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

[The Shaman]

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.

This is why I'm psyched to make the switch!

World-building? Good! Stat-blocking? Bad, very very bad.

 

[Henry]

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?"

I personally think that rules-light can take away from character creation, and I think the answer needs to be the following:

--A rules system that (1) has levels of complexity, completely compatible, that each player can engage in differently, and (2) that has a totally different rules system for the DM than the players, with only the core mechanics providing the common interface between player and DM.

An example of a good start is Mutants and Masterminds, in particular its point-buy for Base attack and Defense. You can buy BAB for 3 points for every +1 BAB,

OR

you can buy it based on melee, ranged, or mental attack bonus, on a 1-for-1 point basis. The player looking to just "make something and play" goes the 3-points per point route; the customizer who wants to make a marksman who can't punch worth a damn takes the customization route. It's a good description of what I'm aiming for.

 

[scadgrad]

Oh, for those who care about such... I just took a MB test and came out with, not surprisingly:

eSfj

Which sounds about like what I remember from when I took it long ago. Only problem is that means I'm the same personality type as Steve Spurrier. <god help me> He he he, I guess that's alright though. What strange bedfellows Jungian psych can make at times huh? George Washington and Steve Spurrier, go figure.

@Henry

Thanks, I do my best to make sure everyone's having a good time which is Rule Numero Uno afaic.

 

[EricNoah]

Haven't read the whole thread (naughty me) but I think the question might come down to this:

In your game of choice, do the rules essentially tell you what you CAN do, or they essentially tell you what you CAN'T do. (And related, do you let the rules "push you around" -- sorry, can't think of a better way to phrase it, but what I mean is do you let the rules tell you what you can't do "too much").

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Alternatively, you could get used to worlds in which "one in a million chances" *always* happen and, in fact, people will go to great lengths to ensure that the odds of their success is exactly one in a million, at which point they are guaranteed success.

c.f. Discworld.

 

[Henry]

I edited the last paragraph of my above statement, because even I couldn't make out what the heck I was saying. It just goes to show one shouldn't post in a hurry.

 

[scadgrad]

...
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?"

Every game can have rules creep, but D&D has always been among the worst, especially back in the worst days of 2nd ed. A lot of us are trusting that TLG will be as good as their word and limit C&C to its 2 books plus whatever options individuals choose to bring into their game.

I like where you're trying to steer the thread w/ that last passage, but I think you're assumption is more appropriate for those who want a "rule for everything" or nearly so. Or, at the very least, more of a cafeteria-like selection process rather than an archetypal one such as all versions of D&D. Personally, I like a system that's maleable and allows you to adjust archetypes to accomodate the player's original vision. If a rules lite game can do that then I'm all for it.

@Henry
Agree about M&M. Wonderful rules set there.

 

[John Morrow]

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?"

The player needs to learn that the things that make their character unique don't need to be represented by rules and every choice doesn't need to have a "plus" or "minus" associated with it. If the player can't deal with that, then the player will never be happy with a rules-light system.

Years ago, I had a character on a combat-oriented text MUD. I used to have the character travel to a particular planet in the game to outfit with a particular set of equipment. At one point, I explained that to a player who pointed out that I could get the same equipment more easily that was mechanically identical in the game but it had a different name. I knew that. I wasn't using the specific equipment because it was better but for stylistic reasons. The other player just couldn't understand it because they couldn't get over the fact that they were mechanically identical and I was placing value on what they were called.

 

[der_kluge]

Haven't read the whole thread (naughty me) but I think the question might come down to this:

In your game of choice, do the rules essentially tell you what you CAN do, or they essentially tell you what you CAN'T do. (And related, do you let the rules "push you around" -- sorry, can't think of a better way to phrase it, but what I mean is do you let the rules tell you what you can't do "too much").

I'm not sure I know how to answer that. I think most people tend to create characters one of two ways (maybe this would make a good side thread) - A) develop a concept and fit it into the scope of the rules (which is what I'm doing). I once saw someone complaining on the HARP forums that he couldn't recreate his "defending" Paladin archetype very well using those rules, and got really frustrated with that system. So, obviously this option doesn't always work. A good rules system should be able to cover most everything, though, IMHO. Or, B) build a character based on what is presented. "what can I make?" is often asked, and then players will go from there. That's how you get ranger/monk/barbarian/dragon disciple half dragons in games. People don't *develop* that concept on their own. They see it in print, and then build it because they know they can.

And I don't think either option is more right than the other. But I think people tend to take sides with regards to their favorite mode of character creation.

Likewise, any rules system will have some limitations to it, so every character has to be made to fit into the ruleset. The same character concept might end up looking different when created in HARP, D&D, GURPS, or C&C.

 

[der_kluge]

Every game can have rules creep, but D&D has always been among the worst, especially back in the worst days of 2nd ed. A lot of us are trusting that TLG will be as good as their word and limit C&C to its 2 books plus whatever options individuals choose to bring into their game.

There's a balance there. I imagine a lot of people felt a little betrayed by TSR when they kept coming out with more and more D&D books, even though many people would argue that the 3 little OD&D white books were sufficient. No business model that starts with the phrase "Make a successful product, and then stop" makes any sense.

Even still, I find that so long as they don't violate the core engine of the game, it should be good. I think players will embrace new character classes, new spells, new equipment, whatever. Those things can add to the game without significantly slowing the pace down.