A simpler system

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Ahhh...it took a few weeks, but we're back to good old comfortable ground again. I guess the holidays could only stop the "This is simple" "Not its not" "Yes it is" and "This is too complex" "No its not" "Yes it is" discussions for a short time...

 

[Akrasia]

Of course it's more complete than the general system; you just said so yourself!

I did? :\

In your example general system, there is no such thing as someone who is good at juggling (a Dex-related skill) but not good at picking locks (a Dex-related skill), since the only determining factor is a single ability.

The greater the granularity of a system, the more complete it is - by definition!

By whose definition? I think we are talking past each other here.

A system that is more general can be just as complete as a system that is more nuanced/complex -- if by 'complete' we mean a system that can cover all (or at least most) situations that arise during game play. That is, a complete system is one that does not require GMs to come up with ad hoc rules to cover situations that arise during play.

Now a more general 'rules lite' system will not allow for as much differentiation between different characters (and monsters, etc.) as a complex system can. Or at least not as much 'rules enforced' differentiation. Does that mean it is less complete? Not according to the definition of 'complete' that I have been using.

If it is important to you to have rules that disinguish between agile jugglers and agile nonjugglers, then a rules lite system is probably not going to be your cup of tea -- pure and simple. But that doesn't mean that the rules lite system is not capable of covering all situations that are likely to arise during gameplay.

I was responding to the charge that rules lite game systems require 'ad hoc' decisions by GMs. This charge is mistaken.

But of course a very complex system like HERO or GURPS will allow for a much greater degree of customization than any rules lite game.

'Rules heavy' games and 'Rules lite' games have different virtues and vices. Which is better depends on what you want out of your gaming sessions. But to claim that the latter kinds of games necessarily require 'ad hoc' decisions is simply not correct.

 

[Akrasia]

Ahhh...it took a few weeks, but we're back to good old comfortable ground again. I guess the holidays could only stop the "This is simple" "Not its not" "Yes it is" and "This is too complex" "No its not" "Yes it is" discussions for a short time...

Most of these arguments are pointless. If a game like 3E D&D feels too cumbersome and complex for you, then it is -- no matter how hard posters on these boards might try to argue that your perception is incorrect. So if it feels too cumbersome, then just try some other system that feels less cumbersome. They exist.

 

[Sakurazukamori]

I suggest using the Rules Cyclopedia for the Basic D&D game. It's long out of print, but you can still buy a .pdf at www.rpgnow.com. Here's the link:

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1204&

This is, in my opinion, the best incarnation of the D&D rules ever. Core classes are there, but races are also classes. Skills are simple, but the game has great rules for weapon mastery, mass combat, ascension to divinity, as well as a big selection of monsters and weapons. In the back there are a bunch of maps of Mystara that fueled the earliest campaigns I was ever involved in.

I'm planning on making it my default rules set as soon as I get around to buying another copy on eBay.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

For my upcoming game, I plan on running with a trimmed down d20. No feats, no ability score increases. Skill points are replaced with number of skills. Besides that, just HD, base attack bonuses, saves, and class features. Oughta keep things simple.

 

[shurai]

What a great thread! Shurai, you officially gain another 20 minutes of sainthood.

Behold the bouncing pebbles that cause the avalanche. At this rate I've got almost enough time for an after-school special.

*thinks for a few minutes* I want to make something clear: I don't think D&D or d20 are bad, just too complex in some ways. Obviously, this sort of thing is entirely subjective, as I'm willing to admit. Yet let me explain what I mean:

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

I think Tony there is on to something. When I say it's too complex, what I really mean is that d20 mechanics sometimes get in my way without actually adding anything valuable to the game. Which is to say that they're standing between me and the fun I could be having playing pretend with my friends.

Akrasia is dead on: If d20 doesn't get in your way often enough to make you want to look for some remedy, then why are you posting here? After all, if we can agree that it's a matter of personal taste, what's the use in trying to convince people that their personal taste is incorrect? It's like trying to tell someone that they are mistaken about enjoying a certain style of music.

-S

 

[jmucchiello]

Nice discourse but...

Most "modern" games of the 1980s (e.g., Squad Leader, Third Reich)

These are both 70's games (77 and 74 respectively).

Today they play Puerto Rico (Not a wargame)

 

[Zappo]

Now a more general 'rules lite' system will not allow for as much differentiation between different characters (and monsters, etc.) as a complex system can. Or at least not as much 'rules enforced' differentiation. Does that mean it is less complete? Not according to the definition of 'complete' that I have been using.

By the definition of 'complete' that you have been using, rolling 1d20 and beating 10 for any given action is 'complete', too.

One thing is covering, another is covering in a satisfying way. When my efforts at creating a unique and interesting character have no actual effect, I am not satisfied.

As for the reason for which I am posting to this thread: the original poster wanted to know our experiences with rules-light systems.

My experience is that, unless you are content with a very poor mechanical representation of the game world, it takes so much effort to make them work, that I'd just learn d20 instead.

I have all the respect for people who like rules-lite systems, but personally, when I ask something to the DM, I won't take "you can't" or "it's the same as a normal attack" for an answer more than once or twice. It makes me feel as if I was playing Monopoly. I'd rather play a rules-heavy system and not know the rules - at least I have room for improvement.

 

[Akrasia]

By the definition of 'complete' that you have been using, rolling 1d20 and beating 10 for any given action is 'complete', too..

Yes, that would be a complete system. Just not a very interesting one.

My argument concerning completeness was simply to counter the common but spurious claim that somehow rules lite systems require 'ad hoc' decisions by the GM.

One thing is covering, another is covering in a satisfying way. When my efforts at creating a unique and interesting character have no actual effect, I am not satisfied..

Again, there are trade-offs to be made here, depending on your tastes. I have found that it is possible to make "unique and interesting characters" with rules lite systems like C&C and Unisystem. Then again, I tend to define my characters more through role-playing than through skills and feats (though even rules lite systems have rules-based ways to make characters different -- e.g. C&C's system of 'primes', and Unisystem's 'qualities').

Of course, if you want lots and lots of 'rules-enforced' detail for your character, you can use HERO or GURPS. But then the system has so many rules, IME, that it ends up being too slow for the kinds of games that I enjoy. (3E D&D is not as bad -- IMO -- but slow enough from my perspective as a DM that I prefer to run other games now. I'm still happy to play it, though.)

As for the reason for which I am posting to this thread: the original poster wanted to know our experiences with rules-light systems.

My experience is that, unless you are content with a very poor mechanical representation of the game world, it takes so much effort to make them work, that I'd just learn d20 instead.

I disagree completely with your claim that non-3e systems necessarily have "very poor mechanical representation of the game world".

For example, you do not need the rules-heavy, miniatures-based tactical combat system of 3e D&D in order to have satisfactory combat rules. I have found the Unisystem combat system to be every bit as satisfactory -- for my purposes -- as the 3e system. And much faster to boot.

I have all the respect for people who like rules-lite systems, but personally, when I ask something to the DM, I won't take "you can't" or "it's the same as a normal attack" for an answer more than once or twice. It makes me feel as if I was playing Monopoly. I'd rather play a rules-heavy system and not know the rules - at least I have room for improvement.

The nice thing about rules lite systems is that they are much easier to tinker with -- i.e. 'improve' -- than rules heavy systems. The reason for this is simple: it is much easier to modify a simple model than a more complex one, because it is easier to control for fewer variables than many variables.

This is what I like about rules lite systems -- I can tweak the rules and add things to the game without necessarily 'breaking' it.

Again, rules lite systems are not for everyone. But to suggest that they are necessarily unsatisfactory in terms of mechanics, or are incapable of producing satisfactory characters, is simply incorrect.

 

[maddman75]

By the definition of 'complete' that you have been using, rolling 1d20 and beating 10 for any given action is 'complete', too.

One thing is covering, another is covering in a satisfying way. When my efforts at creating a unique and interesting character have no actual effect, I am not satisfied.

As for the reason for which I am posting to this thread: the original poster wanted to know our experiences with rules-light systems.

My experience is that, unless you are content with a very poor mechanical representation of the game world, it takes so much effort to make them work, that I'd just learn d20 instead.

I have all the respect for people who like rules-lite systems, but personally, when I ask something to the DM, I won't take "you can't" or "it's the same as a normal attack" for an answer more than once or twice. It makes me feel as if I was playing Monopoly. I'd rather play a rules-heavy system and not know the rules - at least I have room for improvement.

Have you seen Fate? Its a version of FUDGE that has is very rules-light, but makes character differentiation a major facet of the game. In addition to skills, each character gets three Aspects, something about them that defines who they are. The Aspects can provide a bonus or a penalty depending on the situation. For instance, if one of your aspects is 'Hulking Brute', you may gain the Aspect bonus in melee combat. But you would get it as a penalty while trying to hide in a crowd. These aspects are not limited to a pre-defined list, but are any three descriptions that you can imagine for your character.

As for the variety in combat actions, Cintematic Unisystem handles that very well. There's a wide variety of special moves you can do - spinning kicks, groin shots, parries, chokholds, and of course the good ol' stake through the heart. Just because its a light, fast game doesn't mean it can provide differentiation when it needs to.