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

[Numion]

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*

It depends .. would you respect the little munchkin at local gaming shop when he tells how he "defeated three Great Wyrm Red dragons in a round by triple-wielding three +5 vorpal swords by juggling them in the air", or would you just think that his DM was a pushover?

For me at least the accomplishments dont feel as legitimate when they are by DM fiat instead of rules .. not that rules aren't broken from time to time at my table. It's just a better feeling to know my players have achieved something by going through RttToEE in 3.0E. I can even compare experiences on the RttToEE boards with the others. If a lot of DM fiat is present, that would be difficult.

 

[Jupp]

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.. :\

I think we had quite different experiences with older or lighter systems. I think our group never lacked group dynamics and cooperation when we played together. Also we never had someone who wanted to "shine" in front of the others. Perhaps we were just lucky with the poeple in our groups It should also be noted that those "stunts" were quite an exception and most of the time we played out our fights pretty "normal". If we would have had those crazy moves and stunts in every game it would have gotten boring pretty fast.

Oh, and there was always reason for those maneuvers, they were fun to do. You know, it's not all about XP, boni and rules.....

 

[Jupp]

It depends .. would you respect the little munchkin at local gaming shop when he tells how he "defeated three Great Wyrm Red dragons in a round by triple-wielding three +5 vorpal swords by juggling them in the air", or would you just think that his DM was a pushover?

Heh, sure he was a pushover. But why do you bother? its not your game, you were not the DM, it's not your business. But anyway, your example is an exageration so it doesnt mean a lot

For me at least the accomplishments dont feel as legitimate when they are by DM fiat instead of rules .. not that rules aren't broken from time to time at my table. It's just a better feeling to know my players have achieved something by going through RttToEE in 3.0E. I can even compare experiences on the RttToEE boards with the others. If a lot of DM fiat is present, that would be difficult.

Hmm, I can't follow that mindset. All that matters is that the players have fun, thats Rule #1.
To me, and to my group, extensive rules are not an integral part to have fun at the game table (we played 3E for two years but in the end it wasn't the right thing for us). Also I do not have the motivation and to waste my prep time with stats and rules. I want to develop a story, locations, npcs, history and other things, that are, IMO, more important to a good game time than looking up rules for everything.

It seems we come from two different directions when it comes to the question what is important for us in a game and what is not. So I think in the end we could agree that we disagree.

Reading the threads that constantly appear on ENWorld about light rulesets vs. heavy rulesets show only one thing: In most cases Followers of the Church of Rules-Lite are not convertable to become a follower of the Church of Rules-Heavy, as is the case vice versa.

 

[der_kluge]

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".)

What system are you using?

 

[JohnSnow]

(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.
...
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.

Well, yes and no. I think you're correct that the MAJOR difference is (1.). But it's also a question of priority. The magic system (2.) bothers me a lot more than the stat blocks (3.), and I submit that not having to buy "so-many-thousand-gp-of-equipment" would make the stat blocks a LOT easier. So my personal take would be "fix the magic system first."

Then I'd make changes to the skill and feat system to make selection easier, and eliminate the balance "problem" of no high-level feats, so that you don't have to take a customized class to stay "competitive." Which eliminates the need for prestige classes, which I know you just love!

As far as the combat system, I suppose you're right. As a GM, I would rather have the rules "laid out" than have to come up with them on the fly. As a player, I'm not real eager to constantly be asking the DM what I'm allowed to do, or what the mechanic is if I decide to do something. If I know in advance that something is possible, I come up with tactics between games.

I know you think I'm not giving C&C credit for the rules it does have, but the fact is that I see rules for tripping, disarming, or grappling (with substantial penalties for success and no particular tactical advantage) and decide it's just not worth it. Just as in 3e, I'd be disinclined to trip someone without taking "Improved Trip," I'm disinclined to do it at all in C&C. Basically, it's easier (and usually just as effective, especially at low levels) to just "whack" someone.

I guess this is another one of those agreeing to disagree things. Personally, I think C&C sacrifices too much fun stuff in order to get fast and playable. A lot of the "situations" end up being adjudicated entirely by the CK, which either is "DM fiat" or its "consistent rules existing in the CK's head" - which to me feels like DM fiat. And I agree with the statement below.

For me at least the accomplishments dont feel as legitimate when they are by DM fiat instead of rules .. not that rules aren't broken from time to time at my table.

And just since this would get boring if we just agreed on everything...

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.)

But D&D talks about what a "poor quality lock" is. And provides rules for doing so with improvised tools. And so on, and so on. Yes, in the end, the DM picks a target number, but a good DM will rule that an amazing lock is ALWAYS an amazing lock. The best lock in the kingdom is the best lock in the kingdom, and it ALWAYS has a check DC of 35 (or 40, or whatever), not 18 plus the level of the character, plus whatever factor the CK feels like.

I looked for numerical guidelines in C&C. While they do exist, the seem awfully nebulous to me. The default advice seems to be: "Adjust the TN upwards by a number that feels right to you. After a while, you'll get used to picking numbers that work for you and your group. A good rule of thumb is to increase the number by 1 for the level of the characters. Easy tasks should add 1-5, difficult ones 6-10, very difficult 11-15, and heroic 15-20 or more."

Which to me is nebulous guidelines at best. It implies that first-level characters face 1st level locks, 3rd-level characters face 3rd level locks, and so on. And while I suppose that's one way to keep the challenge level consistent, the sense of increasing capability is gone. At 1st level, I could only bypass the easy locks. Now I can bypass all but the most challenging. That may still be true in C&C, but I didn't see any generic description of how to determine "most locks in the campaign world are X quality."

I guess it's "challenge appropriate" numbers vs. "world simulation" numbers. For me, part of that verisimilitude is knowing that there's a pick lock DC for "poor, average, good, etc." As a DM, I can thumbnail whether I think a lock should be "good." As a player, it means a lot more to me that the lock is "good quality" than being told "it's an appropriate challenge for a character of my level." Because that yanks me out of the world and reminds me I'm playing a game. Which I guess is what the combat system does for you. Thorny problem...

To each their own though I guess.

Just to be contrary...technically speaking, the TN is 18 if it's not a prime, and 12 if it is. But we've already been over that.

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.

If I remember my 1e Dungeonmaster's Guide correctly, Gygax used this reasoning to justify why he never included skills in D&D. Characters were just "assumed" to be "reasonably competent" at anything they wanted to be. Players were encouraged to "describe" their actions or adopt "roleplaying" restrictions if they wanted to be bad at something (a clumsy rider, for example). I didn't agree with it then, and I don't agree with it now.

I guess we just have different perspectives on how the game "ought to play."

Which would be perfectly fine if we didn't play together...

Guess the best way to solve it is the one we agreed on - Gamemaster's prerogative.


(EDITED to clarify C&C rules summary and avoid misinterpretations)

 

[RFisher]

It is interesting how we can have seemingly opposite experiences with the same games. And, I know my gaming is more enjoyable due to conversations like this. In fact, that's why I bother. I'm not trying to convince any one that my way of playing is better. I just know that I've benefitted from reading about how others play.

Re: knowing your chances & arguments: At my group's table, if you have a question about your chances of success, you just ask the DM. (Assuming he hasn't volunteered the information already.) If you disagree with his ruling, you state your case. The DM is happy for the suggestion. If he isn't persuaded, you give him the benefit of the doubt & let it drop because being DM is a hard job & we're all friends.

Re: trying to play light games exactly like heavy games: When playing classic D&D, I don't care whether my PC hit with the blade of his sword, bludgeoned with the pommel, punched with his free hand, kicked, fiented, &c. I just roll my d20 & my d6 & concentrate on tactics & strategy. If you worry about things that are below the level of abstraction of the game, then either the DM will have to make up rules, you will be frustrated, or both. You have to adapt to the style of the game you are playing at the moment. (In other words, a game doesn't "suck" because it doesn't handle something it was never meant to handle.)

Re: overcoming the obstacles instead of the DM: In 3e you may have less DM fiat, but the DM is still a huge factor. How well does he know the rules & the optimum strategies? How well does he know the capabilities of the monsters involved? How well does he execute on the things he does know? Two experiences of the same module under different DMs can be just as different in 3e as in lighter games.

Re: DM fiat: I think there's a big difference between a classic D&D DM (a) telling you you can't run past the three fighters lined up across the 10' corridor to get to the wizard behind them & (b) improvising rules for a disarm or trip attack.

In the final analysis, though, lighter games intend the DM to be a intelligent & creative living rulebook. DM fiat is the point. Inconsistency from DM to DM is the point. (No single way of playing the game is necessarily best.) Inconsistecy from situation to situation is the point. (Two similar situations are seldom identical. The DM can consider many, many more factors than rules can & still be playable.)

It's a coöperative endeavor. Players should help DMs make rulings, & DM's should rely on their player's to help them make rulings. Players have to recognize that--even in 3e--DMs are only human. They may make bad decisions occasionally. It's better not to dwell on the times when you think they have.

 

[J_D]

I've been lurking and reading this topic with interest, and decided I had to put my opinionated two-bits in. I know absolutely nothing about C&C, so I'll stick to general gaming preferences — and my gaming preferences are probably more extreme than JohnSnow's (or perhaps he's just toning his words down below what he really things - I won't). If your gaming style or preferences or values are different, you'll of course disagree and many of you would likely hate to play in a game with me. All of my strong statements should be regarded in the context of my gaming values.

I have to come down on JohnSnow's, Zappo's, and Majoru Oakheart's side in this, then go probably even farther. You see, one thing I absolutely positively have to have in a game is consistency. I demand and require consistency. This is because I value verisimilitude and "world simulation", and consistency is a prerequisite and requirement of those. If some situation X is handled by method A the first time it comes up but then the same situation comes up again a month later and is handled by method B, then comes up again six months later and is handled by method C, that utterly destroys the fun of the game for me. To use a concrete example mentioned earlier on the thread, if a good lock is DC 30 to open, then it had damn well better DC 30 to open next session, next month or next year as well! I have zero tolerance for any DM Fiat such that on his own whim he decides it's DC 30 now, but next session it's DC 35 and six months from now a good lock is DC 25 to open. Once it's clear to me that I have no possible way of knowing ahead of time how a situation will be handled even though that situation has arisen before, it's no longer possible for me to have fun in a game — the game is ruined for me!

I'll go so far as to say that in my own opinion and judging by my own gaming values, a DM that is either willfully or negligently inconsistent in his adjudicating of the game is by definition an incompetent DM. DM's make mistakes, sure. So do players, and so do I! I understand and accept this and it doesn't bother me, so long as the DM is willing to acknowledge and correct the mistakes when pointed out to him. By mistakes, I don't mean necessarily forgetting or misapplying the RAW; I have no problem with heavily house-ruled departures from the RAW so long as those house rules are consistently applied and make some sort of sense. It's the momentary whim of DM Fiat that really gets to me. When a DM ignores his own rulings of the past (whether regarding RAW or house rules) in favor of his current whim of the moment with a deliberate lack of regard for those past rulings, that's when he crosses the line from making a mistake to being incompetent.

(And yes, I am the sort of person who will, when my DM makes an inconsistent ruling, throw back at him his exact words from two years ago and insist upon either following the precedent or an explanation of why the current situation is different, and I won't take "because I'm the DM and I say so" for an answer. I won't make much fuss if he departs from RAW - instead just ask for clarification for future reference - but I will call him out over inconsistency with his own past rulings.)

I'll even go further than this. The incompetence of inconsistency can be applied to game system themselves. When a game system deliberately encourages the momentary whim of DM Fiat — for example JohnSnow's quote from C&C: "Adjust the TN upwards by a number that feels right to you. After a while, you'll get used to picking numbers that work for you and your group. A good rule of thumb is to increase the number by 1 for the level of the characters." — over any sense of consistency or objective "world simulation" then that game system is incompetently designed. JohnSnow is charitable when he says merely that it is "nebulous guidelines at best". I'll go farther than that: it's incompetence at game design. (Note here that I am not at this point condemning C&C in particular as incompetently designed; as I said before I have no personal knowledge of it and this is just one quote. I have no idea how prevalent this sort of thing is in C&C.) A particular task that has a DC X for success should have the same DC next session, next month and next year - this is consistency. A particular task that has a DC X for success should have that same DC regardless of the level of the person picking it because of the inherent nature of that task in itself - this is objective world simulation. A game that is designed with an explicit and prevalent rejection of consistency and objective world simulation is a game that as far as I am concerned is incompetently designed.

These issues of consistency and world simulation are largely independent of the issue of "rules-light" vs. "rules-heavy". No game, whether "rules-light" or "rules-heavy", can have a rule for every conceivable situation and "rules-light" games don't suck on that basis alone. (The issue of consistency is even independent of the level of detail (abstract vs. gritty), although world simulation does call for a more finely-detailed system and personally I do like more detail.) It's a given that things are going to come up that haven't been covered in the rulebook in any game. What makes or breaks a DM or game in my eyes is how those things are handled when they do come up. The worst possible way to handle it is for the DM to come up with an off the top of his head ruling "just to keep the game flowing swiftly along" but not write it down or remember it and thus come up with a completely different ruling two months later when the same situation comes up. I can live with DM Fiat in which the DM comes up with a quick rule then writes it down so it can be remembered and used again as needed in the future as this establishes consistency at least, although if the DM isn't good at this sort of thing such off-the-cuff rules without some time to think about them can suck.

Ideally, I'd like to see such things handled cooperatively between the DM and the players as RFisher pointed out. When some situation for which no rule currently exists comes up, the DM calls an immediate time-out on the game - regardless of whether the group was in the middle of some combat or dramatic role-play moment or not - and calls for a short discussion (say, 5-10 minutes, 15 if absolutely needed but try to go no longer than that) of the situation and what sort of rule will provide a reasonable and sensible resolution and blend well with the rest of the system. Then, once the rule is agreed upon by DM and players, get it down in writing!!. Then, resolve the situation that started the discussion and resume play. When handled this way, the issue will never come up again and in the future when this situation pops up again the written rule will handle it and that "swiftly flowing game" can move right along. I know that many people who put high value on the "swiftly flowing game" will absolutely hate this method of resolution, but for me at least, while a "swiftly flowing game" is important consistency and making sense within a world simulation context are even more important!

Getting the rule down in writing is important - not just for consistency's sake but also for the simple fact that a player playing the game has a right (and responsibility) to know what the rules are before he has need to use them in the game (unless of course it's one of those new situations for which no rule exists yet). Even if a DM is totally consistent over time applying rules that exist only in his own head, in practice from the player's perspective there is no meaningful difference at all between the whim of the moment DM Fiat and a consistently followed rule that only the DM knows.

I don't have anything against "rules-light" games in and of themselves. The only thing about such games is that if consistency is paid any heed they will inevitably become "rules-heavy" with the addition of house rules over time that handle situations not covered in the rulebooks. The only way to keep a "rules-light" game light is to either let inconsistency run roughshod over the game or play in a very limited and abstract style which doesn't exceed what the rules do cover. The former I can't tolerate and the latter isn't to my taste, so a game I'd enjoy might start off as rules-light but get heavier with time.

 

[JohnSnow]

Since I'm being quoted and I paraphrased without having my books present, I thought I would look up what it actually says in C&C. The actual text (edited for brevity, but hopefully preserving the content), reads as follows:

To determine the challenge class, two simple steps are required. The Castle Keeper must determine the base chance of success (challenge base), and the level of difficulty of the challenge involved (challenge level).

The first step in calculating challenge class is to determine the challenge base (CB). The challenge base is always either a 12 or an 18...If the attribute is a prime attribute, the challenge base is 12. If the attribute is secondary, the challenge base is 18.

The second step in calculating the challenge class is determining the conflict's challenge level (CL). The Castle Keeper has vast discretion in determining challenge level. Although this task sounds difficult, it actually is fairly easy. Challenge level is nothing more than the level of difficulty of the action attempted or the reaction made.

The simplest way to determine the challenge level is by referencing the level or hit dice of the non-player character or monster to which the character making the check is acting against or reacting to. In such cases, challenge level is equal to the level or hit dice of the NPC or monster involved...

There are more arbitrary situations that require the Castle Keeper to create an adequate challenge level. If a character is attempting a task such as making an extraordinary jump or swinging on a rope to grab an object, the Castle Keeper needs to assign a difficulty level to the task. A good way to assign such a challenge level is to think of the task's difficulty as if it were a monster, and then assign a challenge level equal to the hit dice of the monster imagined. In this way, a level or hit dice can be assigned tasks such as swimming a river, knocking down a door, jumping a pit, or catching a falling object. For example, a character might wish to jump over a 6-foot wide pit. Assuming the character is unarmored and has room to run and jump, this is a fairly easy task that is perhaps equivalent to the degree of difficulty involved in a 1st-level fighter combating a 1 HD monster (Personal aside...Ummm...how so? Where'd they get this?). Thus the Castle Keeper assigns a challenge level of 1. However, if the character is heavily weighted down, leaping across the space should be deemed a 2 or higher.

As a rule of thumb, a challenge level of 1 to 5 is adequate for easy tasks. For difficult tasks, a challenge level of 6 to 10 works well. For very difficult tasks, a challenge level of 11 to 15 suffices. Heroic actions require a challenge level of 15 to 20, or even higher.

So C&C offers more guidelines than just "wing it" and I've corrected my earlier post to reflect that. It does not, however, give any good, concrete examples other than those above for determining what constitutes easy, difficult, very difficult, or heroic tasks. I interpret the combination the way I paraphrased it. It should be noted that C&C characters are just assumed to be able to accomplish all "routine" tasks, and so no challenge level is needed for "very easy" things.

Maybe this info will be in the Castle Keeper's Guide, but until that's out, I think the challenge rules are a bit "squidgy."

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[Sigg]

I, also, have been lurking for a bit and now feel prompted to reply on the side of the "rules-heavy" systems. As either DM or player I would prefer to have the rules (complexity) in place and eliminate or ignore what I don't like or feel I need rather than having to determine target numbers for a myriad of things. I have never found the tactical combat in 3e to be tedious, to the contrary I find it more exciting. As to the view that situations vary and so should target numbers for tasks, 3e can just as easily simulate that with situational modifiers. To continue with the lock example, I like knowing what my rogue's chances are at opening a "good" lock, it makes sense to me that this "good" lock is going to be about as difficult to open as the last "good" lock I opened. But I also know why that "good" lock I encountered in that rusted out, mud-encrusted chest we pulled from the bottom of a pond was a bit harder to open...at least until the dwarf got impatient and whacked it a few times with his maul

 

[SWBaxter]

What system are you using?

Sounds like it could be HeroQuest, which is a narrative system in which your motivation for performing an action can be as great a contributor to success as your skill at that action.

Or possibly The Riddle of Steel, in which spiritual attributes give you an (often decisive) edge in situations where they apply, and also control skill advancement.

Or maybe Unknown Armies, where you get access to some special die roll tricks (such as flipping the order of percentile dice) when in a situation that's important to you.

Of course, it could be Pendragon, in which your social and spiritual traits usually have a far greater effect on your long-term success than your combat prowess.

Or... well, you get the idea. There are lots of rulesets that have rules mechanics to deal with character motivation, personality, etc., and treat those areas as being at least as important as combat.