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

[The Shaman]

Making rulings Looking up rules in a book is boring, difficult, and it may lead to arguments.

Fixed that for you!

 

[sword-dancer]

Well said. Often, "heavier" rule-sets aren't more realistic; they're simply more intrusive.

You know TDE/DSA 4th Edition?

 

[Numion]

I'm perfectly happy to apply every bit of tactics & rules-mongery I can when I play 3e games. (Which I do, since it's what other people in the group choose to run.) I'm just saying that I only really start to miss the extra detail of the 3e or GURPS advanced combat systems in solo games. (Even when I'm on the DM side of the screen.) OAD&D & classic D&D combat, IMHO, really need a group to shine.

I find it surprising that the two of us can have such different views on the matter, both having played 3e. The codified rules in 3e are the reason, IME, that players started to think ahead of time and act together in combats. There are even rules in 3e that seem pretty much custom tailored to increase party cooperation, like flanking.

Before 3e it was just everyone doing their own thing, and getting their own shine on. Now the front line meleers (those who are competent, anyways) move positions to let the archer get a clear shot, or the group adjusts their initiative sequence to allow for a clear barrage for the casters before charging into melee, or the fighter risks an AoO from moving just to give the rogue a good spot to sneak attack from. These are all thing that happen constantly in my games.

Now I'll admit that I was a lot younger when I played 1e, but that game was devoid of group tactics. It was just whack, whack, hack.

So yeah, it's surprising that your experience is just the opposite as far as editions go. I'm not doubting your experiences, just a little surprised how different gaming groups can be

 

[Numion]

Fixed that for you!

Well, when the choices are:

a) Make up a rule on the spot

or

b) Make up a rule on the spot, or look it up in the book

Which one is superior?

Because 3e certainly allows for b, while rules light systems support a.

 

[Jupp]

The following game, you want to fire an arrow at someone behind the lines. But your rules-light system simply states that you can't shoot "through" characters, and doesn't mention anything such as trying to make the arrow fly in an arc over the first line. Or maybe doesn't cover the subject at all. So your DM rules that you can do it at -4... and, again, the game becomes a bit more sensible and a bit more rules-heavy.

Then you want to try to run through the first line by bull-rushing the opponents... and then you want to feint, or to do anything which is more complex/cool/cinematic than "I hit him". Again, the DM makes a ruling. It goes on, and on.

So, I wonder, what's the point? Making rulings is boring, difficult, and it may lead to arguments. A rules-heavy system, if it is well-designed and organized, is simply a rules-light system that has all the homework already done for you.

I think there is a difference between making up rules (house-ruling) and giving obstacles that you want to overcome in-game a difficlutly level (i.e. -4 to shoot someone in the second row). House rules are additional rules being permanently added by the DM because there is no equivalent in the existing game rules.
Then there is the situation based difficulty level...For example in C&C (being the only rules-lite system I can refer to at the moment, aside from OD&D): Giving a game situation a difficulty level is not house-ruling but an integral part of the SIEGE system due to the way attributes are used to resolve things happening in the game.

 

[mmadsen]

Wargames have been around, in some form or another, for quite some time, and RPG, which derive from wargames, face many of the same design issues. Most modern wargames derive from the Kriegspiel (literally wargame) of 19th-century Prussia:

The nineteenth-century Prussian game started life with a rigid structure and copious formal rules. The two sides were each placed in a separate room with a model of the terrain or a map. The umpires moved from one room to another collecting orders from the players, and then retired to a third room to consult the rules and find the results of combat. A great deal of their time was consumed in leafing through voluminous sets of rules, consulting tables and giving rulings on fine legal points. By about 1870, however, this rigid system was starting to be thought rather clumsy and time-consuming. Quite apart from the many defects and loopholes in the rules themselves, it reduced the umpires, who were often very senior officers, to the role of mere clerks and office boys. clearly, such a state of affairs was intolerable.​

Most "modern" games of the 1980s (e.g., Squad Leader, Third Reich) followed the "voluminous sets of rules" model, but the Prussians moved away from it 100 years earlier:

It was General von verdy du Vernois who finally broke with this system, and abolished the rule book altogether. His approach to the wargame was the free kriegspiel, in which the umpire had a totally free hand to decide the result of moves and combats. He did not do this according to any set of written rules, but just on his own military knowledge and experience. He would collect the players' moves in exactly the same way as before; but he would then simply give a considered professional opinion on the outcome. This speeded up the game a very great deal, and ensured that there was always a well thought-out reason for everything that happened. This was a great help in the debrief after the game, and it allowed players to learn by their mistakes very quickly.​

A modern "free kriegspiel" often combines umpiring with a randomizer (e.g., a ten-sided die, or "nugget"):

The system for finding the results of combat in a free kriegspiel is classically simple. First of all the umpire looks at the position of each side: how many and what type of troops are involved; how their morale is bearing up; and what orders they have been given. He next considers the ground on which the action will be fought, and any special tactical problems which either side might encounter; whether there are any obstacles in the way of an attacker; whether a flank attack might be possible, and so on.

When the umpire has all relevant information at his disposal, he ought to be able to give an informed opinion on the probabilities of the result. He will not simply say something like 'The French infantry hassuccessfully stormed the hill', but will quote possibilities, such as: 'The French have a 50% chance of storming the hill successfully; a 30% chance of capturing half of it, while disputing the rest; and a 20% chance of being totally repulsed. High scores favour the French'. It is important that the umpire is as specific as possible with these figures, as this forces him to consider all the factors involved in the combat and to think through the full implications of his decision. He must also be clear whether a high dice roll will be good or bad for the attacker, i.e., whether the top 50% (a die roll of 5-9) or the bottom 50% (a roll of 0-4) will mean the hill has been carried. In this case he has stated that the high score will be good for the attacker.​

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

It's a game.

Actually, iirc its a role playing game. To some there is a difference.

Games have rules.

yes but, particularly in role playing games, the rules are but one piece of the overall puzzle, not the sole determining factor.

If you played a space shoot-em-up game, and you docked your ship at a space station, and were presented with an array of types of lasers to equip your ship with, and the only differentiating factor was the amount of damage it dealt, and whether it took up two slots or one in your ship, you'd want to maximize your ship for optimal effectiveness.

in a space shoot 'em up, you mean like an arcade game, sure. in a roleplaying game, there may be many different reasons for me not purchaising one type over another. Perhaps the second tier laser is produced by a company from my character's homeworld and my guy wants to spend his money there by preference. perhaps the corp producing the most optimal lasers also supports political factions my character does not prefer. perhaps the superior lasers are being sold at overly competitive prices to do what you suggest, eliminate the competition, and my guy doesn't want to see all the other producers go under leaving only one supplier.

Even as far as "balance" goes, there are plenty of ways "balance" can be handled beyond the mere statistics. Perhaps the optimal lasers are "more expensive", are harder to find, are sold at fewer establishments, have more upkeep or even have fewer people trained in their upkeep and repair. The lesser potency lasers may be widely available or may have been so ubiquitous that nearly anywhere you can find a tech to work on them when needed and spare parts are easy to come by.

Most of these would need to be MECHANICALLY expressed but would be a matter of setting.

There is a huge difference between a game and a role playing game. Monopoly, chess and go don't have characters, story, background and the like as a part of their makeup... DnD and C&C do.

Why choose a laser that did 1d6 damage when a laser that costs about the same does 1d8 damage? In such a world, people would simply stop selling any other kind of laser, and the 1d8 one would simply dominate the market.

If the *only* market force were the game mechanics, true, but an RPG world is more than its mechanics alone. GO is a game driven by mechanics alone. Chess is a game driven by mechanics alone. RPGs are not, well, not for most people i know.

If your decisions for PCs and NPCs alike are only motivated by mechanics to the extent you describe here, your games are a lot different than those I am used to.

In C&C, only longswords would exist, and everything simply wouldn't get created. There's no statistical reason to equip one.

For some, there is more to an RPG setting and to RPg character than statistics.

And yes, there should be balance. If, in a world with plate mail wearing fighters, no one could stop them in combat, because they were just so powerful, then guess what - everyone would become a plate-mail wielding fighter. At least those who wanted to do battle with them would.

Again, there may be many reasons why this isn't true. Its certainly a lot cheaper to outfit fighters without plate than with. So, if the plate guy can beat a leather guiy 1-on-1 BUT not say 3-on-1, if a king can outfit 3 times as many leather guys for the same cost... see, suddenly its not as simply as the statistics of damage and AC one-on-one. Suddenly it makes sense IN THE SETTIONG for more than plate to exist, and all it took was looking one stepp further than the base statistics of damage and AC.

But our world has more variety than that. There are those who can survive by simply being faster than plate mail wearing fighters.

Survive, sure. I can buy that without question. However, survive and defeat in one-on-one encounter is another thing entirely. I am not historian, but i have stayed in holiday inn expresses and saw shows on the history channel, and it doesn;t fit with my recollection that the answer to plate wearing knights was one-on-one duels with knife fighters or the like, but usually it was outnumbering them many to one or otherwise trapping them.

I am not sure the reality of "our world" that you refer to supports your position all that well.

Now, here is how i feel... having little experience with C&C mind you...

For rules light I agree with as little differentiation between weapons as possible.

here is why.

In fantasy fiction and movies, it is most common for a character's choice of weapon to be merely an affectation of the character personality and role. A dwarf uses an axe and an elf uses a sword and bow and a human fighter uses a rapier or whatever because thats what looks cool and sets them apart as characters.

The choice of weapons is **NOT** driven by a statistical assessment of the weapon.

Whenever an RPG provides a differentiation of statistical mechanics for weapons, inevitably some players decide the statistical analysis should determine their character's choices, and often they feel those same statistical figurings should determine everyone else's too.

IMO, the closer model to fantasy lit/film sources would be to have damage by weapons size such as light = 1d6, medium = 1d8, large = 1d10 and not much more. Alow the chaacter to define his weapons as an axe, a spear, or a sword or mace as fits his image of the character. Let the very personal decision of "my characters weapon" be character driven and not statistically driven.

Alternatively, I do like the notion mentioned before of the class based damage, or class-level based damage which again leaves the choice of weapon flavor to style.

As for your own personal issues, it might not have been said, but it clearly looks like the particular rules set or the basic rules plus gm's house rules don't share your design goals of making "fighters who have high dex and low strength equate statistically to those with the reverse." That isn't a failing in the game, but simply a design goal they did not embrace, and did not try to include.

 

[rogueattorney]

I've always preferred a more rules lite game. I wrote a bit of an essay about on Dragonsfoot that I'd link to, but the site appears to be down right now.

R.A.

 

[JohnSnow]

Like I said, this is a matter of opinion.

This isn't tactics versus immersion, it's what degree of rules you feel are "necessary" for resolution of events versus at what level they become "intrusive."

Maybe it's a "right brain" - "left brain" thing. Those who lean towards "creative" or "philosophical" would probably prefer fewer rules and making up rules for every situation. On the other hand, those who lean more towards the "analytical" or "technical" probably prefer a more codified set of rules.

Personally, I would rather have rules I don't use (or invoke only rarely) than need rules I don't have. Now, more specifically.

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.

So you're saying is that most of the C&C "rules" are "really more like guidelines than actual rules..." Gotcha.

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.

Yup, I saw the two-weapon fighting rules. C&C (at least so far) doesn't allow for a character who trains in two-weapon fighting. Now, I suppose you could argue that a character just naturally gets "better" at it (as reflected in their increasing BAB).

Okay. I get it. You hate attacks of opportunity.

The funny thing is that I've seen you "houserule" what looks awfully like an AoO into at least a few of our combats while we were playing C&C. Now, of course, you don't call it an AoO because as you said, you hate AoOs, but for all intents and purposes, that's what it is.

Personally, I just don't find AoOs nearly as annoying as you. I also like MOST of the feat system, although I can see where there's room for improvement in it. Warhammer, interestingly enough, HAS both a highly customized skill system and a feat system, it just calls them "talents" instead of "feats."

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.

So we've come all the way back around to where we started. In C&C, the CK controls EVERYTHING, including not only what the players can accomplish, but even what they're allowed to try. Now I realize that in some sense, the referee always controls the game (sets difficulty modifiers, etc.), but with clearly delineated rules on what some things take to accomplish, D&D seems to put more control into the hands of the players.

Potentially available isn't the same as available. Telling me that I can add a rule to a game is definitely not the same as it being present. From the CK's perspective, there's no difference. From the player's perspective, the difference is enormous. One CK says "ok" but another says "no dice." Where's my character concept if the CK doesn't want to "complicate" his game with "extra rules" for it?

As an example, Gareth is a two-weapon fighting feint monkey. He was conceived (in my mind) as a sort of swashbuckling Grey Mouser type. Without the ability to feint and fight effectively with two weapons, he just doesn't have the same "feel." Should a character be more than his stats and combat style? Sure, I suppose. But are you telling me that I should be able to "imagine" a difference between combat styles that are mechanically identical?

For instance, I could (as someone suggested) buy a great sword, call it a "longsword and dagger," call strength "dex" and describe a high-str, greatsword wielding ranger as a "dextrous rogue wielding a longsword and dagger." Every hit is a 2d6 with roughly the same minimum (2), mean (7) and maximum (12) damage. I could even put primes in both Str and Dex, even if I focused on the str. Mechanically, it's fine. But thematically, I have a real problem with it. That's not a "lack of imagination" it's just wanting clear association between a character concept and its "rules interpretation." I understand that some sort of "custom class" could be whipped up, but I don't think a system should need a non-standard custom class to cover as basic a character concept as a swashbuckling fighter-rogue.

I understand where you're coming from on this, but I think you're deliberately ignoring my point (or more accurately, concluding that if I were DMing, I'd see things your way). I certainly understand your preference for C&C (and so I suppose it's problematic to be discussing this on a thread that says "rules-light systems suck"). It's just that my preference leans toward a more "customizable" character system. Obviously, as a DM, I'd prefer a game that was easier to prepare (after all, who wouldn't?).

Personally, I've never found the 3.5 combat system to be that onerous. Now I grant, in practice, I might "guesstimate" the DC rather than doing all the math for every situation, but that's expected! Statting up NPCs is another matter, but that's more of an issue I have with the "pseudo-point-buy" system of "character wealth by level" combined with the minor issues I have with the skill system.

Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You'll never convince me that C&C is "the system" and I'll never talk you out of your dislike of 3e. However, I'm perfectly happy to play C&C as long as someone else is the CK (and they're open to working to make all concepts "work" in the system). It just means I'll have to be even pickier about who I'll play with as a CK (you obviously, I have no problem with). You made an excellent point when this came up months ago that I agree with - the choice of system is up to the GM, because he does the most work. That's a good system to stick with.

 

[Zappo]

I think there is a difference between making up rules (house-ruling) and giving obstacles that you want to overcome in-game a difficlutly level (i.e. -4 to shoot someone in the second row). House rules are additional rules being permanently added by the DM because there is no equivalent in the existing game rules.
Then there is the situation based difficulty level...For example in C&C (being the only rules-lite system I can refer to at the moment, aside from OD&D): Giving a game situation a difficulty level is not house-ruling but an integral part of the SIEGE system due to the way attributes are used to resolve things happening in the game.

Ok, but what about the next time that I want to shoot someone in the second row? Will it still be -4? If it is, then it's a house rule. If it isn't, the DM is being unfair (not to mention the shattering of my suspension of disbelief as the laws of physics seem to change from a week to the next).