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

[Akrasia]

... And I know for a fact that wizards are your preferred character class as a player. ....

Yeah, but that has more to do with the archetypes in question (the cunning or absent-minded scholar-type) than 'tactical options' or relative power levels.

As for the right level of 'tactical detail' appropriate for a FRP, I would say that, based on our session tonight, WFRP has a pretty nice level.

 

[Glyfair]

I quite agree with this.

IMO a rules heavy, tactical game limits what PCs can do by telling them what they cannot do (e.g. "You cannot do x without provoking an AoO"; or "You cannot do y without feat z"; etc.).

In contrast, a game with a less tactical/detailed approach to combat gives players a general structure, and lets them describe their action any way they want, or try novel things (without having to get the 'permission' of a specific feat, skill, etc.).

As you said, it is a difference in taste and mindset, but any combat system that essentially requires the use of a grid and miniatures (e.g. the 3e combat system) is one that I find inhibits my style as a GM, and limits the kinds of options I would like to make available in a given session.

I think a player who prefered not to be limited would likely gravitate towards Heroquest/Hero Wars. Nothing is limited, except by modifications by the Narrator. You can compare any two skills, with different levels of complexity (from a simple test, to a long test). If you want to fight the giant using your sewing skill, you can. You just better have a massively high sewing skill as you sew him up (very mythical).

 

[Snowy]

SNIP

I am not knocking AoOs, etc., for people who want to play this kind of tactical mini-wargame. But I prefer to run games with a more dramatic and narrative character.

I would think that narrative and the dramatic description can be almost completely separated from the rules that provide the foundation of the game.

More so that with a nice complete and codified set of rules all the people round the table can sort out dice rolls and checks before their turn, so the description can flow reasonably quickly from one person to another, rather than waiting for the DM to decide what modifiers or skill or roll he wants from each character.

I understand people saying that they like more detailed fluff and the limited choices helps that as they can spend more time on the rest. But I like to have both still have larger differences between the characters from feats/skills/rules and then have the detailed description of the characters likes/eyes/parents/fightign style/smile.

Its setting up a bit of a flawed premise to say that simpler rules = better roleplay and description.

 

[Jupp]

More so that with a nice complete and codified set of rules all the people round the table can sort out dice rolls and checks before their turn, so the description can flow reasonably quickly from one person to another, rather than waiting for the DM to decide what modifiers or skill or roll he wants from each character.

I have seen this behaviour only once so far on a player. Most of the time its waiting for the players until they have their numbers prepped for the next round/battle. The same goes for the DM when magic comes into play or other circumstances that demand altering numbers and stats for several game objects at the same time. I wont say that lots of rules distract from the roleplaying part but it certainly demands much more organisational talent from the players and the DM to prevent situations where the rules could start disturbing the flow of the game.

On the other hand a DM that is not good at the narrative/improvisational part is surely going to have a difficult time with rules-lite systems because more responsibility is being placed on his shoulders than on the players'. And no, I don't call it DM-fiat. Thats a horrible word describing something entirely different that can happen whether you have rules lite systems or rules-heavy games.

 

[JohnSnow]

I would think that narrative and the dramatic description can be almost completely separated from the rules that provide the foundation of the game.

I agree with you, but I think the level of rules that can be mentally distracting varies from person to person. I actually think that's really where the personal taste issue about "degrees of rules-lightness" comes from.

I am aware that a lot of folks (like Akrasia, my DM/CK) believe that the D&D 3x combat rules are so tactical that they are always "in their face." In effect, the rules are so much in the forefront to them that they lose the narrative and immersive aspects that I think brings most gamers to RPGs. But I don't really think it's that those of us who prefer more tactical games want to sacrifice that immersion, it's that we can take a greater level of tactical detail before the rules "bog down" and pull us out of the narrative and immersive game that we're playing.

IMO, where this line gets drawn is HIGHLY personal and strictly dependent on taste - how much calculation and tactics you can do "in the back of your brain" so to speak. For example, I'm sure there are people for whom the Hero System (the metric behind Champions) is not so much like a "mini-wargame" that it breaks that immersive experience. For me, D&D 3x is not like that, but Hero is. So I can freely admit there are people who might find D&D 3x too much like a "mini-wargame."

Running counter to this is "narrative" vs. "delineated" storytelling. Thank goodness, how much of the narrative you're willing to just "make up" on the fly depends on how much detail you feel the rules should cover. The more you're willing to "ad hoc" on the fly, the fewer detailed rules you need. Personally, I always hated the basic/advanced D&D "handwaving" of so many things. So for me, D&D 3x hits the sweet spot from a playability standpoint, although there are 1 or 2 things I wish it could do and some flavor modifications I've considered (big issues: the magic system and magic item dependency).

However, I'm sure others have a different "balance point" between "playability" (in other words, keeping it as a narrative game) and "complexity" than I do.

As for the right level of 'tactical detail' appropriate for a FRP, I would say that, based on our session tonight, WFRP has a pretty nice level.

Honestly, I think WFRP probably lies somewhere between 3e and C&C on this scale, so it's no wonder it struck the balance between what I like and what you like...

 

[Akrasia]

... But I don't really think it's that those of us who prefer more tactical games want to sacrifice that immersion, it's that we can take a greater level of tactical detail before the rules "bog down" and pull us out of the narrative and immersive game that we're playing.

IMO, where this line gets drawn is HIGHLY personal and strictly dependent on taste - how much calculation and tactics you can do "in the back of your brain" so to speak. ...

I will be curious to know if you revise your views about this after some DMing. It is much easier for players to keep track of all the 'relevant rules' during a session since they only have to run one character.

Keeping track of multiple monsters, NPCs, circumstantial modifiers, settings, plot-lines, etc. is a real task. I don't deny that it is relatively easy for a 3e player to deal with 'all the rules' necessary for his/her PC, and still have an 'immersive' experience. Behind the screen, though, things are quite different.

 

[Akrasia]

.... Personally, I always hated the basic/advanced D&D "handwaving" of so many things. So for me, D&D 3x hits the sweet spot from a playability standpoint...

Heh ... you have no idea how much I "handwaved" during the last couple of months of our last 3e campaign (way more than I ever did in AD&D), simply because I couldn't be bothered to look up the relevant rules before/during our sessions.


(I have to confess that doing so did bother me a bit -- which is why I prefer rules light systems where, ironically, I don't find this as necessary!)

 

[JohnSnow]

I think we have a different definition of "handwaving."

I think you consider it handwaving to ballpark a bonus or difficulty number, whereas that's an "estimate" to my way of thinking.

On the other hand, having to make up rules for two-weapon-fighting, feinting in combat, withdrawing and various other things (including "opportunity attacks") is something that bothers me. I think the system should handle that.

You obviously don't consider making up or ignoring the details of various situations to be "handwaving." My reaction is: "shouldn't there be some check (and a commensurate reward) for a character attempting some "cinematic" maneuver? If I have to make up what that is, I just handwaved it.

Making up new rule/Pulling out of thin air = handwaving
ballparking a modifier based on vague concept of rules = Estimating

And if you're using a rules-heavy system (ie D&D 3.5) to guide estimates in a rules light system (i.e. C&C), then I'm not sure exactly what you're doing.

 

[Akrasia]

I think we have a different definition of "handwaving."

I think you consider it handwaving to ballpark a bonus or difficulty number, whereas that's an "estimate" to my way of thinking.

Then C&C (and many other rules light systems, e.g. Buffy/Angel) should best be understood as a system that presents the players with a set of clear guidelines, on the basis of which the difficulty of different actions can be estimated -- including things like 'feinting', etc.

On the other hand, having to make up rules for two-weapon-fighting, feinting in combat, withdrawing and various other things (including "opportunity attacks") is something that bothers me. I think the system should handle that.

Ummm ... C&C does have rules for two-weapon fighting. And withdrawing from combat. They're right in the PHB! :\

Gods -- any system that lacks AoOs is one that I am immediately sympathetic towards. I can't think of a more annoying feature of 3e combat.

More generally, John, as far as I can tell, all the things you mention are either already available in, or potentially available in, C&C. The rules give a general framework, which the CK then uses to 'estimate' particular difficulty modifiers, etc.

You obviously don't consider making up or ignoring the details of various situations to be "handwaving." My reaction is: "shouldn't there be some check (and a commensurate reward) for a character attempting some "cinematic" maneuver? If I have to make up what that is, I just handwaved it.

Yes, there is some 'check' for trying a 'cinematic' maneuver in C&C -- a difficulty modifier! The C&C rules give the CK a clear structure for estimating the appropriate modifiers for different actions.

Making up new rule/Pulling out of thin air = handwaving
ballparking a modifier based on vague concept of rules = Estimating

And if you're using a rules-heavy system (ie D&D 3.5) to guide estimates in a rules light system (i.e. C&C), then I'm not sure exactly what you're doing.

Well, I never used 3e to estimate things in 3e -- I just came up with the DCs that seemed appropriate. I find it even easier to do this kind of estimating in C&C.


And I have yet to pull anything out of 'thin air' in C&C. I use the rules to resolve all actions.

 

[Akrasia]

...
You obviously don't consider making up or ignoring the details of various situations to be "handwaving." ...

Since the DM makes up the various situations in his/her adventures, I sure don't consider that 'handwaving' -- or if it is, then the DM's job just is to 'handwave'! :\