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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

What may help is something I've been considering for Final Fantasy d20: damage dice based on class, not on weapon wielded.

"A fighter can deal 1d8 damage with a melee or ranged attack" is very abstract. It doesn't matter if he's wielding a sword, a dagger, two weapons, four, a bow, or a barstool. Being a fighter, he knows how to strike creatures to hurt with any weapon he can use.

In your character's idea, she's maximizing speed without damage, doing three or four thrusts for every one of her peers'. In the end, this equals out: she deals 1d8 damage with a melee attack. That "melee attack" represents speed and accuracy on your part, whereas for that fighter with the giant axe, it represents more a simple bash.

The same goes for accuracy.

This allows for a lot of self-customization. You can describe how you deal that 1d8 damage however you want, but in the end it is the same quanitity. It's simple by the rules. It doesn't matter what weapon you wield, it matters much more how well you wield it.

I tend to really like the idea that weapons just alter how the damage is dealt rather than altering the amount of damage dealt.

 

[jmucchiello]

Isn't this what I said?

 

[der_kluge]

So, if I understand what you're saying, you basically agree with me?

I didn't think I was out of line.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I think this is kinda dumb - why can't the blacksmith hand out weapons that look different (fluff) but have mechanically the same effect (crunch) within the ruleset - ie d8 damage?

 

[der_kluge]

I think this is kinda dumb - why can't the blacksmith hand out weapons that look different (fluff) but have mechanically the same effect (crunch) within the ruleset - ie d8 damage?

Oh, he said I could have a d8 dmg rapier if I wanted one. I would have just preferred that I could have had a d6 dmg rapier with an 18-20 crit range on it.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I love 3e/3.5e because two characters can roll the exact same scores and play the same class but still be much different statistically (how you RP is independent of the game mechanics) because of skills, feats and weapons/gear.

And your post has further convinced me not to play C&C. I play (and DM) d&d half for the RPing and half for the strategical combat aspects of the game. I like to try to balance both equally.

To play a melee type with a low strength score try getting some sorta sneak attack ability (does it exist in C&C?).

BTW I'm also INTJ.

 

[IronWolf]

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.

I agree with this. Take what I say with the grain of salt as I haven't played many simple rulesets (the old basic edition D&D is probably the closest). But this sounds like what I always thought would happen. The DM would end up coming up with stuff on the or making the rules up anyways. With the existing D&D ruleset you can have the same character class end up being completely different in feel and flavor due to the options.

Again, take my agreement with the grain of salt... And I have no idea what personality type I am...

 

[Goblyn]

I love 3e/3.5e because two characters can roll the exact same scores and play the same class but still be much different statistically (how you RP is independent of the game mechanics) because of skills, feats and weapons/gear.

And your post has further convinced me not to play C&C. I play (and DM) d&d half for the RPing and half for the strategical combat aspects of the game. I like to try to balance both equally.

To play a melee type with a low strength score try getting some sorta sneak attack ability (does it exist in C&C?).

BTW I'm also INTJ.

If I'm getting this right: C&C removes a pile of stuff(ie feats) from 3.5?

INTJ ... I don't remember what the numbers mean, but i'm a near match to you: INTP. The test called me an architect, so I insulted its mom until it told me what it meant by that.

I said I was sorry and that its mom probably bakes delicious pie. This offended it for some reason and it tried to convince a nearby IQ test to take from me a couple hundred points. Of course, I have been drinking so maybe it's working ... damn that IQ test ...

 

[jmucchiello]

Oh, he said I could have a d8 dmg rapier if I wanted one. I would have just preferred that I could have had a d6 dmg rapier with an 18-20 crit range on it.

Except that the d8 rapier is in keeping with C&C, the added threat range is new rule to C&C. Giving you a wider threat range means he has to rethink the threat range of all weapons. Changing the normal damage of the rapier means one change.

 

[Faraer]

As someone who dislikes complex rulesets that try to micromanage as much as possible with mechanics, I think preventing players' attempts to analyze the rules can only be good, since I want my players imagining the world.

But regardless of that, I can't let this thing get away again:

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.

No, the rules representation of the weapons and classes are similar. If your fighter is defined by his rules representation, you're playing backwards, and no ruleset will ever be complex enough to make your character interesting.

As for 'DM fiat', I stick by what I said before: it's a really bad DM whose own judgements are worse than those provided by a limited set of game rules written in advance of play, and a poor game where the players don't even trust the DM as much as some book.