decide my high Physical meant I was exceptional at all things physical, so I have no trouble, pushing it off, or nimbly rolling from under him. Here's my roll....
Lazy Player: I've not defined what my Physical means but the system lets me roll it so here's my roll...

Players are like toddlers: they're always looking for what they "shouldn't" do. But if you can cover most eventualities, go ahead and design your system for it.

Note that 3E D&D didn't leave a lot of judgment calls to the DM. There were no degrees of success, just hit or miss. There were tables for how far a character could jump, how well he could persuade, and how many pounds he could lift.

I happen to like this idea: if the GM can break all outcomes into six subjective categories, he can assign his own numbers to the player's actions and not need a table to tell him how to do it.

There are advantages to tables, over on the fly GM rulings, which may seem simpler, and take less space to explain.

It means the game remains consistant, because the GM doesn't need to remember what he said last time, and if he needs to write it down so he doesn't forget, why not have that written down in say the rulebook?

It also remains consistent if the GM changes or you play at a convention, the rulings don't change with each GM.

It means a player can have a idea of something without having to ask the GM, ie. how far he can safely jump, or how much they can carry.

It means the PCs abilities are dependable and don't rely on the changing whims of the GM, who's rulings my might vary from one week to the next, or if you are his girlfriend or not.

 

[Mike Eagling]

There are advantages to tables, over on the fly GM rulings, which may seem simpler, and take less space to explain.

Tables are very out of fashion right now but I wonder if it would be possible to make a simple rpg system that codified everything in tables? Hmm...

 

[Hussar]

Well, I just ran Weird West for a couple of sessions and it has a nifty table for adjudicating contested rolls. Funny thing is, my players didn't like it. It was one of the strongest comments about the game itself - Table? WTF? Gimme a simple equation every time!

Don't bother me, but, apparently some don't like it.

I'm a HUGE fan in cutting out the cruft in RPG's. Thing is, when you do that, you can make people very unhappy.

Textbook example - knocking something prone in 3e or 4e. How do you knock a gelatinous cube prone? The "knocking someone prone" rules are pretty simple in either edition. But, because you have fairly simple, universal rules, there are those out there who refuse to step back from the mechanics and make rulings that make sense to them. The rules say that you knock X prone, therefore you ALWAYS knock X prone and it has Y effect. And, again apparently, there are many DM's/GM's out there who are not willing to adjudicate differently.

Rules light games require a much stronger handed DM who is going to apply rulings all the time. That's unavoidable. Look at Savage Worlds. Fairly rules light system with nice, universal mechanics. But, applying those mechanics is going to involve a lot of DM ruling.

IME, that can go very well or spectacularly badly.

 

[Bagpuss]

Textbook example - knocking something prone in 3e or 4e. How do you knock a gelatinous cube prone? The "knocking someone prone" rules are pretty simple in either edition. But, because you have fairly simple, universal rules, there are those out there who refuse to step back from the mechanics and make rulings that make sense to them. The rules say that you knock X prone, therefore you ALWAYS knock X prone and it has Y effect. And, again apparently, there are many DM's/GM's out there who are not willing to adjudicate differently.

You imply that is a problem. To me denying a PC their ability just because a DM can't think of an imaginative solution to how a ooze could be knocked prone could also be seen as a problem. Prone just applies various conditions, like providing combat advantage, a penalty to attack rolls and slower movement rate, until you take an action to remove the condition. That doesn't need to mean you are knocked off your feet, it could just mean the ooze loose consistency, and needs to use and action to pull itself together. Same penalties from the condition, just a different visual effect.

You can play either way, I don't see a problem with either style of play. One changes the rules to suit their vision of the world where an ooze can't be knocked prone, another changes the fluff of the rule to to suit their vision of a world, so a ooze still isn't physically knocked prone, but the player still gets to use their ability and apply the penalty as if it was. In both the rules suit the players vision of the world.