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

[der_kluge]

First, I'd like to thank everyone for keeping the discussion so civil. Often these types of discussions turn ugly.

Secondly, one thing I've noticed when playing games where the GM has to make up something on the fly is the following:

The GM will have you roll a d20. One of three things will happen:
a) The player rolls really low. The GM will automatically say "Oh, you weren't successfull"
b) The player rolls really high. The GM will automatically say "You pull it off!"
or
c) The player rolls a 11, and sends the GM into a paradox of confusion and uncertainty where he then attempts to question heisenberg's uncertainty principle, any applicable modifiers, the quantum state of the universe at that moment, and whether his underwear has wedged itself into his butt crack or not.

Point is, rules ambiguity only really works when the choice is black and white. When you throw in that "maybe", that's when clarification is really necessary. Now, I'm not advocating that *every* action in the world have a rule behind it - that would be ridiculous, but I think you can go too far to the other extreme as well.

 

[SWBaxter]

Point is, rules ambiguity only really works when the choice is black and white. When you throw in that "maybe", that's when clarification is really necessary. Now, I'm not advocating that *every* action in the world have a rule behind it - that would be ridiculous, but I think you can go too far to the other extreme as well.

My experience is pretty much the opposite - the scenario you describe seems to be far more common in rules-heavy games, because it comes up every time you move outside situations covered explicitly in the rules. Rules-light games, with unified resolution mechanics, are much more likely to give a GM a reasonably clean way to adjudicate weird situations, because the basic mechanics are exactly the same.

Note that I don't really consider C&C to be a good example of a rules-light game, it's more rules-absent - the rules cover the same ground as D&D with the same split of different resolution mechanics for combat, magic, skills, and saves, there are just less of them. So I'd say your problem is more with a specific rules system than with rules-light games in general.

 

[Akrasia]

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!

Yes, these would all be good changes (and are things that True20 appears to accomplish).

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.

The thing is -- in most cases these maneuvers are not viable or sensible actions! Only in unusual situations would it make sense to grapple someone in melee combat (or try to trip them, etc). The need to make completely imprudent actions viable is something I don't understand -- and one of the reasons why 3e sometimes resembles a superhero game (at least at mid-to-high levels) more than a medieval fantasy game (IME and IMO, of course).

... 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...

Again, I think you are hopelessly exagerrating the difference between 3e and C&C here. Both games rely on the GM's judgement to design the situations in question, and apply the relevant rules.

(Of course, after a certain point I never bothered to rely on all the 3e 'rules' concerning DCs, anyway, and just trusted my own judgement -- in short, I ran 3e in much the same way as I run C&C. Somehow I doubt that a DM who did consult the rules constantly for all the relevant DCs and modifiers would have run my campaign in a more interesting or successful manner. Such a DM certainly would have run slower sessions.)

But D&D talks about what a "poor quality lock" is. And provides rules ...

Your point here appears to boil down to this: you like more guidance (or 'hand holding') when it comes to assigning DCs for tasks than I do.

The fact of the matter is that, even in 3e, there is absolutely no requirement that the DM assign any particular DC to any lock, task, or whatever. It is ultimately always his/her decision!

And I would be curious to know whether you felt subject to 'DM whim' or 'fiat' during our 3e campaign, during which I assigned DCs to locks (and traps, and tasks) as seemed appropriate for the situation, rather than consulting the 'rules' everytime. As far as I can tell, none of the players seemed to feel like victims of my 'whims'.

Just to be contrary...technically speaking, the TN is 18 if it's not a prime, and 12 if it is.

Treating all tasks as having a base TN of 18, and treating Primes as giving PCs a bonus of +6, is mechanically equivalent to the offiical version, and more intuitive IMO.

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.

Sorry John, but your point here is bogus since C&C, unlike OAD&D, does give players a mechanic to resolve anything that comes up during the game! It just advises against relying on rolls too much (advice that would be good for 3e as well, IMO).

 

[Akrasia]

You had me here...

Rules-light games, with unified resolution mechanics, are much more likely to give a GM a reasonably clean way to adjudicate weird situations, because the basic mechanics are exactly the same.

And then you completely lost me with this:

Note that I don't really consider C&C to be a good example of a rules-light game, it's more rules-absent - the rules cover the same ground as D&D with the same split of different resolution mechanics for combat, magic, skills, and saves, there are just less of them. So I'd say your problem is more with a specific rules system than with rules-light games in general.

The resolution mechanics of C&C are more general in just the way you stated above. While they do divide things in accordance with the subjects that you mention, the mechanics for saves and tasks are the same. Moreover, that mechanic -- the SIEGE system -- can be used to resolve anything that the PCs try (outside of combat and magic).

C&C is not as rules light as Heroquest. But it is not 'rules-absent' IMO.

 

[Akrasia]

Well, needless to say I disagree with most of J_D's post. In fact, reading it I couldn't help but wonder whether he was talking about a game or a legal system (I could at least understand his obsession with consistency in the latter case).

The thing is, we don't have consistency and certainty in the real world. Whenever I encounter a new problem in the real world, I might have a rough idea as to how difficult resolving this problem will be (very hard, or relatively simple). But I could hardly assign an exact number to it. Likewise, new problems might be similar to old problems, but I cannot say whether the new problems have exactly the same level of difficulty as the old problems.

Likewise, with respect to locks in a fantasy world, why on earth should it be the case that one 'tough' lock will have a DC of 25, but a different lock in a different part of the world should not have a DC of 30 -- and that the character cannot tell the difference between the two locks until he/she tries to pick it?

...
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" ....

This is not necessarily true.

Games can achieve varying degrees of:

(a.) 'Fidelity' (detail provided in order to simulate, or provide information about, the game world in question);
(b.) Consistency (consistent rules/guidelines for relevant situations).

The more 'rules light' a game is, the more it has to 'sacrifice' one of these features (or some combination of both). However, it need not sacrifice (b.).

What attracts many GMs and players to rules light systems, IME, is a desire to stop 'sweating the details' (e.g. adding up endless modifiers, etc.), and 'get on with the game/story'. Hence they are less likely to introduce ad hoc 'fiddly' modifiers in particular situations in order to 'simulate' those situations better (what some people, e.g. Psion, refer to as 'fidelity'). Since the desired level of fidelity has already been achieved by the rules, for the most part, then IME GMs have not been any more arbitrary in their rules light games than they have been in their rules heavy games.

 

[SWBaxter]

The resolution mechanics of C&C are more general in just the way you stated above.

No, they aren't - at least, not any moreso than D&D's mechanics. You handle beating somebody with a sword differently than affecting them with a spell, both of those are different from injuring them in some trap, and all three are different from debating them at court. Different situations, different resolution mechanics, just like D&D. The difference between D&D and C&C is in how detailed the different rules subsystems are, but they share the trait of having different subsystems used to resolve different types of actions. That means that when you're using the rules to adjudicate odd situations, the first step is figuring out which subsystem to use, and situations that don't clearly slot into any of the subsystems (or which don't necessarily mesh well with the normal mechanics of that subsystem) lead to the sort of inconsistency der_kluge noted.

 

[Akrasia]

No, they aren't - at least, not any moreso than D&D's mechanics. You handle beating somebody with a sword differently than affecting them with a spell, both of those are different from injuring them in some trap, and all three are different from debating them at court. Different situations, different resolution mechanics, just like D&D.

Umm ... I acknowledged that combat and magic are handled differently than everything else in C&C. Beyond that, though, everything in the system is handled by the same mechanic, viz. the SIEGE system. So combat and casting spells each have their own 'system', and everything else is handled by the SIEGE system.

... That means that when you're using the rules to adjudicate odd situations, the first step is figuring out which subsystem to use, and situations that don't clearly slot into any of the subsystems (or which don't necessarily mesh well with the normal mechanics of that subsystem) lead to the sort of inconsistency der_kluge noted.

Nope. It is pretty clear when an action isn't a 'combat' or 'spellcasting' action -- and that is covered by the SIEGE system. I think you're looking at C&C through '3e-coloured glasses' here.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

First, I'd like to thank everyone for keeping the discussion so civil. Often these types of discussions turn ugly.

Secondly, one thing I've noticed when playing games where the GM has to make up something on the fly is the following:

The GM will have you roll a d20. One of three things will happen:
a) The player rolls really low. The GM will automatically say "Oh, you weren't successfull"
b) The player rolls really high. The GM will automatically say "You pull it off!"
or
c) The player rolls a 11, and sends the GM into a paradox of confusion and uncertainty where he then attempts to question heisenberg's uncertainty principle, any applicable modifiers, the quantum state of the universe at that moment, and whether his underwear has wedged itself into his butt crack or not.

Point is, rules ambiguity only really works when the choice is black and white. When you throw in that "maybe", that's when clarification is really necessary. Now, I'm not advocating that *every* action in the world have a rule behind it - that would be ridiculous, but I think you can go too far to the other extreme as well.

Yeah. This is a problem. I try to deal with it by comparing the difficulty of the task they're doing to other things I know the DC for. If it's something I can expect an untrained person to succed at half the time it's a DC 10. From there it's just a little bit of mental balancing to find out a good DC. Is it harder than mastercrafting an item?

I like to come up with the DC before I ask for a roll. Usually I'll set 3 DC's, one for partial success, one for regular success, and one for overwhelming success.

There's also campaign style to consider. After all, a game where everyone's all ninjaed out (even the wizards) will probablly have suspiciously low balance, tumble and jump DCs.

 

[SWBaxter]

Umm ... I acknowledged that combat and magic are handled differently than everything else in C&C.

Not in the post I responded to, no. What happened was I said:

Rules-light games, with unified resolution mechanics, are much more likely to give a GM a reasonably clean way to adjudicate weird situations, because the basic mechanics are exactly the same.

Then you said:

The resolution mechanics of C&C are more general in just the way you stated above.

Clearly, they are not exactly the same - in your opinion as well as mine - and hence they are not more general in just the way I stated above.

I think you're looking at C&C through '3e-coloured glasses' here.

No, I'm looking at C&C as written, and not making conflicting claims about it for whatever reason. Since you agree that it does not in fact have a unified resolution mechanic, I'm having trouble seeing what your objection is, or your reason for making snide remarks about the way I view a particular ruleset.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The thing is -- in most cases these maneuvers are not viable or sensible actions! Only in unusual situations would it make sense to grapple someone in melee combat (or try to trip them, etc). The need to make completely imprudent actions viable is something I don't understand -- and one of the reasons why 3e sometimes resembles a superhero game (at least at mid-to-high levels) more than a medieval fantasy game (IME and IMO, of course).

Tripping is always a viable tactic, especially for polearm fighters. Disarming... eh, not so hot or so common.

But grappling? The absolute easiest way for two guys in plate armor to kill each other is to grapple and use daggers to pick at very vulnerable spots, or, for that matter, for the stronger of the two to go straight to applying (grappling) pressure and breaking bones!

Medieval knights trained extensively in grappling because it was very important to their ability to take each other down if dismounted.