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

[Silverleaf]

In my Basic/Expert D&D game, I use a very light version of AoO. The major difference (besides the lack of a formal list of things that do/don't provoke an AoO) is that nobody gets any free attacks. If someone enters or passes by your zone of control and you haven't yet attacked that round, you can commit to attacking that individual, even if you're currently fighting someone else. But nobody ever gets any free attacks, they have to commit their focus to one opponent only if they want to get the full benefit of their attack. I do allow multiple attacks, but they're offset with major penalties to-hit (-4, -8, -16 for an extra one, two, or three attacks respectively in the same 10-second round).
And of course, there's no feats or anything like that to muddle things up. It's a lot more abstract...

To clarify: those penalties apply to /all/ attacks. So two attacks means you make two rolls at -4 each. That's the price of trying to do many things at once.

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

I agree. It is a matter of taste and mindset. But it's not as simple as a preference for "immersive" vs. "tactical" roleplaying. It's a matter of whether you want rules that allow your character to get "better" at things.

I can choose to "describe" an action any way I want. But there's no sense of accomplishment beyond what I get from telling or writing a story. As a player (and speaking strictly as a player), a large part of the enjoyment of D&D is the vicarious thrill of "accomplishing" something. Simply deciding that I, in story form, complete my attack by bounding over a table may be satisfying from a storytelling standpoint, but from a "vicarious thrills" standpoint, it's exactly the same as "I swing my sword. I hit." There's no reason to come up with the descriptive language. However, if I know that by tumbling past the guy I might get a bonus on the attack, I'll do it.

I guess to me, it's a matter of risk versus reward. In rules-light, description-heavy systems, the risk-reward is in your head (combat is obviously abstract enough to allow it to all be description). In more tactical games, there is a tangible effect of risk vs. reward. While this obviously isn't necessary (or even "realistic" in such an abstract system), it's much more satisfying to me as a player to accomplish something cool because I took a risk and succeeded, rather than simply deciding it happened.

Like you said, it's a matter of taste, but it's not as simple as immersive vs. tactical. I'd say it's more about emphasizing "collective storytelling" vs. "vicarious thrills."

Obviously, there's elements of both in both. If the one side was just interested in collective storytelling, you wouldn't need a resolution mechanic at all, but then it's just improvisational theatre. And if the other was just about "vicarious thrills," we'd just gamble. So the happy medium is somewhere in the middle. Some systems lean one way, others lean others. As an example, the Hero system is TOO tactical even for me. And Palladium (with its "resolve every strike, parry, and dodge") is too. On the other hand, Amber Diceless roleplaying with its utter lack of a resolution mechanic is way too far the other way. C&C, Warhammer, and D&D 3e fall between these extremes.

I stand by my broader point about C&C. Without feats, spellcasters have more tactical options (that actually have RULES implications) than the combat-focused classes. Note that "you can do this but it has substantial penalties with no measurable reward" is not an option any sane person would take. Ergo, it's not a "real" option. Nor is "you can do this, but it has no penalties and makes no difference" because that's not an option with any rules implications either.

Just my personal take on "descriptive" combat.

If the CKG adds feats, skills and such back into C&C, I don't see how it's any less complicated than 3e. Although I freely admit that statting up and equipping a mid-high-level 3e character is a pain in the A. A system that solves this issue ALWAYS gets my attention (at least for a short time).

 

[Akrasia]

I agree. It is a matter of taste and mindset. But it's not as simple as a preference for "immersive" vs. "tactical" roleplaying. It's a matter of whether you want rules that allow your character to get "better" at things.

I am not sure I understand how this is a criticism of 'rules light' games. There is nothing in a rules light game that precludes characters getting "better" at things.

In C&C, for example, characters add their class levels to all task rolls (that do not involve the abilities of another class) and saving throws. So high level characters will be better at most tasks than low level characters.

And of course the character's choice of primes also affect his/her abilities.

The only difference is that PCs in C&C 'get better' at things at a more general rate, whereas in 3e you have to allocate skill points, etc. (In other words, improvement in C&C is not as fine grained and detailed as it is in 3e -- but there is just as much improvement!)

I stand by my broader point about C&C. Without feats, spellcasters have more tactical options (that actually have RULES implications) than the combat-focused classes.

Sure, by having a lot more rules that feats allow you to break.

I agree that a feat or skill system gives more tactical options to nonspellcasters. My disagreement was with the claim that this was necessary to 'balance' nonspellcasters with spellcasters.

If the CKG adds feats, skills and such back into C&C, I don't see how it's any less complicated than 3e.

Well C&C will never be as complicated as 3e simply because it will never have 3e's combat system, endless modifiers, etc. And I doubt that feats will be added.

In any case, I think that the idea behind C&C is to present groups with a very simple set of 'basic rules' (as provided in the PH), and then provide different options in the CKG that can be added to the rules by different groups, as they see fit. By being modular in this way, different groups can add detail to those aspects of the game where they want it, but leave other aspects of the game simple.

The 'customizable' (or tweakable) character class option will let CKs build particular new classes to suit their campaigns and/or interests of their players. There was a set of easy rules for doing this for the old Basic/Expert D&D rules from the early 80s, so it will hardly introduce 3e-levels of detail into the game (for those groups who choose to use the option).

 

[sword-dancer]

.

Which I can appreciate, but it's absolutely killing the INTJ personality type indicator in me, because it seems illogical to me that if I walk to a blacksmith and say "give me the fastest, lightest, sharpest blade you have", he hands me a longsword, and while I admire it, someone else comes up to me and says, "gimme me whatever", and he hands them a similar longsword.

If thelightest Normal Blade is the longsword, than that is, as long you don`t go down to the knife.
OTOH your weapon need the qualitie to function against the enemies armor, you could be so light and fast like you want, if you don`t more than nick his armor it wouldn`t do you any good.

The The Head of Vecna: Women in Gaming and Other Myths by Hilary Doda

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/vecna.html

 

[JohnSnow]

I am not sure I understand how this is a criticism of 'rules light' games. There is nothing in a rules light game that precludes characters getting "better" at things.

In C&C, for example, characters add their class levels to all task rolls (that do not involve the abilities of another class) and saving throws. So high level characters will be better at most tasks than low level characters.

And of course the character's choice of primes also affect his/her abilities.

I think you missed my exact claim, rather snipping it at "getting better" and chose to point out that C&C characters have a numerical progression to their abilities (something I've never been in denial about). However, that isn't precisely what I meant by "get better" at things. I admit I should've been more precise. Let me give an example.

In C&C or D&D, you can choose to fight with two weapons. However, given the damage potential of one-handed and light weapons, and the hit penalties for doing so, no rational character would use this style given the standard penalties. So you have effectively eliminate a stylistic combat option. It's simply "better" to either fight with a 2-handed weapon or to wield a one-handed weapon and carry a shield for its defensive bonus. And the key is this: in C&C no option exists for making two-weapon fighting mechanically viable. Period, full stop.

The "immersion" option is to say "carry two weapons, and only attack with one each round." Or accept the penalties for trying to attack with both. However, both of these options are simply "poorer" than the two-handed weapon or weapon-and-shield styles. That may be enough for some, but it belies the simple fact that it is POSSIBLE to gain a measurable advantage "in combat" by learning to wield two weapons. You can't learn to do that in C&C. There are plenty of other examples, like weapon finesse (for dex fighters) or arranging things so that an arrow remains a dangerous attack at higher levels (8 hit points of damage is really useful at 10th level?).

I agree that a feat or skill system gives more tactical options to nonspellcasters. My disagreement was with the claim that this was necessary to 'balance' nonspellcasters with spellcasters.

On this, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. The system is balanced such that even with feats, spellcasters rule the game at higher levels. Take feats out and you've removed the only power up that the non-spellcasting classes get. Are you actually going to argue that a 12th level fighter without any feats is as much fun to play as a 12th level mage? Like I said, I consider making choices part of the fun of D&D. Without tactical options/decisions, a great deal of that fun is lost.

And I know for a fact that wizards are your preferred character class as a player.

Well C&C will never be as complicated as 3e simply because it will never have 3e's combat system, endless modifiers, etc.

So all modifiers in C&C will stack? Or are you just saying C&C will never go beyond "Advantageous = +2 to +6" and "Disadvantageous = -2 to -6"? If it's the second, that's all well and good, but that could be hand-waved in D&D too.

I certainly hope C&C never allows all magical bonuses to stack. That way lies the Monty Haul madness of AD&D. Of course, in games with very few magic items, that's less of a problem.

Simplifying 3e is easy: You can take out feats and use the "generic" skill system. Let characters choose a couple (or 3) "Prime attributes" if you insist. Does this really break the game? Lots of people would scream "NOOOO you can't!!" But if 3e isn't balanced when you do this, why is C&C? The classes are better balanced by their different xp progressions? That's nebulously true at best...

The only classes that aren't penalized in the transition to C&C are wizards, who lose basically NOTHING. But if wizards are balanced with the other classes in D&D (and even that's up for debate), how are they still balanced when they lose nearly nothing and the other classes lose so much?

Sorry, I just don't buy it. C&C's still entertaining, but I just can't see it as some brilliant innovation of "plug and play" game design.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just to elaborate, that whole post was because I found your whole "tactical" vs. "immersive" player comparison to reek of the old elitist "roleplaying" vs. "rollplaying" argument. Hence my attempt to reframe it somewhat differently, since I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you intended it.

It's been an interesting discussion though.

 

[Akrasia]

...That may be enough for some, but it belies the simple fact that it is POSSIBLE to gain a measurable advantage "in combat" by learning to wield two weapons. You can't learn to do that in C&C.

Sure you can. I can't think of anything easier to tweak. The difference is that in C&C you don't have to have everything codified in terms of feats.

On this, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. The system is balanced such that even with feats, spellcasters rule the game at higher levels. Take feats out and you've removed the only power up that the non-spellcasting classes get. Are you actually going to argue that a 12th level fighter without any feats is as much fun to play as a 12th level mage? Like I said, I consider making choices part of the fun of D&D. Without tactical options/decisions, a great deal of that fun is lost.

You seem to be making two different points here: (a) that feats are necessary to keep nonspellcasters 'balanced' in terms of power with spellcasters; and (b) feats are necessary to give nonspellcasters enough 'tactical options' to make them as interesting as spellcasters.

I don't necessarily deny (b), but I disagree with (a) for two reasons. First, spellcasters in 3e also get feats that make them more powerful; and second, the real culprit in spellcasting power in both C&C and 3e is the magic system itself.

Simplifying 3e is easy...

I don't think it is easy at all -- fiddling with a complex, inderdependent system like 3e is always going to be tricky. Simplifying one aspect will almost always have unintended consequences for other parts of the game.

Fortunately, the tedious task of 'simplifying' 3e has, for the most part, already been done by Green Ronin:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=135404

The only classes that aren't penalized in the transition to C&C are wizards, who lose basically NOTHING. But if wizards are balanced with the other classes in D&D (and even that's up for debate), how are they still balanced when they lose nearly nothing and the other classes lose so much?

I am not sure what your overall point here is, but wizards 'lose' quite a few things in C&C (relative to their 3e counterparts): they lose their extra feats, and they have the most demanding experience point charts of any class. Many wizard spells are also much riskier in C&C as well (see haste).

Sorry, I just don't buy it. C&C's still entertaining, but I just can't see it as some brilliant innovation of "plug and play" game design.

Then your opinion runs contrary to the actual experience of many C&C CKs (including my own), who have found it much easier to introduce house rules, variants, etc., into C&C than 3e. Maybe you mean something else by 'plug and play'?

...that whole post was because I found your whole "tactical" vs. "immersive" player comparison to reek of the old elitist "roleplaying" vs. "rollplaying" argument. Hence my attempt to reframe it somewhat differently, since I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you intended it.
...

Well, no, I certainly did not mean anything elitist. Both are equally legitimate approaches to RPGs.

 

[Silverleaf]

In C&C or D&D, you can choose to fight with two weapons. However, given the damage potential of one-handed and light weapons, and the hit penalties for doing so, no rational character would use this style given the standard penalties. So you have effectively eliminate a stylistic combat option. It's simply "better" to either fight with a 2-handed weapon or to wield a one-handed weapon and carry a shield for its defensive bonus. And the key is this: in C&C no option exists for making two-weapon fighting mechanically viable. Period, full stop.

It's not hard to add a house rule if that bothers you. I did something kinda like that in B/X D&D, where I let PCs fight with two weapons (nothing crazy, just sensible combinations like sword+dagger) and although the extra weapon doesn't give free attacks, it acts like a shield for melee purposes. These kinds of tweaks are easy to add if/when the situation arises, but I also think that if you don't like doing this sort of customization then you probably don't want to play rules-light games. This is not a dig at you or anybody who likes tons of features (feats, etc.), it's simply the realities of having a smaller, more abstract set of rules.

The "immersion" option is to say "carry two weapons, and only attack with one each round." Or accept the penalties for trying to attack with both. However, both of these options are simply "poorer" than the two-handed weapon or weapon-and-shield styles. That may be enough for some, but it belies the simple fact that it is POSSIBLE to gain a measurable advantage "in combat" by learning to wield two weapons. You can't learn to do that in C&C. There are plenty of other examples, like weapon finesse (for dex fighters) or arranging things so that an arrow remains a dangerous attack at higher levels (8 hit points of damage is really useful at 10th level?).

In fact, you can carry two weapons and attack with both, but that doesn't allow you do more damage in the same round. The damage you do in one round is already abstracted within one attack roll. That doesn't mean you only took one swing at your opponent, no it lets you decide and roleplay if you swung at him once, or maybe feinted and then parried and stabbed. It's highly abstract, just as the exact nature of the damage inflicted is highly abstract. Pilling very specific maneuvers and options on top of such an unstable base doesn't make much sense IMO (there are other games designed from the ground-up for that kind of stuff). But to each his own...

On this, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. The system is balanced such that even with feats, spellcasters rule the game at higher levels. Take feats out and you've removed the only power up that the non-spellcasting classes get. Are you actually going to argue that a 12th level fighter without any feats is as much fun to play as a 12th level mage? Like I said, I consider making choices part of the fun of D&D. Without tactical options/decisions, a great deal of that fun is lost.

Well it's true that magic-users can potentially become very powerful. Good luck getting there though, I've never seen a "legit" 12th-level magic-user in B/X D&D (one who progressed that far, as opposed to one that was created high-level).
But still, high-level fighters have options available to them that magic-users don't. They most likely have nice enchanted armor and weapons, lots of hit points, and excellent to-hit rolls, which means they can go toe-to-toe with big nasty monsters while the magic-user gets to hang behind so he doesn't die the first time the dragon breathes... Some players live for that stuff, it's the kind of glory a magic-user character won't be able to partake in (unless he's really lucky and crazy). They're also excellent at missile weapons too. And more than likely, they'll also have a few tricks up their sleeves, in the form of magic items with spell-like effects.
Sure, the m-u will have many more spells available, but that's what he does, and he paid the price for it by suffering through the early levels, hanging for dear life with his 1 hit point and Sleep spell. And of course, he needs an extra 150,000 XPs to make it to 12th level (by that time the fighter is already into his 13th level).

Another thing is that some players don't like all the complications of many tactical options. They don't play for that reason, they're there to roleplay and kill dragons & orcs. They don't see themselves as generals or tacticians, but rather as "the guy in that movie". In fact, I've known people who don't ever play magic-users or clerics because they don't like having to deal with all the spell mumbo-jumbo.

And honestly, I got tired of much of the options and tactical aspect of the game too, which is why I went back to Basic/Expert edition. I was never much into the stats & rules part to begin with, even back in the day when it was all fresh and new. But now I simply don't have any patience for that. Give me fantasy and bare-bones rules, I'll handle the rest...

 

[RFisher]

I have noticed this. Especially with my previous group. Several of them had come back to gaming from 1e, and a few were new to it altogether, so all the 3e rules really confused them.

I first noticed it when playing GURPS, Rolemaster, HERO, & some other games. The insidious part is that they hardly ever said anything about it. Sometimes, I don't even know that they realized it. I felt really bad when I started noticing it, though. It felt so much better to play simpler games & not see half or more of the people at the table sitting there with glazed, bored expressions for half the session.

Not to mention the fact that I discovered that I found solving problems more fun than solving rules.

Of course, I look back at some of those systems--GURPS & Rolemaster in particular--& realize that--contrary to what I & a few of my friends thought--we didn't have to use every optional rule we could find.

 

[Numion]

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.).

I don't think that "You cannot do x without provoking an AoO" limits anything. It just gives you the consequences of your actions. It actually gives the guy giving the AoO an option of striking, if he chooses to do so. Those just add tactical elements to the game - which is a big part of D&D.

As to your other arguments .. I don't see how people see restrictions from rules as such a boogeyman. Do you play tennis without the net too? Makes for much more easier strikes ..

 

[Akrasia]

How does "You cannot do x without an AoO" prevent you from doing something? All it does is codify the consequence of attempting x...

I don't think that "You cannot do x without provoking an AoO" limits anything. It just gives you the consequences of your actions...

I understand that this is the purpose of AoOs, viz. to provide 'consequences' for certain actions (at least for PCs without the appropriate feat, skill ranks, or whatever). My overall point is that by imposing all these rules (AoOs, specific modifiers, skills, etc.) for every possible action, 3e can structure the ways in which players think about their characters' potential actions, and this can cause players to become more reluctant to try 'cinematic' or unusual maneuvers, etc.

I am not knocking AoOs, etc., for people who want to play this kind of tactical mini-wargame. But I prefer to run games with a more dramatic and narrative character.