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

[RFisher]

I think a player who prefered not to be limited would likely gravitate towards Heroquest/Hero Wars.

I've started to find that there's really little difference in how I run classic D&D, Coda Lord of the Rings, classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, C&C, Lejendary Adventure, or whatever. It's still basically: Can the PC do what the player wants? Is there a chance of failure? Given the PC's abilities, what should that chance be? What's the simplest die roll that supports that chance?

So, yeah. I haven't played Heroquest yet, but I know what you mean. I've gravitated towards a personal "unified field theory of roleplaying games". If I had to choose one game, it might be Prince Valiant or Risus. (I actually started writting up my personal "unified" system.) It's just as easy for me to adjust to the terms of a particular game & ignore the parts I don't want to bother with.

I am aware that a lot of folks (like Akrasia, my DM/CK) believe that the D&D 3x combat rules are so tactical that they are always "in their face."

To me, it's that the D&D3e (& GURPS advanced combat) are at a subtactical level. (Somebody on--I think it was a GURPS forum--once used the term "technique" to distinguish it from tactical.) Unfortunately, the subtactical level of combat often bears only passing resemblence to actual combat. You aren't using combat techniques, you're just navigating the rules.

In classic D&D you can still use tactics. Indeed, you better, unless you're DM is a push-over. Plus, high-level tactics is mostly independent of the rules.

I think there's some truth to the point someone made about spellcasters having more tactical options than fighters in C&C. That's the nature of spells. They're like firearms or smoke grenades or any advance in weapon tech. They provide new tactical options.

Yet, fighters are my favorite class & I prefer "rules light" games. I don't might the spell casters bringing tactical advantages to the party. They've got tactical weaknesses as well. We need each other. I don't need subtactical options to compensate me for any imbalance.

I think that subtactical combat systems are good (besides as side-alone wargames) in roleplaying games if you're playing solo. (1 player & 1 DM.) Because tactics play more of a part at the "squad" level.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Well D_K, I figure that you and your DM have already come to this agreement (seeing the comments already said), but the best thing to do is handwave the requirement on TWF. Ability score requirements on feats is one of the more quirky segments of D&D that I disagree with. It all too often requires pre-planning of what a character can do. I think that it winds up closing off more options than it opens. Want to be able to swing around and hit everyone nearby with your staff? Hope you have a 13 int along with your 13 dex. For things that are (theoretically) customization tweaks, it seems like a bit too much work to allow for the sort of character evolution and leeway that I wanted out of them.

It seems to me that we had an area of too much rules for the rules-light aspects to work.

Best of luck, and I hope this gets sorted out for the better.

 

[Numion]

Yet, fighters are my favorite class & I prefer "rules light" games. I don't might the spell casters bringing tactical advantages to the party. They've got tactical weaknesses as well. We need each other. I don't need subtactical options to compensate me for any imbalance.

I think that subtactical combat systems are good (besides as side-alone wargames) in roleplaying games if you're playing solo. (1 player & 1 DM.) Because tactics play more of a part at the "squad" level.

Your strange definitions aside, I noticed that group tactics are much more important in 3e than previous games I've played. The AoO's and all the options made it possible to try to organize the adventuring group in different lines of defence, so that the meleers and spellcasters can support each other. One common tactic, for example, is for the meleers to protect the archers and casters from melee. In previous editions it tended to be every man for himself, since there wasn't a way to stop anyone from just walking past you laying the smack on the wizzard, sorry, magic-user :\

Your assertion that 3e was only good for solo games makes IMO no sense at all. There's hardly no point un utilizing all the rules if you've got one combatant. 3e really shines in group level combats. Thats how it affected our games - the group started to fight as a group!

 

[mmadsen]

Unfortunately, the subtactical level of combat often bears only passing resemblence to actual combat. You aren't using combat techniques, you're just navigating the rules.

Well said. Often, "heavier" rule-sets aren't more realistic; they're simply more intrusive.

 

[der_kluge]

Well D_K, I figure that you and your DM have already come to this agreement (seeing the comments already said), but the best thing to do is handwave the requirement on TWF. Ability score requirements on feats is one of the more quirky segments of D&D that I disagree with. It all too often requires pre-planning of what a character can do. I think that it winds up closing off more options than it opens. Want to be able to swing around and hit everyone nearby with your staff? Hope you have a 13 int along with your 13 dex. For things that are (theoretically) customization tweaks, it seems like a bit too much work to allow for the sort of character evolution and leeway that I wanted out of them.

It seems to me that we had an area of too much rules for the rules-light aspects to work.

Best of luck, and I hope this gets sorted out for the better.

Indeed. I was assuming the dex requirement, not that it matters much, I still wanted the high dex. The GM has revised the feats to replace ability score requirements with things like "a fighter type" so that works out well. And not all feats were ported over, but most were. I ended up going with the knight class, and some of the class abilities (once I get them), I can swap out for feats if I choose to do so. I'm 3rd level, and I have TWF, TWD, and weapon finesse. Once I am able, I'll get dodge, spring attack, and then whirlwind attack.

 

[Akrasia]

... Often, "heavier" rule-sets aren't more realistic; they're simply more intrusive.

It would be hard for me to agree with this sentiment any more than I already do.

 

[RFisher]

One common tactic, for example, is for the meleers to protect the archers and casters from melee. In previous editions it tended to be every man for himself, since there wasn't a way to stop anyone from just walking past you laying the smack on the wizzard, sorry, magic-user :\

It's been standard procedure since my first AD&D game (c. 1986) for the fighters to keep opponents away from the spellcasters. (I'm sure it was standard procedure long before that...as many of the guys in my group were already veteran AD&D players.) A DM who let combatants just walk through enemy ranks would've been...well...I don't know 'cause no one ever did that.

If my OAD&D DMG fu was what it once was, I could argue rules, but I save my rule-mongering for the 3e games these days. Maybe you're right. Maybe a strict reading of the OAD&D rules would allow such insanity. My only defense is that it doesn't have to be that way, & it wasn't that way in any of my groups. But I can see your point. 3e is very concrete about such things.

I actually find it harder in 3e to get people to use group tactics for some reason. (Even though many in my group has been playing since 1e.) It seems people tend to be too focused on their own PC. Which really is a shame because group tactics certainly work just as good in 3e.

Your assertion that 3e was only good for solo games makes IMO no sense at all.

Come on! You're a gamer, so I know your reading comprehension isn't that low. In any case, I didn't mean to infer that 3e was only good for solo games.

I'm perfectly happy to apply every bit of tactics & rules-mongery I can when I play 3e games. (Which I do, since it's what other people in the group choose to run.) I'm just saying that I only really start to miss the extra detail of the 3e or GURPS advanced combat systems in solo games. (Even when I'm on the DM side of the screen.) OAD&D & classic D&D combat, IMHO, really need a group to shine.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I have this feeling that the average ENWorlder's stance on rules-light vs. rules-heavy is going to lean waaay more towards rules-heavy than it would if you polled other segments of the roleplaying population. There's a *lot* of crunch discussion here, after all, so it's going to attract people who like crunch.

I'm a big believer in systems like HeroQuest, where players choose what attributes their characters have, because you never have a situation where you can't accurately model the character you want to play.

Then again, I have zero, zilch, nada interest in tactical combat and in taking satisfaction from properly gaming the rules. In the games I run, a colorful, entertaining description of your actions gives a direct mechanical bonus. And, hey, systems encourage the kinds of behavior they reward. What this means for our games is the players are talking excitedly and having a good time all the way through the session. I have players that enjoy specific tactics and working the game system -- fortunately, they have other games they get to do that in.

The most important thing by far is that your group uses a level of rules detail that satisfies the players. There's no one right system for everyone. But as a GM, I find that if I don't have to prep a dozen detailed stat blocks per adventure, I use the time I've saved to come up with lots more things to entertain the players with.

 

[Zappo]

It's been standard procedure since my first AD&D game (c. 1986) for the fighters to keep opponents away from the spellcasters. (I'm sure it was standard procedure long before that...as many of the guys in my group were already veteran AD&D players.) A DM who let combatants just walk through enemy ranks would've been...well...I don't know 'cause no one ever did that.

If my OAD&D DMG fu was what it once was, I could argue rules, but I save my rule-mongering for the 3e games these days. Maybe you're right. Maybe a strict reading of the OAD&D rules would allow such insanity. My only defense is that it doesn't have to be that way, & it wasn't that way in any of my groups. But I can see your point. 3e is very concrete about such things.

This is exactly what I meant in my first post. You've got a rules-light system which allows anyone to simply walk to the second line of enemies and whack them. So, the DM ruled that you couldn't. Now, you have a game which is a bit more rules-heavy, and a bit more... I hate the word "realistic" (fireballs and dragons yadda yadda), so let's say "sensible".

The following game, you want to fire an arrow at someone behind the lines. But your rules-light system simply states that you can't shoot "through" characters, and doesn't mention anything such as trying to make the arrow fly in an arc over the first line. Or maybe doesn't cover the subject at all. So your DM rules that you can do it at -4... and, again, the game becomes a bit more sensible and a bit more rules-heavy.

Then you want to try to run through the first line by bull-rushing the opponents... and then you want to feint, or to do anything which is more complex/cool/cinematic than "I hit him". Again, the DM makes a ruling. It goes on, and on.

So, I wonder, what's the point? Making rulings is boring, difficult, and it may lead to arguments. A rules-heavy system, if it is well-designed and organized, is simply a rules-light system that has all the homework already done for you.

 

[Glyfair]

I'm a big believer in systems like HeroQuest, where players choose what attributes their characters have, because you never have a situation where you can't accurately model the character you want to play.

While I admire the concept of Heroquest (actually, Hero Wars when I played it), in practice it falls short of my requirements. I need some tactics in my gaming. In Hero Wars almost everything is abstract. If I wanted that, I'd just go do improvisational acting. I need a bit more wargaming in my roleplaying.

At some point I intend to try to adapt the Dying Earth system for a world outside the world. Not enough of my players have read the world, and even if they had, I doubt they'd go for it.