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

[der_kluge]

In a discussion I was having with a GM about my character, we had a polite disagreement over weapons. The character is a female fighter, and in my mind, lacking a lot of strength (11), she would favor weapons of speed. Putting myself in her shoes, I decided that if I was going to be a skilled fighter, in a world of warriors much stronger than I am, I'd want to be fast, and I'd want to kill them before they ever got a chance to swing at me. Therefore, I chose to dual-wield, and to maximize my damage output, I'd dual-wield something like rapier/kukri to maximize the critical potential.

But the game is Castles and Crusades, which doesn't have criticals. The GM has houseruled a critical, but only on a 20. 19-20 for ranged weapons. His reasoning was that he favored a more abstract game, and didn't want to bog himself down into weapon balance and things of that nature, favoring a smoother game with less rules.

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.

Am I being unreasonable? BTW, the GM is an artist, and I don't know what his personality type indicator is, I'm guessing it's probably polar opposite of my own. I don't feel like I'm min-maxing or powergaming here (my highest score is a 16, and I put it into charisma), so I don't think I am.

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.

Anyone else encountered this?

BTW, I don't think this is going to destroy the game for me. It's going to bug me, for sure, but I realize that the game is more than that, and I know I can continue to have fun, so that shouldn't be a concern.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The character is a female fighter

edited for ya

it's absolutely killing the INTJ personality type indicator in me .... the GM is an artist, and I don't know what his personality type indicator is, I'm guessing it's probably polar opposite of my own.

If he's an outgoing guy, then yes.

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.

Anyone else encountered this?

Yeah.

I'm a number-crunchy guy. I like tables and stuff. My idea of abstraction is to have so many charts and tables that the players couldn't possibly keep up with it all. One of my players is a huge roleplayer and can't stand that stuff. He isn't good at building characters and in a previous campaign he had a lot of difficulty finding his niche. Solution? He comes to me with the character concept and I help build the character.

In your case it's a little more difficult because the arty guy is the DM. It sounds like he's being smart in playing C&C. If he went with straight 3.5 he stands a good chance of getting overwhelmed and outgamed by the players (for lack of a better phrase).

It sounds like you've already resolved this. But I wouldn't have a problem with a player coming to me and asking for a minor freebie power to help flesh out the character. How would your DM feel about that? Maybe a +2 to initiative or +1 to AC or whatever.

 

[Zappo]

You summed up my beefs with simple rulesets perfectly. They turn everything to DM fiat, so either the DM slowly turns them into complex rulesets, or you end up having every weapon be the same, every character of the same class be very similar, and so on.

 

[der_kluge]

edited for ya

Took me a while to catch that. Smarta*s.

It sounds like you've already resolved this. But I wouldn't have a problem with a player coming to me and asking for a minor freebie power to help flesh out the character. How would your DM feel about that? Maybe a +2 to initiative or +1 to AC or whatever.

Well, it doesn't help that I already have more hit points than anyone in the party. So, I think he already considers me to be the strongest party member. Maybe I'm just being too greedy, I don't know.

 

[der_kluge]

You summed up my beefs with simple rulesets perfectly. They turn everything to DM fiat, so either the DM slowly turns them into complex rulesets, or you end up having every weapon be the same, every character of the same class be very similar, and so on.

It's good to know that I'm not alone in that regard. I can appreciate the simplistic, streamlined, fast approach, but it tends to make the game kind of generic, I think. It boils down into an issue of personal choice, I think.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Well, it doesn't help that I already have more hit points than anyone in the party. So, I think he already considers me to be the strongest party member. Maybe I'm just being too greedy, I don't know.

Then offer a trade. HPs for AC or initiative. Let the DM pick how much you trade and then you go along with it. He'll probably get a little nervous and reject the offer (bummer) or get nervous and over charge you for HPs. If he does that, I'd roll with it. The key thing is getting the mechanics to reflect the kind of character you want to play.

 

[Jupp]

I had a similar argument in my C&C game with an ex 3E player. I am strictly against those crit rules from 3E so those were not an option for me. They complicate things too much so in the end we house ruled that thieves and assassins can add their DEX bonus modifier (but not more than +2) to the weapon damage for to all sword-like weapons with an encumbrance of <=2 (with some exception like the rapier, sap, whip)

On the other hand barbarians may add up to +2 from their STR bonus modifier to their weapon damage for selected weapons.

Up to now there have not been any balance issues and everyone is happy.

Perhaps this would be a solution for you and your DM?

As a trade-in you could remove some HP or give him another goody so he feels the whole thing is balanced, dunno.

 

[der_kluge]

Then offer a trade. HPs for AC or initiative. Let the DM pick how much you trade and then you go along with it. He'll probably get a little nervous and reject the offer (bummer) or get nervous and over charge you for HPs. If he does that, I'd roll with it. The key thing is getting the mechanics to reflect the kind of character you want to play.

I might talk to him about that. He suggested I try fighter/rogue, and that might be a viable option. I need to get the book to see what I can and can't do with the rules. He's using feats (something C&C normally doesn't have) so that much is nice. I just wish all the little class abilities were things I could choose from, versus being given to me. I don't care for cookie-cutter classes. I think HARP has spoiled me in this regard.

But yea, I may talk to him about going with a d8 HD build, in exchange for an AC boost or +2 or something. That might be fair.

 

[jmucchiello]

IMO, in a class-based rules lite game with as abstract a damage system as D20, damage dealt should be a function of class, not weapon. Any fighter can deal x damage with any weapon, regardless of weapon. Any mage can deal y damage (y < x) damage with any weapon (and can probably deal x damage with a moderate difficulty to cast spell). So if a fighter is a hulking brute, he causes x damage by swinging heavy weapons through his targets and if he's a finesse fighter a "hit" is a bunch of slashes and gashes that equate to the one massive strike by the brute. This makes sense from a rules lite approach because it means you don't have a chart of weapon damages. Less charts, less rules.

But C&C has damage based on the weapon.

 

[mmadsen]

His reasoning was that he favored a more abstract game, and didn't want to bog himself down into weapon balance and things of that nature, favoring a smoother game with less rules.

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.

Am I being unreasonable?

I don't see the problem -- and I'm an INTJ kinda guy too. Both a sabre and a claymore are similar enough to qualify as longswords under such an abstract system. It's not like AC and hit points even reflect hitting and doing damage...