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

[der_kluge]

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.

I think there is a certain breed of gamer that is like that - those that favor fluff over crunch. I think I shall call them "fluffers".

No wait, that's already taken.

I kid, I kid!!

 

[Frostmarrow]

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 find that an interesting dilemma and I'd hate to come to the conclusion that it would be impossible. Luckily, I don't. I think it's important as a player to have options, I like to build my fighter according to my tastes and I don't want to be penalized for being creative. As a DM I want a simple system that I just need to bounce once before aiming for the hoop.

Several people have suggested to just go with the flow; put the 16 in Str and be done with it and then role-play the rest. But how is that different from changing the way a stat works? If I am prepared to lose the damage bonus why can't I use Cha bonus on to hit rolls? Chalk it up as finesse and body language. It's not that it would unbalance anything - and even if it did it's still mendable.

As a DM a fix like this surely wouldn't add to my work load. I rely on the players to keep track of their own characters. It's not until I decide to use the fix for an NPC that it becomes my problem - and at that point it's worth it!

 

[Odhanan]

Rules-lite systems suck under two conditions:

- you don't like rules-lite systems for various reasons
and/or
- your GM sucks at using rules-lite systems

If you do not trust your GM's calls or you want to see rules implemented the way you see fit while wanting a wide amount of details represented within the rules set, clearly a rules-lite system isn't made for you. That doesn't mean rules-lite systems suck, however. Just that they're made for other types of gamers.

 

[John Morrow]

I think there is a certain breed of gamer that is like that - those that favor fluff over crunch. I think I shall call them "fluffers".

Whether your character is strong or fast is just fluff if, ultimately, you just want both types of characters to be equal in combat. Fluff is a choice or detail that doesn't matter and you insist that a dextrous fighter be as combat effective as a strong fighter, then the choice between a dextrous or strong fighter is just fluff because it's a detail that doesn't really matter.

 

[Silverleaf]

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.

That's kind of funny how all this works out, because I'm very analytical (a requirement of my work, I do everything from network security to Linux/*BSD Unix systems programming--even kernel level stuff), but when it comes time to play I choose one of the lightest incarnations of D&D: the 1981 Basic/Expert rules by Moldvay & Cook. Now granted, I don't play it by-the-book, and have added stuff from OD&D, BECM, 1e, 2e, 3e, other games and my own stuff, along with house rules gleaned from others over the years. But the core of it remains very lightweight as far as resolving actions goes, and logic plays very little part in it. For instance, I make liberal use of ability checks to resolve situations that don't fall under a class ability or existing mechanic (eg, perception works fine as a 'surprise' roll).
I don't even use any kind of skill system, though I've been very tempted to grab 1e's Secondary Skill table (which describes a 1st-level PC's knowledge from his pre-aventuring days) and allow it to modify any applicable ability checks with a slight bonus. But that's about as far as I'd wish to go in that direction...
In fact, it's kind of funny because the more logical or mechanical a system attemps to be, the more visible its flaws are to me. So I don't value that stuff at all, and prefer not to think about it and concentrate instead on the adventure, on the imagination/fantasy side of the game.

 

[Silverleaf]

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).

Hey that's exactly one of my Basic/Expert D&D house rules!
I have 3 damage categories, by class: 1d8 for Fighter/Dwarf/Elf, 1d6 for Cleric/Thief, and 1d4 for Magic-user. This also conveniently discards the "weapon restrictions" that some classes have.
Incidentally, the default damage rules in Basic D&D (and OD&D for that matter) is 1d6 for everyone. The damage-by-weapon was a completely optional rule.
Another house rules is: critical hit on natural 20, with automatic max damage (ie, 8, 6, or 4 points depending on your class). That doesn't sound like a lot, but it's worth noting that old-school D&D characters have considerably less hit points than AD&D or 3e.

 

[National Acrobat]

Eh?

See, I must be in the group with the anomaly. My players want to create their characters in five minutes. They hate mechanics, and they like a fast paced game where melee takes a short period of time. I guess we are a 'fluff' bunch. Everyone differentiates their characters based on background, personality, etc. They like the Rules-Lite of C&C because things move quick, and it's not about numbers.

 

[der_kluge]

See, I must be in the group with the anomaly. My players want to create their characters in five minutes. They hate mechanics, and they like a fast paced game where melee takes a short period of time. I guess we are a 'fluff' bunch. Everyone differentiates their characters based on background, personality, etc. They like the Rules-Lite of C&C because things move quick, and it's not about numbers.

I've spent a couple of days at work creating my character. I have a 4 page character sheet. 3 pages for history/background and 1 page for equipment (including descriptions and location for each item). Almost none of it is "mechanics". So, there aren't many "numbers" associated with this character, but I could never have created her in 5 minutes.

These characters that your players created in 5 minutes, are they complex? Do they have a history? If you do a "fashion show" where everyone describes what they look like, what do you get - bland descriptions describing armor and weapons, or intricate decriptions describing tattoos, hair color, eye color, the clothes, or other unique features?

 

[RFisher]

When I first got my basic set 20+ years ago, I had so much fun. Then I started having less & less fun because I thought the game was broken. I somehow developed expectation about it should be. I played lots of different RPGs, & they were all--I thought--broken. I was never happy.

Then I realized that if I could recapture the original attitude I had when I bought my basic set of taking each game for what it was & not expecting it to be more than it was, I enjoyed game nights much more.

I happen to prefer "rules light" games because I've spent so much of my life analysing rules, & I don't feel I got much out of it. With a "rules light" system, I concentrate on analysing the puzzels, mysteries, motivations of other PCs & NPCs, higher level strategy & tactics in combat, &c. (The more I've learned about real-life combat, the more I've learned I want the details abstracted so I can concentrate on universal principals of tactics.) Things that I find much more enjoyable. Unfortunately, give me a "rules heavy" system & I'll tend fall back into my old habits.

Also, I find that--when playing "rules heavy" systems--only 1/3 to 1/2 the people at the table really seem to bother knowing the rules in any detail. The rest don't seem to enjoy the game as much as when playing "rules light" systems.

Anyway, that's my experience. I guess my advice would be to look at the game before you & create a character by its rules. Try to enjoy the game on its own terms. Find ways to make the character unique that aren't based on rules. Save your current ideas for the next time someone runs a D&D3e game.

 

[JohnSnow]

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 funny thing is that we had exactly this discussion in our group. For the record, I'm one of Akrasia's players, and very sorry that he's moving to Ireland at the end of the month. I understand the desire for "rules-light" systems where the system doesn't "get in the way." However, there are certain aspects of the rules that are wrapped up in each other. You can't just create a character, call the strength attribute "speed" and have it work the same way. A character with a dex-prime doesn't get to add his "prime" bonus to AC any more than a str-prime character gets to add his "prime" bonus to his attacks. So primes basically come into play in skill checks and saving throws. So you can't make a "fast fighter" with high strength, light armor, and low dex, cuz his AC will suck.

The balance that gets struck in an RPG (or any game) is ALWAYS one of "customization" versus "simplicity." Personally, I think 3e has it about right except that maybe it has too many bonus types and a few too many weird "combo" rules. Some people prefer checkers to chess, in a sense, that's what you're talking about here. D&D 3e is more like chess in that it has more tactical options. C&C, in my opinion, drifts toward checkers. The advantage is that it's easier to learn and faster to play. The disadvantage is that the tactical options are much fewer. And basically, that's the crux of the matter. C&C cuts down on player options.

Please note that I'm not dissing C&C, as I play both chess and checkers, and enjoy them both. But I certainly perceive the difference. And my preference is chess.

Sometime I want to take a poll and check a theory I have. I think most of those who prefer C&C are "wizard players" by preference, and that most of those who don't are not. Spellcasters are the undisputed kings of any game if you take out feats and such. And they retain tactical options (spell lists) that the other classes do not. This makes them more interesting (in other words "fun") to play to everyone but those for whom Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser or similar characters are the archetypes that attracted them to RPGs.

For the record, I've never been particularly fond of wizard PCs and my score on that silly test is ENTP (although I'm only slightly E).