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

[jeffh]

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.

To me, and a lot of other players who prefer a certain level of detail, this is nonsense - it's like saying you prefer cars to automobiles. For more analytical sorts, the "attempts to analyze the rules" are "your players imagining the world", because it's the rules that tell you how the world works.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To me, and a lot of other players who prefer a certain level of detail, this is nonsense - it's like saying you prefer cars to automobiles. For more analytical sorts, the "attempts to analyze the rules" are "your players imagining the world", because it's the rules that tell you how the world works.

This is my point as well. If you have a rule for, say, jumping, everyone knows that the average person not skilled in jumping can jump X feet with about X amount of variation for conditions and luck. That is the way the world works.

If you have no rule for it and would prefer players "imagine" the world, then you run into situations where people have wildly different assumptions about very basic things.

As in real life, if you are going to jump over a pit, most people can look at it and know "I might be able to jump that." If you know the rules in a rules heavier system, you can know if you can make it. In the rules light system, you are relying on an agreement on what "average" is amongst you, the DM, and the rest of the players. It rarely meshes without discussion.

One player thinks: "I can only jump around 3 feet in real life, but I'm pretty big. More nimble people should be able to do 5 feet."
Another one things: "I can jump 10 feet easily with a running jump, I think everyone should be able to do that."
The DM thinks: "Well, Drizz't jumped a 15 foot pit in that book and he's just an elf, I could see humans being able to jump 20 easily."

And all 3 of them can be firmly convinced that all of those assumptions are true in the game world. That's their imaginations at work. And then, their characters base their actions on those assumptions.

How does that relate to this discussion? Simple? The player sees movies like Zorro and says "I want to be a character like that. I want to wear no armor, use a light weapon, move quickly, and be a good fighter." So he looks for the rules that let him do all of those things. When the rules say "You can't do all those things. Choose some of them, but not all of them" he asks his DM to change the rules to allow it. The DM says no, leaving him with only one choice: change his character concept to fit the rules of the game.

No matter how hard you try to use your imagination, if you want to have a character who runs faster than other people and according to the rules of the game, you can't possibly run faster than them, you can't play the character you want.

 

[Particle_Man]

For instance, you have to get used to worlds in which "one in a million chances" happen 1 time in 20.

 

[S'mon]

der_kluge, there's a beautiful netbook of C&C classes here, you might find one that fits your concept better than the standard Fighter:
http://www.geocities.com/legendsoftheland/crusades.html

Site is currently offline for exceeding bandwidth though. Presumably that was me downloading the netbook...

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I can rationalize a Wisdom bonus for armor class. I can rationalize an Intelligence score bonus for pick pockets. Do you really want a game system where you have a number of feats equal to number of ability scores multiplied by all possible actions? Do even rules heavy games have that?

Perhaps the problem is that "strength" and "dexterity" mean one thing to you in your character concept, but another with regards to the rules. Your noblewoman character could be breaking out of talons because she was so small and fast that the monster never got a good grip on her to begin with. I recommend that you give her 16 Str and describe her as small and fast. All that ability scores have to mean is what you get bonuses towards.

So you're suggesting that regardless of your characters ability scores you can describe him/her how your want to as long as it mechanically works out. So I can play a 6 int fighter and still be smart and intellectual. Essentially your characters ability scores have no effect on how you RP or describe him/her. If thats the case then you might as well not have any rules.

 

[S'mon]

So you're suggesting that regardless of your characters ability scores you can describe him/her how your want to as long as it mechanically works out. So I can play a 6 int fighter and still be smart and intellectual. Essentially your characters ability scores have no effect on how you RP or describe him/her. If thats the case then you might as well not have any rules.

Rules are just mechanics, how you interpret them is up to you. INT 6 means you're bad at Int checks - smart but forgetful, or uneducated, or autistic, maybe.

 

[gizmo33]

I don't recall ever saying that. If I did, I would have put my 16 cha into str instead. TWF has a min dex requirement of 15. So, according to the rules for the feat, people with low dex can't do that. I equate high dex with fast. Hence, "fast" = two weapon fighting.

Well, that brings up a point that I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. At times in this thread you talk about weapon criticals, at times you bring up Zorro and swordsmanship. You talk about needing things to make "logical" sense and at the same time accept all kinds of DnDisms that make no sense but yet help offset the disadvantages of low strength (as if the kukri was somehow the "great equalizer" of medieval warfare). Killing someone before they can attack you is probably best done with a reach weapon. Does your logic go that far or am I missing some sort of point? Then again, how much "logic" really belongs in a fantasy game?

What about game balance? If you could offset the disadvantages of a low strength with a bunch of illogical DnDisms (like weapon crits and TWF) then why have fighters with high strength? Aren't they wasting that stat when they would be better off working on their ambi-dexterity and learning to be a more discriminating customer at the weapon shop (the visual of a warrior walking in to a weapon shop and saying "aw, just give me whatever" in spite of the fact that his life depends on it is strange IMO).

 

[scadgrad]

Time for the unenlightened DM/CK to wade in

Hey Gang,

I think, as is always the case, y'all are only getting one side of the story, no fault of D_K of course, I just don't haunt EnWorld as much as I once did. So let's clear the air on a few points.

First, let me say that we WILL find a way to make this character concept work. The setting is an old one that started in 2nd ed, and has gone through 3.0, and 3.5, now back to C&C_The Bride of 3.X (since we incorporate so much of 3.X in our game). D_K seems to fit in well w/ our group and has some cool ideas so we'll just beat the hell out of the system until we find something that works.

What D_K is describing is an archetypal character that shouldn't be that difficult to construct. In all earlier editions of Braxus we would have simply used the Noble class and have been done w/ it. I think we'll probably be best off going w/ a tweaked version of the Knight class though. I've also said that after reconsidering it and if he'd like to, sure make his particular FTR a Dex prime since it's not that big of a deal. And yeah, a d8 Rapier, sure why not, but it is a fairly specific blade that might be a bit difficult to replace (due to the relatively inferior steel of the present locality and a lack of knowledge about forging such a light, basket-hilted blade).

I still think the heart of the problem, and again it's a problem that we'll soon find a happy medium with, is that the character isn't really a fighter, but a noble w/ some excellent skills w/ a particular fighting style. Sounds like a tweaked Knight to me and I'm hoping D_K well help me make the tweaks since I'm basically a "get along w/ others" type of DM.

OK on to other stuff...

The setting is definitively medieval with a relative tech level (in most places) of say 9th-11th century Europe, so swashbucklers would be somewhat rare and often at a disadvantage. And yeah, the sword and the axe are what most fighters and warriors (NPC monsters and the like) would resort to. But not everybody. Those are relatively heavy weapons that take a fairly stout individual, who has trained a good bit w/ the weapon in order to wield it effectively on the battlefield. That's why not every class in C&C has access to it. Oh sure Bob the Archmage can swing a bastard sword at Joe the Orc, but he's not very darn good at it that's all.

And yeah, Conan would just mash most combatants, but he's also a DEX-fighter as well isn't he... just one who happens to have Conan stats in Str & Con to go along w/ the cat-like agility that REH so often describes.

Although the CK in the game is "an artsy type" <shudders>, he might surprise you with his MB score. I haven't taken one in years, but I'm somewhat different than most of your artsy friends. I have a business degree w/ a minor in math in addition to a terminal degree in Painting so I'm a bit of a weird bird. Aren't all academics though?

We use feats as well as many other 3.X elements, but most of them are changed consideably. I just now realized that D_K was putting numbers in certain places just to get access to feats. BLECCH. I've thrown out most of those sorts of prereqs since the feats are there to allow you to customize. If you wanna go 2-weap fighting style w/ a 6 in DEX than have at it. those 3.X stat prereqs are a bit high for C&C characters.

Zorro and the 3 Muskateers rock, but they're just "out-of-time" in the current setting. Robin Hood and the lads would just shoot their pretty little eyes out if the chainmail/longsword types didn't hack them to bits first. At the same time though, I love that idea so the Grey Mouser (who used that exact florentine fighting style) would have a home in Braxus. He'd just be the exception, as will the particular character in question.

Maybe the DM was overmatched by his 3.X players... nah, not really. I've ran more campaigns in both incarnations of 3.X than you'd imagine and I can munchkin w/ the best of 'em. I am pretty adamant about doing the DMing since I enjoy the prep work, reading the modules, and world building so much. I'm also a tournament WHFB player so I can find broken rules as easily as the next guy. I just prefer C&C for the reasons listed below.

@National Acrobat

Drop me an email at scadgrad@comcast.net about maybe getting together sometime for a session or two. I believe we're just down the street from each other IIRC.

And yeah, that's the main reason I made the switch. C&C is so easy to prep, it gives me plenty of time for other stuff (family, job, other hobbies, world-making, guiness, etc.). I'm not here to proselytize C&C (OK, well maybe just a bit), but once a DM sees how simple it is to run everything from 1st ed classics to current 3.5 Necromancer modules easily and on-the-fly, it's a no-brainer choice for those of us who've not as much time as we'd like. At that point, it's just a matter of seeing how much of 3.X your players want to add back in and then "enter into negotiations."

So to answer the original point of the thread, that's why I like rules-lite games. Generally speaking, they're easier on the DM who arguably has the hardest job. With the time saved, I can spend extra time world building, plotting, making maps, etc. I certainly hope that after a few more sessions, D_K will see that our setting (and there are several contributors) is a bit richer than it appeared in a relatively rushed, one-session 1st impression.

Great thread by the by and I now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments.

 

[Henry]

Scadgrad,

I've seen you and your opinions on these boards many times before - good to know D_K hooked up with a good GM.

I just now realized that D_K was putting numbers in certain places just to get access to feats. BLECCH.

That's something that crossed my mind, too. I was curious why you were allowing the feats, but keeping the pre-req's considering the reduced role that ability scores played in C&C.

On that note, it sounds like some of his other concerns also have to do with rules interpretations that he seems to think you'll be less flexible on, such as saving throws that fall in a gray area, a la the constricting snake and the like.

 

[der_kluge]

Just so there's no confusion, Scadgrad has been great in working with me (I can be high maintenance sometimes), so I'm totally confident that we can work out a solution that fits my character.

I think if I've learned anything from this thread it's that even C&C can have rules creep (the proliferation of house rules and new character classes should show that), so even though it's "rules light" apparently that's not even good enough for some people. I'll be the first to admit, however, that 3e definitely has way too much crap in it, though.

I think, however, the original crux of this thread remains - one thing that I am still interested in exploring, perhaps outside the scope of this thread, is "do you think rules-light systems take away some of the fun of character creation" and "how do you balance the simplicities of rules light characters with a player's desire for minute customization?"