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

[John Morrow]

I think this is why I hate systems like ODAD and C&C so much, because it goes against my analytical thinking processes. I'm a systems analyst by trade, so I like analyzing things. C&C kind of takes away my ability to do that.

Out of curiosity, are you similarly bothered by the fact that d20 abstracts processes as complicated as lockpicking, sneaking around, creating potions, tracking, etc. to abstract skills rolls with little or no detail? If not, then you should consider why this does bother you in combat but not for everything else your character does.

 

[John Morrow]

Yes, but strength adds to damage dice, dexterity does not. So, it's impossible to be a dex-based fighter in C&C, when I can't compensate for the lack of strength.

I think your problem may have less to do with the fact that C&C is rules light and more do to with the fact that it's not supporting a specific type of character that you want to play. As other's have pointed out elsewhere, by making the Sneak Attack a Rogue class ability, d20 D&D doesn't necessarily support the non-violent burglar or spy archetype and assumes that all Rogues are potentially killers. My point here is that no matter how complicated your system is, there will always be a place where the system doesn't support a distinction or archetype the way somebody would like it to.

 

[der_kluge]

Out of curiosity, are you similarly bothered by the fact that d20 abstracts processes as complicated as lockpicking, sneaking around, creating potions, tracking, etc. to abstract skills rolls with little or no detail? If not, then you should consider why this does bother you in combat but not for everything else your character does.

I see the existance of skills as a concrete, not an abstraction. They come up infrequently, and are often fluff in nature, and the details don't affect the game, and most players have no prior knowledge of these things to care enough. That is, we don't know enough about those things to complain that they're overgeneralized. Now, if we were all locksmiths IRL, we might be upset that there was on skill for "picking locks" when there should be more variety for that skill. It's sort of like martial arts, and people who are good at martial arts. If you've been on RPG boards for any length of time, chances are you've come across some black belt D&D player writing whole new rules for various types of martial arts, because the RAW are just too abstract for their tastes. I can appreciate that, but not having that level of knowledge, I don't see the need. The abstraction works for me.

But most people are probably familiar with people who are fast, and people who are strong. I suppose the idea that the fast guy and the strong guy are evenly matched fighters is debatable, the idea that you can abstract "fighting" into a single attribute (as Kamikaze Midget is suggesting) is a little hard for me to swallow.

 

[der_kluge]

I think this is worth repeating.

Mechanically, you put it in Strength.

Descriptively, it's speed, agility, coordination, etc.

The stats only mean what you make them mean. I haven't seen any reason why Str can't represent quickness, agility, accuracy, etc. with the right description...?

Well, I want to dual-wield, and I can't take two-weapon fighting with an 11 dex/15 str (which is what I'd get if I swapped them).

 

[der_kluge]

I think your problem may have less to do with the fact that C&C is rules light and more do to with the fact that it's not supporting a specific type of character that you want to play. As other's have pointed out elsewhere, by making the Sneak Attack a Rogue class ability, d20 D&D doesn't necessarily support the non-violent burglar or spy archetype and assumes that all Rogues are potentially killers. My point here is that no matter how complicated your system is, there will always be a place where the system doesn't support a distinction or archetype the way somebody would like it to.

I think rules light is part of my complaint, but you're right there are many D&Disms that I loathe. So, yes, the root of the problem is much, much deeper than just C&C. But C&C's lack of skills, lack of criticals, lack of feats simply complicates the matter greatly.

 

[S'mon]

Where are you getting that? I want to create a dex-based fighter, in a system that seems to encourage only strength-based fighters. I want to wield a fast weapon in a system that only differentiates weapon by damage, not by speed or threat range. I don't see where personality comes into play there.

"personality" was your word not mine - "characterisation" is a better word I guess. You want the fastness of your weapon represented mechanically. I do think there's a problem with the C&C weapons list in that they have too many separately listed weapons, differentiated only by damage. They should IMO just have had "sword - d8 damage" and that could be a longsword or rapier etc.

 

[S'mon]

In C&C, Str is a primary attribute for fighters. That gives me good saves against constriction and paralysis (IIRC). There's nothing about my 19 year old female that would enable her to bust out of the talons of a giant hideous snake, or the claws of a giant dragon. That's a clear mechanical aspect of the system that violates what my character is.

erm... is your concept basically a not very effective character? The typical fantasy heroine fighter type should have no trouble busting out of the talons of the giant hideous snake, unless she's the kind in perennial need of rescue from the real hero. From my experience of d20 I think you're going about this all wrong. You shouldn't be giving your Fighter STR 11 unless your character concept includes 'pretty but ineffectual' - and usually that kind of character isn't much fun in long-term play. IMO you need to give her a decent STR score and visualise it however you like - "stronger than most men, and far more skillful" is typical for a Belit type.

 

[S'mon]

But most people are probably familiar with people who are fast, and people who are strong. I suppose the idea that the fast guy and the strong guy are evenly matched fighters is debatable.

In medieval warfare, as in D&D, strong beats fast every time. That a wimpy female is not the equal of a 300lb male is not unrealistic of course. The way to get around it is to make your character strong. If she's not strong, she won't be a good Fighter.

 

[der_kluge]

erm... is your concept basically a not very effective character? The typical fantasy heroine fighter type should have no trouble busting out of the talons of the giant hideous snake, unless she's the kind in perennial need of rescue from the real hero. From my experience of d20 I think you're going about this all wrong. You shouldn't be giving your Fighter STR 11 unless your character concept includes 'pretty but ineffectual' - and usually that kind of character isn't much fun in long-term play. IMO you need to give her a decent STR score and visualise it however you like - "stronger than most men, and far more skillful" is typical for a Belit type.

I don't know where you're getting that idea. She's fast, not strong. It's a perfectly viable character build, and should be able to stand toe-to-toe with anyone of her level who is "strong", but not fast. I don't see it was weaker. I see it as different.

 

[der_kluge]

In medieval warfare, as in D&D, strong beats fast every time. That a wimpy female is not the equal of a 300lb male is not unrealistic of course. The way to get around it is to make your character strong. If she's not strong, she won't be a good Fighter.

You're right. Zorro and the three musketeers obviously didn't know what they were doing.