Abstract versus concrete in games (or, why rules-light systems suck)

[Silverleaf]

Ummm ... yeah. A knight in plate mail on a warhorse was the tank of the Middle Ages.

No. Not during the Middle Ages. The knight in plate mail could pretty much beat out anything else.

The idea of the 'swashbuckler' (or lightly armoured duelist) only emerged as a viable archtype with rise of gunpowder, and the consequent decline in the utility of heavy armour.

Of course, in C&C (and D&D) we have crap like unarmed monks -- but really, they would have lasted two seconds against a real knight.

That's not necessarily true. If they use their brains and only fight on their own terms, they can get the upper hand. There were real historical battles that had lightly armored guys winning over heavily armored knights:
Agincourt

But then this doesn't really matter too much anyway, since D&D is pure fantasy, with a technological timeframe spanning ancient bronze age (and possibly earlier in some campaigns) through late renaissance with its primitive gunpowder weapons.

 

[JohnSnow]

I really like the sound of the new title by Mearls. Link please??

Sure scadgrad, here's the link to Mearls' design diaries, the last several of which are on this product:

http://www.malhavocpress.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiaries_mmearls

You can also find more by going to the Malhavoc site and following the link to the Iron Heroes product page. This thing used to be called "Iron Lore" so if you're familiar with that, it's the same product. There's been a fairly long Enworld thread on it that Mike posted some intriguing info on. There used to be some good threads on ezboard, but the crash last week killed most of those.

Nobody knows quite what to make of it yet (it's due to be released at GenCon in August). At low-mid levels it seems very Conan/Fafhrd/Grey Mouser-esque, with some of the higher-level abilities tending a bit towards the "mythical" side. For example, there's one Archer ability in particular called "arrow ladder" that involves an archer making easily climbable "ladders" out of arrows. Opinions on it have ranged from "Meh - lame," to "Oh god, how cheesy" to "eh...I suppose a really good archer could do that if he practiced at it."

Most of the other abilities are much more in line with classical heroic fantasy. And the whole intention of the game is to liberate characters from the "pseudo-point buy" inherent in the wealth system while still having them able to handle "standard" challenges. One sample character posted in previews is a 6th level berzerker with nothing but a bad attitude, an axe and a bearskin cloak.

Personally, I remain optimistic that it will have the "feel" I want based on a post by Mearls that he was inspired to create Iron Heroes by his muddled understanding of the Nehwon universe from reading the 1st edition Deities and Demigods at the age of 10 or so. Since I had the same experience (although I was a bit older), I'm eagerly anticipating his take.

And yes, I'm eagerly awaiting the next GRRM book. Just to clear things up, it's JohnSnow rather than Jon because I had both nicks at the WotC boards and after losing the password to the first (JonSnow), I adopted the second. Deciding to keep it here was just a matter of consistency.

 

[scadgrad]

That's not necessarily true. If they use their brains and only fight on their own terms, they can get the upper hand. There were real historical battles that had lightly armored guys winning over heavily armored knights:
Agincourt

But then this doesn't really matter too much anyway, since D&D is pure fantasy, with a technological timeframe spanning ancient bronze age (and possibly earlier in some campaigns) through late renaissance with its primitive gunpowder weapons.

But then again Agincourt, and earlier Crecy, and to a lesser extent Poitiers, were certainly exceptions to the rule in the vast majority of medieval contest. Typically heavy cavalry just ran over and through the enemy and was the Queen of Battle until roughly the Napoleonic Era. In fact, if you care to review the 100 years war, you'll find that for the most part, the french won their country back so it's not like the English, or Welsh if you want to pick nits, longbow was that dominant. Even after the development of cannons, handgunners, etc., heavy cav charges were still an extremely powerful force on the battlefield, or at least in the hands of a skilled commander such as Cromwell (insert your favorite Irish curse here).

Every gamer likes to offer up Agincourt, and it is a pretty astounding little bit of history, but it's not as if it made the armored knight completely obsolete.

Oh well, back to the world of fantasy.

 

[Particle_Man]

I don't know about C&C, but in old-school D&D it breaks down like this:
18 STR: +3 melee to-hit & dmg
18 DEX: +3 missile to-hit, -3 AC bonus, +2 initiative bonus
(note that inititative is rolled on 1d6, so +2 bonus is considerable)

If they (the strong guy and dextrous guy) just stand there and beat on each other, the odds are probably in favor of the strong guy, because his to-hit bonus cancels out his opponents AC bonus, but the damage bonus still applies. At low levels though the initiative bonus may be more significant, so it depends...
But if the dextrous guy uses his brains and softens his opponent up with some arrows or thrown daggers before closing in, then his chances increase considerably, and this may even give him the upper hand.

Missle weapons and other stuff is another thing entirely. But I was speaking of "in your face" meelee combat. Since the original poster didn't mention missle weapons, but did mention a rapier, perhaps he could take your advice and just use missle weapons and not worry about being so weak. But I think he and his DM are sorting things out now.

And I am sure the swashbuckler exists in some form in each edition (there is even a class of the name in 3.5). But not in a standard D&D game. The reason for that is that most D&D games are pre-swashbuckler era, pre-gunpowder, and right in there with the heavy armor, shield, heavy weapon style that strength favors. Start introducing rules additions and eventually you will find anything, including a swashbuckler.

 

[Silverleaf]

Every gamer likes to offer up Agincourt, and it is a pretty astounding little bit of history, but it's not as if it made the armored knight completely obsolete.

Wait, I didn't bring up Agincourt as proof of superiority of the longbow, or to imply that heavy armor had become obsolete. It was only an example of good tactics on the part of the english, and bad tactics on the part of the french. On a flat, dry, open battlefield, chances are the larger french forces would have obliterated their foes. But the english did not meet them in such a place...
Much in the same way, in D&D victory goes to the ones who know where and when to pick their fights. A high-STR heavy-warhorse riding knight may excel in situations like a cavalry charge or a conventional toe-to-toe fight, but he'll be very disadvantaged in many other situations where the high-DEX lightly armored fighter or unarmored martial artist will have the upper hand. And that is where the player's skill comes into play, he must do all in his power to maneuver himself in positions or situations that are to his benefit.

 

[Akrasia]

... As for your comments about the tactical parts of the combat, there's still a good bit of tactics available. I think that if you're more inclined to the d20/herosystem blow-by-blow method of combat, you're just never going to enjoy the more abstract C&C/CoC/White Wolf brand of combat. I go for the latter myself and really enjoy the descriptive moments in combat which, one could argue, is a stronger element of the abstract style games. Perhaps it's just my own brand of DMing, but I feel there's much more room for lively combat descriptions when I'm not confined by what a hit actually means.
...

I quite agree with this.

IMO a rules heavy, tactical game limits what PCs can do by telling them what they cannot do (e.g. "You cannot do x without provoking an AoO"; or "You cannot do y without feat z"; etc.).

In contrast, a game with a less tactical/detailed approach to combat gives players a general structure, and lets them describe their action any way they want, or try novel things (without having to get the 'permission' of a specific feat, skill, etc.).

As you said, it is a difference in taste and mindset, but any combat system that essentially requires the use of a grid and miniatures (e.g. the 3e combat system) is one that I find inhibits my style as a GM, and limits the kinds of options I would like to make available in a given session.

 

[Akrasia]

The funny thing is that we had exactly this discussion in our group.

Yes, it is amazing how often this same conversation appears in different places, and on different boards...

For the record, I'm one of Akrasia's players, and very sorry that he's moving to Ireland at the end of the month.

Thanks -- I'll miss the gang. We have a really good group (pity it has been impossible to get together over the past few weeks).

... C&C cuts down on player options. ...

I am hoping that with the Castle Keeper's Guide, players will have a lot more options -- including some guidelines for customizable classes.

My hope is that C&C eventually accomplishes something already achieved in the Buffy/Angel game -- a fair bit of customization for players, combined with nice 'rules light' guidelines for NPCs and monsters.

We'll see when the CKG comes out (which probably won't be for many months, unfortunately).

Sometime I want to take a poll and check a theory I have. I think most of those who prefer C&C are "wizard players" by preference, and that most of those who don't are not. Spellcasters are the undisputed kings of any game if you take out feats and such. And they retain tactical options (spell lists) that the other classes do not. This makes them more interesting (in other words "fun") to play to everyone but those for whom Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser or similar characters are the archetypes that attracted them to RPGs.
...

I somewhat disagree with this. At low levels wizards are not more powerful than other classes -- if anything, they tend to be weaker. It is only at higher levels that they start to really shine -- so long as they aren't caught unprepared, or stuck in melee combat (and thus unable to cast spells effectively).

As for feats, etc., being 'balancing forces' between wizards and nonwizards in 3e, I don't think that this is necessarily true either. There are plenty of feats in 3e that give wizards all kinds of new advantages (silent casting, combat casting, etc.) that are not available to wizards in C&C.

In any case, it is really the magic system of both C&C and D&D that gives an edge to high-level wizards. If a GM were to replace the magic system with something more ritual-based (or rune-based, or whatever), and with more subtle, and generally 'weaker', effects, this imbalance would disappear.


More generally, I think that the divide between fans of 'rules light' systems and 'rules heavy' systems does not correspond to the divide between fans of 'Merlin-type characters' and 'Conan-type characters'. Rather, I think it is more basic -- some players are 'tactical' in orientation (they like lots of clearly definied, quantified options and rules in the games that they play), whereas other players are primarily 'immersive' in orientation (they prefer character 'concepts' and 'in character' role-playing, and find the endless details of rules heavy systems to be a distraction and chore).

Most players combine both orientations in varying degrees, of course, but IMO those who like 'rules light' systems tend towards the 'immersive' outlook -- irrespective of whether they like to play characters like Gandalf or the Grey Mouser. Looking at our group over the past year, I would say that Brian and I definitely gravitate towards the 'immersive' outlook, whereas you and Steve S tend to be more 'tactical' in orientation. (Jason and Steve T seem to be roughly in between, as far as I can tell.)

 

[Akrasia]

... And while I understand those attracted to C&C for its more open rule system, I think the claim that C&C is "balanced" and therefore more "plug-and-play" than 3e is belied by this simple fact.

I am not sure what you mean by this, John. All I can say is IME C&C is more "plug-and-play" than 3e -- by a huge factor.

So while I think some simplification of the D&D 3e system can be done (and maybe should be), I think C&C (as written) goes too far.

Of course, the complete C&C system is not out yet. As I mentioned in my previous post, the CKG may address some of the concerns you have with the game.

... I'm also eagerly awaiting the release of Mike Mearls' Iron Lore...err...I mean Iron Heroes, which hints at solving some of these issues. ...

Yeah, I'll look at this when it is released (despite the cheesy "Monte Cook presents..." bit in the title). It does look interesting.

However, one of the biggest advantages of C&C, for me at least, is its compatibility with pre-3e material. I have a lot of great B/X D&D and AD&D material that I would love to adapt for my games -- and C&C makes doing that a snap.

 

[jmucchiello]

IMO a rules heavy, tactical game limits what PCs can do by telling them what they cannot do (e.g. "You cannot do x without provoking an AoO"; or "You cannot do y without feat z"; etc.).

How does "You cannot do x without an AoO" prevent you from doing something? All it does is codify the consequence of attempting x. People fear AoOs too much. "I can run past him" "yes you can" "He'll swing at me" "So?" is a conversation I've had many times. Sometimes the "So?" convinces them that they can provoke an AoO. It might hurt but unless you are already in a critical state, it shouldn't kill you.

What y can't be done in 3.5 without feat z? I know of know standard feat like z. Perhaps, cleave? oh well. Whirlwind attack? Well that's not a normal attack and isn't really worth doing in the first place. Spring attack? maybe here you have something - splitting up moving with an attack along the way. You could simulate it with and overrun attempt.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

In the 3e games I've played in, no one will do ANYThING that draws an aoo, unless it is absolutely the only viable option they have. Giving Conan an extra swing at you is never a good idea. Removing AOOs does nothing but speed up combat, since almost every character I've see puts ranks in tumble, cross class or no. Even one rank can make a fighter decent at it. 1 rank, +2 synergy bonus from jump, 14 dex, and you'll succeed half the time. All those rolls add up and slow the game down.