A simpler system

[Psion]

Feng Shui's a good game. I'd recommend it over any that have been mentioned in this thread.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

When was the last time you had to cast a save-able 4d6 damage spell on the defensive at a spell-resistant character? Does turning undead provoke attacks of opportunity? Let's see, 2d6 plus cha, then a d20 check . . . uh, right. Bluff to sneak attack? Lemme see, my bluff vs. his sense motive, then the attack roll, uh, yeah. Remember how long it took each of us to figure out how attacks of opportunity works? Time to roll an attack . . .wait, he gets a 20% miss chance, is that before or after the attack roll? Wait, I threatened, better roll again. Now time to roll damage, which is 2d10+6+d6(fire)+2d8(spirited charge) . . . wait, does the spirited charge bonus get doubled too? Hang on, have to recalculate the damage bonus from strength, because I'm wielding two-handed this round. Whoops, forgot I was fighting defensively, I missed. Oh, forgot the flanking bonus, guess I hit after all. Has Bless worn off yet? That stacks with Bardic Music right? Oh yeah, it doesn't, because it doesn't stack unless they're dodge or circumstance bonuses, right? Or was it luck bonuses? When I cast Aid as a domain spell for the Good domain, does it count as a Good spell because that's not in the description. Nevermind, I'll just polymorph him into a frog. Oh, that's been erratta'd four times since Tuesday? Is that a Full Attack or a Partial Charge?

I think those of us who still think d20 is simple need to get a grip . . . a [monkey] grip.

d20 is simple. Spell-less D&D is relatively simple. Core D&D... isn't.

Yes, D&D with its ludicrous spell system is extremely complex. Oddly enough, the only example you listed that didn't mention spells or a spellcasting class was the last: Full Attack or Partial Charge. And the d20 action structure (full attack/standard action/etc.) comes from the need to balance a spellcaster's power to completely change the game with a single action, so even that is essentially spell-based.

Take spells out - and, if you want, replace them with multi-round Incantations (Unearthed Arcana or Urban Arcana) - and about 80% of the complexity in combat goes away, well, magically!

Even the bard will know more spells at any given level than the human fighter will feats, and if you count every type of bardic music the bard knows as well as the actual spells, that's well more. Sorcerers? Even more. Wizards? Still more. Clerics and druids? Don't even think about it.

If players can't record the relevant details of their average ten feats - and the alleged complexity of non-core feats indicates that they can't - then how can they possibly deal with hundreds of spells?

The skill system is annoyingly complex, but as said above, x number of skills at level + modifier makes it much easier to handle, especially for NPCs.

Anything else is just gravy.

About the only thing left to address is the action structure, and possibly AoOs. My personal inclination is to go with two actions/round, which can be either movement or attack, and which can be sacrificed either individually or together to 'ready' an AoO; otherwise, AoOs aren't available. No full attacks, no litany of Improved x feats, no charge actions, just two single actions, no iterative attacks with a decreasing bonus. Two-Weapon Fighting would let you attack once with each weapon per action (as it should now, IMO).

 

[RFisher]

Obviously, the lack of rules for something doesn't really mean that you can't perform that action. It only means that the DM has to decide on the fly what rolls you should make to, say, grapple someone.

But, of course, the next time I grapple someone I expect to use the same rules.

Good post, Zappo.

One of the things I've recently realized is that--for me--it isn't important that the same rules be used in every situation. I don't mind the rules fitting the specific situation & the pacing needs of the moment.

Indeed, when I've gotten most frustrated with roleplaying games has been when the rules really aren't good enough to handle the specific situation that has come up. The GM (often myself) has made the mistake of trying to handle the situation strictly by-the-book when he really needs to toss the book out & just use common sense.

Anyhow, currently my favorite systems are classic Traveller (current campaign!) & classic D&D (Basic/Expert c. 1981). And I'm really wanting to give Lenjendary Adventures, Barbarians of Lemuria, & Risus a try. Maybe Feng Shui...

 

[Arnwyn]

Too complex?! What the heck is simpler than a system that uses one die to resolve actions?

Wow. You just described half a dozen systems.

 

[mmadsen]

Kriegspiel

Roleplaying games, of course, come from wargames, and wargames have been around, in some form or another, for quite some time. The debate over rules-detail goes way, way back. Most modern wargames derive from the Kriegspiel (literally wargame) of 19th-century Prussia:

The nineteenth-century Prussian game started life with a rigid structure and copious formal rules. The two sides were each placed in a separate room with a model of the terrain or a map. The umpires moved from one room to another collecting orders from the players, and then retired to a third room to consult the rules and find the results of combat. A great deal of their time was consumed in leafing through voluminous sets of rules, consulting tables and giving rulings on fine legal points. By about 1870, however, this rigid system was starting to be thought rather clumsy and time-consuming. Quite apart from the many defects and loopholes in the rules themselves, it reduced the umpires, who were often very senior officers, to the role of mere clerks and office boys. clearly, such a state of affairs was intolerable.​

Most "modern" games of the 1980s (e.g., Squad Leader, Third Reich) followed the "voluminous sets of rules" model, but the Prussians moved away from it 100 years earlier:

It was General von verdy du Vernois who finally broke with this system, and abolished the rule book altogether. His approach to the wargame was the free kriegspiel, in which the umpire had a totally free hand to decide the result of moves and combats. He did not do this according to any set of written rules, but just on his own military knowledge and experience. He would collect the players' moves in exactly the same way as before; but he would then simply give a considered professional opinion on the outcome. This speeded up the game a very great deal, and ensured that there was always a well thought-out reason for everything that happened. This was a great help in the debrief after the game, and it allowed players to learn by their mistakes very quickly.​

A modern "free kriegspiel" often combines umpiring with a randomizer (e.g., a ten-sided die, or "nugget"):

The system for finding the results of combat in a free kriegspiel is classically simple. First of all the umpire looks at the position of each side: how many and what type of troops are involved; how their morale is bearing up; and what orders they have been given. He next considers the ground on which the action will be fought, and any special tactical problems which either side might encounter; whether there are any obstacles in the way of an attacker; whether a flank attack might be possible, and so on.

When the umpire has all relevant information at his disposal, he ought to be able to give an informed opinion on the probabilities of the result. He will not simply say something like 'The French infantry hassuccessfully stormed the hill', but will quote possibilities, such as: 'The French have a 50% chance of storming the hill successfully; a 30% chance of capturing half of it, while disputing the rest; and a 20% chance of being totally repulsed. High scores favour the French'. It is important that the umpire is as specific as possible with these figures, as this forces him to consider all the factors involved in the combat and to think through the full implications of his decision. He must also be clear whether a high dice roll will be good or bad for the attacker, i.e., whether the top 50% (a die roll of 5-9) or the bottom 50% (a roll of 0-4) will mean the hill has been carried. In this case he has stated that the high score will be good for the attacker.​

 

[Akrasia]

... Simple? Well, yes. Now, suppose you want to disarm someone or attack unarmed. Well, no. You can only kill, with weapons. Suppose you want to carry more than the standard amount of rations. Can't. Let's put combat aside and focus on roleplaying - want to make a character that is really good at crafting but not at healing? Can't. Want to make a character that knows everything about Rome's alleys but very little about the rest of the empire? Can't. And so on.

This is a weakness with the particular system in question -- not 'rules lite' systems in general.

Obviously, the lack of rules for something doesn't really mean that you can't perform that action. It only means that the DM has to decide on the fly what rolls you should make to, say, grapple someone.

But, of course, the next time I grapple someone I expect to use the same rules. So it's better to write them down somewhere. Do this for one year, and you get D20.

What I'm saying is that D20 is just a simple system with its homework already done, for people who like their systems to reflect their characters in a somewhat accurate way.

Rubbish.

You seem to be identifying a "rules lite system" with "a rules system that requires more ad hoc calls".

This identification is too quick. There is no necessary relation between a 'rules lite' system and a 'system that requires ad hoc calls'.

Compare two systems for resolving non-combat tasks. One (the rules lite) system, holds that you resolve every task by determining which ability score is appropriate (e.g. Strength, Intelligence, etc.), and making an 'ability score check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the ability score modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty). The other (rules 'robust') system has a list of 20+ skills, and holds that you resolve every task by determining which skill is appropriate (e.g. Climb, Knowledge aracana, etc.), and making a 'skill check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the skill modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty).

I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter. It is simply more general: it uses 'dexterity' for all dexterity-related tasks, rather than breaking those tasks down into individual skills.

Obviously many people (like Psion) prefer the more complex system. But it is simply incorrect to claim that the more complex system (3E D&D) is necessarily more consistent and/or complete than the more general system.

Zappo, just because the rules lite system you are familiar with happens to require many ad hoc calls by the GM, this does not mean that all rules lite systems share this flaw. A system certainly does not need to include all the modifiers, rules, etc. that 3E includes in order to be 'complete'.

Neither C&C nor Unisystem possess this flaw you describe, for example.

 

[Quickleaf]

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

First, get rid of skill synergies - nice idea, but too complicated.

Next, get rid of an ability being tied to a skill (e.g. Move silently & Dex). Apply ability modifiers on the fly according to the situation. Here is an example of how this might look with the Stealth skill (a combination of move silently & hide). NOTE: This doesn't get written out, but remains undefined for each GM to arbitrate spontaneously.
Stealth (Str) = sneaking while dragging a heavy body across the floor
Stealth (Dex) = sneaking above the guards by rooftop
Stealth (Con) = sneaking up on someone in the midst of a poison gas cloud
Stealth (Int) = determining if you know about a particular hiding spot, attempting to sneak in a particularly cunning way
Stealth (Wis) = choosing the right person in a crowd to sneak up upon
Stealth (Cha) = getting in touch with a contact who can smuggle you out of the city in the back of his wagon

Lastly, reorganize skills to reduce the number and repetitiveness. You might even consider a system in which all skills are tied to a profession. For example, a PC with a skill of High-Class Criminal +4 would gain her skill bonus on attempts to bluff, forgery, gather information, laundering money, intimidate, knowledge (local crime), knowledge (nobility), accounting, and sensing the motives of other criminals.
This system's main drawback is: It's vague. And intentionally so. This way, there are no cross-class skills. Either a character has a profession, or they don't.

 

[Akrasia]

... Zappo I think had it right: Write out any system to be completely consistent, and it's going to start looking like the state of affairs with d20. The systems noted above, however, have it going for them that they are new, they are active in the player community, and there's enough internet interest to get some support for them.

Well, I think d20 is reasonably simple -- but 3E D&D is not.

In any case, the proof is in the pudding: Unisystem is an example of a game that is 'completely consistent', covers all relevant situations that might arise during play, and yet is much faster to play (i.e. is more 'rules lite') than 3E D&D. There really is no comparison. I suspect that the same is true for C&C, but the complete rules have only just been released, so we will see. (And, if C&C is not complete, well, at least I can import whatever is necessary from 3E...)

For the record, I do enjoy playing 3E D&D, and have DMed two very successful campaigns using the system (one of which is just wrapping up now). But as a DM -- due to a desire for a faster system (I am friggin' sick of slow combats, tracking multiple modifiers that might or might not stack, etc.), and one that requires less prep work -- I have been moving to other 'rules lite' systems. I am still happy to be a player in a 3E campaign (at least with a DM who does not let things get too bogged down with modifiers, chess-like combat sessions, etc.), and will in fact be playing in a new one next month. But as a GM, I find myself now preferring (vastly) C&C and Unisystem (C&C for my 'Ilmahal' fantasy game; Unisystem for my 'modern' games). So I am not 'anti-3E' -- I just find that, for my goals as a GM, other comparatively 'rules lite' systems are more enjoyable.

 

[Akrasia]

Feng Shui's a good game. I'd recommend it over any that have been mentioned in this thread.

Yes Feng Shui is a good game, but my impression is that the original poster Galeros was looking for something very similar to D&D, but just simpler than the 3e version. In that case, Feng Shui is probably not a good bet. In contrast, a system like C&C or Unisystem (say, AFMBE with the new "Dungeons and Zombies" sourcebook) might be a better bet. They both resemble 3e in many respects (C&C moreso than Unisystem, but Unisystem has feat-like features and skills for players who like those), while being much simpler and faster than 3e (but nonetheless still 'complete', and thus not requiring 'ad hoc' rulings like, say, OD&D).

Remember: many people like D&D, but prefer faster and lighter systems. Games like C&C and Unisystem (and perhaps others) are available to satisfy that demand. They obviously will not 'replace' 3e D&D's position as 'king of the hill'. But they are, IMO, very good systems that satisfy a segment of the gaming market.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Obviously many people (like Psion) prefer the more complex system. But it is simply incorrect to claim that the more complex system (3E D&D) is necessarily more consistent and/or complete than the more general system.

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

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!