What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?

[Micah Sweet]

I also think it's super cool, but the idea of actually trying to play it gives me a headache.

And the idea of running a campaign with it (or Rolemaster, or ACKS, or any other sim-heavy system) is very exciting to me. The value of complexity and simplicity is subjective.

 

[Fenris-77]

How can the result possibly be the same though? As has been said before, simpler and faster leads to fewer outcomes and less granularity (things that are a negative for me). That means we're talking about subjectivity, which means there's no universal principle. I don't see it as possible, so the principle doesn't hold up in my view.

The example of THAC0 and ascending armour class comes to mind.

 

[Fenris-77]

And the idea of running a campaign with it (or Rolemaster, or ACKS, or any other sim-heavy system) is very exciting to me. The value of complexity and simplicity is subjective.

I can see myself using the setting, for sure, but not the rules. It's been a long time since I wanted cereal that crunchy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The example of THAC0 and ascending armour class comes to mind.

I'm good either way on that issue. I never had any problem with THAC0 or descending AC, so flipping the script on it isn't simply "better" to me, but it's fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can see myself using the setting, for sure, but not the rules. It's been a long time since I wanted cereal that crunchy.

Fair enough, but that "want" is obviously subjective, so the so-called principle still doesn't apply.

It feels to me like the poster is making an appeal to popularity and calling it straight logic.

 

[Fenris-77]

Fair enough, but that "want" is obviously subjective, so the so-called principle still doesn't apply.

It feels to me like the poster is making an appeal to popularity and calling it straight logic.

My preference for lower crunch systems has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. I was just making a comment about what I currently prefer to run.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So what you are saying is that there was a sliver of time in between the brown box of 1974 and the PHB of 1978 where the presence of a commonly used unbalanced splatbook had raised the lethality beyond what was intended before hit points were raised to compensate.

Given OD&D was around for three years and Greyhawk was in use for the two latter years of that, "sliver of time" is an interesting choice of phrase.

So they could deal with the ordinary but not extraordinary. Right.

I don't even understand what this means here.

 

[mamba]

How can the result possibly be the same though? As has been said before, simpler and faster leads to fewer outcomes and less granularity

it can lead to less granularity, it does not have to. That will depend both on the starting point and the changes.

I also don’t think that more granularity is automatically better. Where your sweet-spot lies will depend. Complexity never is a reasonable goal, simplicity is, you just have to make sure you do not simplify past your intended goal.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A few things here:

--- remember, to one-shot anyone the monsters had to a) hit and b) roll well on their damage die; neither was at all guaranteed
--- also keep in mind that most players pretty quickly learned (usually by their second or third character) that combat was far from the best way to accomplish anything, and to be avoided when possible/practical.

The first is obviously true, but over time, a lot of that could still happen.

In the case of the second, this is claimed far more than it was seen in the field in my experience. Its one of those things that was probably true in some areas, but the only time I saw a character group actively avoid combat in the West Coast games I saw was when they got advanced information about the opposition and it was clearly over their heads. They'd try to bake a cake on the fight as much as possible (at the lower levels the application of sleep spells or clerical turning could simplify many fights seriously against common low-level opponents), but if that wasn't possible and it looked like there was a reason to get into the fight, they'd get into the fight.

This is why there was often a sort of equivelent of the DCC funnel at lower levels in practice; people would go through a fair bit of low level character untl they hit 3-4th level when they were a bit less brittle and/or there were often PC clerics around who would bother to raise them or their compatriots had accumulated enough money to pay NPC clerics for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

it can lead to less granularity, it does not have to. That will depend both on the starting point and the changes.

I also don’t think that more granularity is automatically better. Where your sweet-spot lies will depend. Complexity never is a reasonable goal, simplicity is, you just have to make sure you do not simplify past your intended goal.

Can you please give me an example where more simplicity doesn't lead to fewer mechanical outcomes and/or less granularity?

And please provide evidence that simplicity in and of itself is a reasonable goal, but complexity never is. Also, your "sweet spot" is obviously another way of saying it's subjective, so the simplicity is always better principle still doesn't apply.