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

[JohnSnow]

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".

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course, as I said above, I'm willing to play with a GM who prefers a rules-light system but it will never be my preference. However, beggars can't be choosers, and sometimes the GMs who prefer rules-light systems are very good at the story side of the game (as Akrasia is), so I'll take what I can get, suck up my desire for better melee combat options, and play a wizard.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I see I am too late to provide a possible solution, since you settled on the variant of the Knight...but I will still chime in.

1. Go with DEX:16 and STR:12 (I don't recall the actual numbers you had but that fits your idea.

2. Get the Finesse (This is the feat that represents "fencing" style) and ONE rapier

3. Forget Two-Weapon Fighting (Not needed to represent dueling)

4. Pick up the best shield you can and name it "Main-Gauche" (sp?) and say that it's a shield shaped mysteriously like a small bladed weapon with a big hilt.

5. Wear some light armor. There is no written rule saying you cannot duel wearing a chain shirt or some leather.

Damage 1d6+1/20
AC (In DnD terms because I don't play C&C): 10+4+3+2=19 (Equal to a low-dex full plate guy)

So effectively you trade a small bit of to/hit and damage for the ability to dance around and move faster in and out of combat. This seems like a fair trade off. Add to it your character actually has some non-combat usefulness and overall it seems more than fair.

DS

 

[Akrasia]

The word for what I'm talking about is "verisimilitude" ...

Yeah, that is a cool word, and I used it myself in an earlier post concerning this very point. I guess this is one of the 'agreeing to disagree' points.

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.

I fail to see how a rules light game like C&C (or Buffy/Angel, or ...) fails to accomplish all these goals.

One thing to keep in mind -- rules light games generally don't try to 'fine tune' each and every situation (by using lots of different circumstance modifiers, condition modifiers, etc.). They rely on more general resolution mechanisms -- and thus can be entirely consistent, but not as 'fine grained' as rules heavy systems.

Which is enough verisimilitude for me -- at least when it comes to a world of orcs, wizards, and dragons.

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.

Incorrect.

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.

That is covered by the 'fleeing combat' action -- it is hardly a new rule.

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?

Yes, you're wrong. Although the PC would probably be blocked by said mooks (or the mooks would use their actions to block the PC).

But yeah, it is easier to disrupt spellcasters in C&C (as there is no 'combat casting' feat either).

I happen to approve of this game feature -- and the general fact that spellcasters are weaker in C&C than they are in 3e.

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.

Well, I think I've been pretty good about telling players how difficult their proposed actions will be.

However, I tend to evaluate all games from the perspective of a fighter, rogue, or ranger player .... 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.

First of all, you're being completely unfair to C&C (yet again) here. There are clear rules for disarming (just as there are for grappling, pummeling, overbearing, etc.). See pp. 116-117.

I don't mind that you prefer 3e over C&C. I just wish you wouldn't give C&C short shrift by not actually appreciating what rules C&C does have!

As for things that you would like to be included that are not in C&C -- e.g. feinting -- I am sure that we could all agree to an appropriate house rule, that would subsequently be written down in our 'house rules' document for future reference.

Aren't you at all worried you won't be consistent?

Not really.

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

Well, the default for a task is a TN of 18. So a really 'good' lock could be anywhere from TN19 to TN 35 -- depending on how 'good' it is. (Just as the DC for a good lock could be anywhere from 20 to ... whatever the DM decides.)

Keep in mind that in C&C, PCs are assumed to succeed at most easy or average tasks. Rolls are only used for difficult tasks, or tasks in which the consequences of failure are considerable.

 

[Akrasia]

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".

Just for the record: tripping and grappling are covered by the official C&C rules.

Indeed, I have been using the term "rules light" to refer to systems that, over at RPG.net, would be considered "rules medium". (If you want real 'rules light', check out RISUS or FUDGE.)

The thing that ENWorlders sometimes forget is just how far down the 'rules heavy' end of the spectrum 3e is.

 

[Akrasia]

I realize that I have come across as quite anti-3e in this thread. In fact, I am somewhat ambivalent about 3e. I would be happy to play in a 3e campaign with a good DM, but I will never DM it myself again.

My pet-peeves as DM fall into three categories:

(1.) The detailed, tactical combat system (which pretty much requires the use of miniatures and a battlemat). Combat should never take more than 40 minutes IMO.

(2.) The magic system (which adds a lot of complexity to the system, creates all kinds of 'balance' issues for parties, and makes running high-level adventures a major pain).

(3.) The amount of time it takes to produce stat blocks for NPCs (and some monsters). (This is a hobby, not a job. If I have to spend more than one hour of 'stat prep' for any given session, it is just not worth it.)

Now C&C solves (1.) and (3.) in a single stroke. Part of the cost in (3.), though, is the extent to which PCs can be 'customized'. I think that there are ways to improve customization in C&C (and hopefully some guidelines will be provided in the CKG), but this is bound to be trade-off for any group.

I am still not a fan of C&C's magic system (2.), but the spells in C&C seem generally less powerful than their 3e counterparts, and spellcasters are more vulnerable.

What interests me about Green Ronin's True 20 system is that it too addresses all these concerns, while trying to maintain a wide number of options for players. I plan to check it out once it is released.

Based on our earlier discussions, John, I suspect that you agree with me about (2.) and (3.). The real underlying difference between us is (1.). I think that is just a matter of taste, and has nothing to do with being 'right brained' or 'left brained' or whatever.


Back to calculating grades (i.e. 'real work)...

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Just wanted to throw some more thoughts in here:

I think you should use a system that encourages the behavior you want in your game. If you want a complicated tactical wargame that encourages number crunching and creative applications of a complex ruleset, D&D is right up your alley.

However, there's just as much opportunity to come up with cool things in a rules light system -- if your comfort and trust level with the group is such that you feel like your contributions will be valued and validated. (For a lot of people, finding cool things in the rules is more comfortable, because if it's in the book, it's unlikely to be rejected.)

There's an interesting thread on RPG.net about this -- unfortunately, it went a little flamey. They discuss how it's interesting that social interactions are something people don't mind handling on an improvisational basis, from rules-light all the way to rules-none.

In the games I run, tactics consist of describing your action (be it combat or social) in an interesting, entertaining manner. We've actually got a rule that if someone at the table goes "Cool!", you get a bonus. That leads to things like spears being more useful at a distance and less up close, but it also leads to witty quips, cinematic maneuvers, and actions that resonate with the emotional issues of the characters. That stuff's equally valuable, but it requires the group to be on the same page with each other.

If you joined my group, and you wanted to use a lot of interesting combat maneuvers you'd gotten out of a D&D book, I'd let you use them, and I'd give you bonuses. I just don't give them more credence than maneuvers you stole from The Princess Bride. I'd also give you tactical bonuses when fighting a hated rival or to defend a loved one. (In fact, in the system we use, "Love for Susan" can be an attribute as important as "Fencing Master".)

I'll say this: I wouldn't play in a group where there was a lot of arguing and "You can't do that". No amount of rules mediating things would make me comfortable enough to enjoy myself. That doesn't mean I think that every group that uses detailed rules has a social lack, of course -- it's personal preference. But in practice, I haven't run into any players who've experienced the problems mentioned here with rules-light systems, but I have run into many players who had previously felt like their creative contributions were discounted because they weren't drawn from the rulebook.

 

[Numion]

Just wanted to throw some more thoughts in here:

I think you should use a system that encourages the behavior you want in your game. If you want a complicated tactical wargame that encourages number crunching and creative applications of a complex ruleset, D&D is right up your alley.

I guess thats one way to put it. Another is that D&D is a ruleset that encourages cohesive group tactics and party cooperation in combat. This is much better IMO than the focus on everyone trying to get the shine on their own characters with less regard for how others are faring in the combat, as I've seen in 1e and basic D&D.

I wonder if this 'stunting' and just aiming for the really flashy and cool personal maneuvers for the bonii you described is a step in that direction.

EDIT:

I mean, its the difference between:

Player: "I use ready myself to strike the first goblin to approach the wizard behind me"

and

Player: "I backflip on the spot, run on the wall behind the goblins, do a cool somersault and end up swinging on the chandelier grabbing it with my feet and fight the goblins upside down like a VAMPYRE"

Players: "KEWL"

GM: "Cool, you get a hefty bonus for such an action, but the goblins ignore your upside-down hangin ass and smack the wizard"

Exaggerating a bit, of course

 

[Jupp]

I think it perhaps comes down to the question "Is detailed combat that important to you in a RPG that you want to have extensive rules for it or not?" The answer to that question most of the time decides which ruleset would be the better choice.

 

[Jupp]

Player: "I backflip on the spot, run on the wall behind the goblins, do a cool somersault and end up swinging on the chandelier grabbing it with my feet and fight the goblins upside down like a VAMPYRE"

Players: "KEWL"

GM: "Cool, you get a hefty bonus for such an action, but the goblins ignore your upside-down hangin ass and smack the wizard"

Exaggerating a bit, of course

you know, this is the kind of stunts (if they worked despite the hefty malus given by the DM) we still speak about ten years later. I find that much more rewarding than having it written down as rules and the DM could say "its not in the rules, not possible". If it really comes down to that I can really live with DM fiat *there, I said that ugly word*

 

[Numion]

I think it perhaps comes down to the question "Is detailed combat that important to you in a RPG that you want to have extensive rules for it or not?" The answer to that question most of the time decides which ruleset would be the better choice.

I understood that the 'oppositions' argument was that you can have detailed combat with little rules - people describing the actions and DM adjudication would lead to the same effect as detailed combat rules.

I don't believe that. You might end up with 'kewl stunts' that are well described, but the group cooperation aspects and sound tactics would be lacking. I don't consider that to be real detail, because there is no reason for the maneuvers besides stunting and fishing for the bonii.

Lack of cooperation and real tactics was my experience from pre-3e editions. Every man for himself, look at me go!, etc.. :\

Of course, some prefer kewl stunts over group tactics, and thats ok. But in RPGs working as a group is one of the most important aspects for me and my group, and I bet that is one of the reasons 3e proved much more popular with my group than any previous game. There is no intrinsical value to 800 pages of rules, it's the gaming experience those rules provide.