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

[JohnSnow]

This is exactly what I meant in my first post. You've got a rules-light system which allows anyone to simply walk to the second line of enemies and whack them. So, the DM ruled that you couldn't. Now, you have a game which is a bit more rules-heavy, and a bit more... I hate the word "realistic" (fireballs and dragons yadda yadda), so let's say "sensible".

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.

Personally, I think this sums up my view of rules-light vs. rules heavy systems nicely. Well said Zappo. I'd rather have the rules there for reference than constantly have to come up with an ad hoc ruling/modifier for every situation under the sun.

Obviously, as I've said earlier, I think it goes too far when someone attempts to inject "reality simulation" rules into a gaming system. For example, putting wind-speed difficulty modifier tables in the DMG would be going too far, IMO. That doesn't need anything beyond a circumstance modifer of "slightly more difficult, say -2 to -6 depending on HOW windy it is."

Obviously, there is such a thing as rules 'overkill.' But I don't think I should have to invent rules for common events.

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

Fixed that for you!

Wow...Your group actually argues about what a book says?

My dad always said "never argue over facts." The one thing looking up rules in a book does is solve arguments about what the rules actually say. Rules-light systems need to invoke and rely on "Rule 0" (the DM is always right) wayyyy more often than D&D does.

 

[Jupp]

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).

I personally do not have problems with my DM changing the modifiers because he sees a different situation compared to the last time i tried shooting into the second row (different battle situation, different places where people are at the moment, etc) nor would I have a problem with it as the DM in my game group. In the end I wanna have fun and changing a modifier from -4 to -5 (or whatever) is not going to ruin that fun. Its still better than to read in the rules all the time just to be sure you got it right and according to the system. This would be much more of a fun-killer for me. I personally prefer a fast flow of events instead of a fire-proof rules system that is being referenced all the time to resolve situations. But thats just me and other people might prefer more rules instead *shrugs*.

Rules-light systems need to invoke and rely on "Rule 0" (the DM is always right) wayyyy more often than D&D does.

See, and that is what I dont understand...what exactly is wrong with Rule 0?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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

Fixed that for you!

Strange, I don't look up rules. I know them all. I did look them up for a while, then I got used to the system and I didn't need to look them up anymore.

On the other hand, think of the alternative:

DM makes up a rule for "how to try to push past a line of people" for a game without a rule for that. No one tries it again for a while, DM forgets what he rules or has just seen a movie or read a book where it was attempted and he came up with new ideas as to how difficult it is. So, you try it next time, and the DM makes it harder this time. The DM defends his decision by saying "it's different this time, they have SPEARS". Then, no one wants to try strange combat options anymore, as they aren't sure of the outcome.

Or, even if the DM stays consistant, do the players remember the rules for it? What about new players to the group? How long until they figure out all of the house rules made up by the DM to plug the lack of rules in the system?

I'd prefer a system where I can say "well, I KNOW what will happen when I try to break through the line, it says it in this book." instead of "well, I guess I'll try to break through the line and see what the DM makes up as my chance of succeeding"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I personally do not have problems with my DM changing the modifiers because he sees a different situation compared to the last time i tried shooting into the second row (different battle situation, different places where people are at the moment, etc) nor would I have a problem with it as the DM in my game group. In the end I wanna have fun and changing a modifier from -4 to -5 (or whatever) is not going to ruin that fun. Its still better than to read in the rules all the time just to be sure you got it right and according to the system. This would be much more of a fun-killer for me. I personally prefer a fast flow of events instead of a fire-proof rules system that is being referenced all the time to resolve situations. But thats just me and other people might prefer more rules instead *shrugs*.

See, and that is what I dont understand...what exactly is wrong with Rule 0?

Simple, this has caused the most arguing, bad feelings, and generally stopped us from playing more often than looking up rules or discussing rules has.

Rules Light:
"You can't attack him with a greatsword, you are standing too close to him?"
"WHAT? But he attacked me when he was grappling with me with a spear, which is longer"
"That's different, he was trained in grappling techniques and can hit you with the other end of the spear, I know I saw a show where someone fought like that"
"But I'm in the SCA, I have fought with a Greatsword like this before as well"
<insert 2 hours of arguing about whether the SCA is "realistic" or not, and whether using a movie as evidence is allowed and then the other players get involved with "historical" information from their history classes>

Rules Heavy:
"You can't attack him with a greatsword, you can only use light weapons in a grapple."
"Really? Where does it say that?"
"In the rules."
"Oh, ok, I pull out my dagger"

 

[JohnSnow]

See, and that is what I dont understand...what exactly is wrong with Rule 0?

Well...since I can't put it any better than it's been said, I'll just quote:

I'd prefer a system where I can say "well, I KNOW what will happen when I try to break through the line, it says it in this book." instead of "well, I guess I'll try to break through the line and see what the DM makes up as my chance of succeeding"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The first accusation people make about rules light systems is that all rulings come down to DM fiat. The rules-light defenders rail about how it's NOT DM fiat for a while, and then eventually come out and say what they really mean, which is "well, what's wrong with DM fiat?"

It's not about whether or not you "trust" your DM. It's about whether the DM's rulings are mechanically balanced and CONSISTENT. If the DM is consistent (and has a good memory), then his rulings will be consistent. But then he's just using a rulebook that's written in his own head. However, if the DM's rulings are not consistent, then the players get justifiably frustrated. However, they don't have any place to "look up" the rule, so the DM has plenty of grounds to claim consistency where none exists. And the players probably have no "evidence" to prove their DM is being inconsistent. Obviously, a good DM wouldn't do this, but not all DMs are paragons of virtue.

On the other hand, D&D 3e provides guidelines so DMs can make consistent rulings. A novice DM is not EXPECTED to remember all the modifiers. You're expected to "make a ruling on the spot" and "look it up later." Over time, you need to look up fewer and fewer rules, because you just know them. Once you know them that well, it's the same as if you were making them all up, with the added proviso that they'll all be pretty "consistent." And your players know it, and even have some idea what their chance of success will be (as they would in the "real world").

Given that the "fudge factor" crops up even with the D&D rules, I don't see how rough guidelines could possibly be MORE consistent. But maybe it's a willingness to sacrifice "consistency" for "simplicity." In which case, it's a debate I understand. Those willing to do so prefer C&C. Those who feel differently prefer D&D 3e.

Of course, all of this is completely independent of how you feel about things like D&D's pseudo-character-point "wealth system," CR system, or other factors that are also "whacked" out of C&C (like its somewhat lower power curve). And I imagine some people prefer it strictly for those reasons.

I could, however, be utterly and completely wrong.

 

[Akrasia]

...
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.

Sorry John, but this is complete rubbish. (I thought it was complete rubbish when the original poster made a similar point, but bit my tongue at the time.)

As an 'analytic philosopher' who spends much of his time explaining to freshmen the difference between valid and invalid formal arguments, and whose own work involves analyzing and presenting detailed arguments concerning political principles (sometimes drawing on decision theory, and empirical work in other disciplines, in doing so), I resist your categorization of people who like 'rules light' games as not being 'analytical' in nature. I'm analytical to the point of being anal about it. (And I know plenty of 'analytical' people who also prefer rules light systems.)


I think one's preferences for rules light versus rules heavy games simply has to do with what kinds of rules one thinks are appropriate for a certain genre. I don't understand the demand for extremely detailed rules to simulate a world in which scantily clad barbarians kill gigantic flying lizards who can breathe fire.

Now if we were playing Squad Commander, for example, realistic detailed rules would be entirely appropriate IMO.

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

Well, they are 'guidelines' in exactly the same way that 3e DCs are guidelines. In both systems, the final decision of what difficulty class to assign to a task belongs to the DM. In C&C, though, there is less 'hand holding' (you dislike 'hand waving'; I dislike 'hand holding').

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.

Again, we are talking about the 'basic rules' for C&C here. It is both (a.) easy to tweak a character so that two-weapon fighting is 'viable'; and (b.) the CKG will give 'official' rules for modifying classes in this way (for people who feel uncomfortable trusting their own judgement).

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.

What have you been drinking? :\

There is already something like an AoO in the C&C rules -- namely, when someone flees combat, their opponent gets a 'free attack'. I've been using that rule.

This rule has existed in every version of D&D, btw. Aside from that, I will be most interested to learn when exactly I've been using these 'de facto' AoOs.

Warhammer, interestingly enough, HAS both a highly customized skill system and a feat system, it just calls them "talents" instead of "feats."

WFRP's system is fine IMO -- precisely because it lacks all the needless nuance of the 3e version of feats and skills. The power scale is also completely different. More generally, though, I don't have anything against skills and feats in principle. I just don't like their implementation in 3e (speaking from a DM's perspective).

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.

This is simply untrue. I am starting to wonder whether it has been a doppleganger showing up to our sessions. :\

You keep saying this kind of thing, yet my experience, and the experience of the other players (as far as I can tell) runs contrary to this.

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.

C&C provides "clearly delineated rules on what some things take to accomplish". You roll 1d20, add ability score bonus, add level [if appropriate], add prime bonus [if appropriate] and try to beat the TN [DC].

How are those rules not clear??? :\

It is the same as 3e. The only difference is that 3e provides a lot of additional guidelines (yes, guidelines) for the DM in assigning DCs. Maybe you feel you need that kind of 'hand holding'. I don't.

As for the 'power to the players' point. Ugh. People always claim this. I have yet to see this actually affect how I run my own games as a DM -- or how I played in games run by other DMs.

And frankly, given how much more work the DM has to do, I have no problem with the DM assigning DCs and encounters as he/she sees fit. I wouldn't play with a DM I didn't trust to be fair, and I wouldn't want to 'limit' a DM that I did trust to be fair.

Where's my character concept if the CK doesn't want to "complicate" his game with "extra rules" for it?

Since when did players become spoiled children whose every 'concept' must be accommodated in every game? It doesn't matter if we're playing C&C or 3e -- if the character concept doesn't fit my campaign setting, then tough luck.

As for legitimate character concepts -- that is something to be worked out between the CK/DM and the player.

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.

If the modification is a mere tweak to an existing character class, how is it different from using feats, etc. to fine-tune an existing character class? There is no real substantive difference here.

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).

Ignoring which point? I've tried to respond to your points.

It's just that my preference leans toward a more "customizable" character system.

Sure, I understand that, and in fact sympathize with it. But now I don't understand your earlier opposition to the 'customized character class' option in your comments above.

Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't have a problem with 'agreeing to disagree'. What bothers me, though, are some of the unfair or incorrect claims you're making about my game. Some of these are the result, I think, of assumptions that you had about 'rules light' games prior to even starting our current C&C campaign (e.g. they are necessarily 'incomplete', they require 'hand waving' and 'DM fiat', etc.). I don't think that these assumptions have turned out to be correct -- they certainly do not seem to be correct from my perspective as a CK. So I am frustrated that you keep asserting them.

In particular, you keep harping on the claim that rules light games like C&C require GMs to 'make up' rules or 'hand wave' things. This is not true. C&C provides all the rules necessary to play the game (at least all the rules I have needed so far). I have yet to 'make up' a single rule (aside from house rules, which we all agree upon ahead of time). What I have been doing -- and this is the system -- is assigning TNs (or DCs in 3e-speak) for different tasks, and letting characters try those tasks (if they want to). That is not 'making up' a rule -- that is applying the rules of the game.

In short, I don't see any difference in how I've been running the C&C campaign and how I ran the 3e campaign with respect to your concerns about 'hand waving' and 'ad hoc rulings'. If anything, I rely on the rules more now.

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.

I am glad that we can agree to agree on this.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Again, we are talking about the 'basic rules' for C&C here. It is both (a.) easy to tweak a character so that two-weapon fighting is 'viable'; and (b.) the CKG will give 'official' rules for modifying classes in this way (for people who feel uncomfortable trusting their own judgement).

In other words, C&C as it currently exists is an incomplete game system.

 

[JohnSnow]

I don't understand the demand for extremely detailed rules to simulate a world in which scantily clad barbarians kill gigantic flying lizards who can breathe fire.

The word for what I'm talking about is "verisimilitude" - or, the level of "sensible & consistent" (as Zappo put it) necessary for suspension of disbelief. Fantasy worlds have gigantic flying lizards that breathe fire. However, for the world to feel real, the same task should be exactly as difficult to accomplish one time as the next. I also think RPG rules should handle person-to-person combat between two human beings in a reasonably sensible and consistent manner.

There is already something like an AoO in the C&C rules -- namely, when someone flees combat, their opponent gets a 'free attack'. I've been using that rule.

Aside from that, I will be most interested to learn when exactly I've been using these 'de facto' AoOs.

I admit, I was including those. That's one thing I consider "equivalent to an AoO" and the fact that it has existed since the earliest editions of the game just means that the game has always been reasonably consistent on this subject (allowing AoOs without naming them "attacks of opportunity").

Other than that, I don't know how many AoO provoking actions have come up in our C&C game. Nobody's bothered to try a trip, disarm, or grapple, that I recall. IIRC, C&C gives a character who's being "grappled" a "free attack" against the person doing the grappling. AD&D used to give a free attack to anyone who dropped out of combat to drink a potion - via the same "fleeing combat" rule you mentioned above. I imagine C&C hasn't done away with that either.

I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that a character trying to run past "mooks" to engage their spellcaster boss would also provoke a free attack. Am I wrong?

It's nice to know that I can try anything I want in C&C. Of course, it would be helpful to me as a player to have some idea what my chances of success are before I try it. For instance, I had been assuming that my wizard wouldn't have a great deal of success attempting to trip, disarm, or grapple an opponent. As a wizard player, this doesn't bother me a great deal. However, I tend to evaluate all games from the perspective of a fighter, rogue, or ranger player, as those are what I tend to prefer playing. As a wizard, I have plenty of "tactical options" in C&C. But as a fighter, I'd have to guess what my chances are of pulling off a disarm, trip, feint, or whatever. If I have to ask the CK every time, it's not worth the effort. If I get nailed with a huge penalty, I'm not gonna bother doing it.

I really do see where you and the others who like C&C are coming from, and maybe it is true that I want more "handholding" from the rules. But I fail to see why making them up DCs of whole cloth on some "very easy-easy-average-difficult-very difficult-challenging-nearly impossible" is better than having rules guidelines you can refer to. Aren't you at all worried you won't be consistent?

As an example, what's the TN for opening a "good" lock in C&C? Where does that number come from? Just curious.

 

[Zappo]

I personally do not have problems with my DM changing the modifiers because he sees a different situation compared to the last time i tried shooting into the second row (different battle situation, different places where people are at the moment, etc) nor would I have a problem with it as the DM in my game group. In the end I wanna have fun and changing a modifier from -4 to -5 (or whatever) is not going to ruin that fun. Its still better than to read in the rules all the time just to be sure you got it right and according to the system. This would be much more of a fun-killer for me. I personally prefer a fast flow of events instead of a fire-proof rules system that is being referenced all the time to resolve situations. But thats just me and other people might prefer more rules instead *shrugs*.

I think this is one of the points over which we have different perspectives. It's a bit late and I may sound confusing right now; don't hesitate to ask for clarifications, I'll check on the thread tomorrow.

If I want to be able to feint in order to get the opportunity to disarm my enemy and then grapple and subdue him, and I want my character to perform similar stunts regularly, and I want this to be different than just whacking the other guy... then the scenarios you presented (where the DM only changes a modifier once, or conversely has to spend the whole session looking up rules) are IMO just extremes which IME don't happen in reality.

In theory the DM could be so good that he can make rules up on the fly for feinting, disarming, grappling and subdueing that are well-balanced, fair, a decent representation of reality, and stay the same between sessions except for the odd modifier every now and then (but then, hasn't he just created a rules-heavy system?). And in theory you could end up spending an hour figuring out the RAW for feinting and everything and arguing commas with the players.

In reality, when I play rules-light systems I just don't feint and I don't grapple because it ain't worth the hassle - who cares about -4 or -5, when the DM is telling me that I outright can't do something, or that the modifier is -15 when I expected a -2? And when I play rules-heavy systems I don't spend more than maybe five minutes per session browsing the rules (provided that they are well-designed and organized, such as in 3.x D&D).

If a rule is confusely worded or I can't find it in thirty seconds, I'll make a ruling - we've already determined that the odd modifier changing from one session to another is perfectly acceptable, right? The difference being that with a rules-heavy system, it is really just the odd modifier, as opposed to entire subsystems being pulled out of thin air and then scrapped when it turns out they are unsurprisingly whacked when used more than once.

 

[Zappo]

Nobody's bothered to try a trip, disarm, or grapple, that I recall.

I suspect that this is the whole point. If you don't do what the rules don't cover, or you only do once lest the made-up-on-the-spot ruling collapses in a vortex of abuse, then rules-light systems are good and fast. But personally, I just can't take that "bargain".