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

[Remathilis]

Pardon me for skimming this thread.

I have to agree on one thing: a rules-lite system becomes bloated quickly the more you have to adjuncate on the fly.

A good DM either makes the ruling sensical or has players willing to overlook his tweaks based on situation.

Otherwise, you are adding either house rules (skill systems, martial arts systems) or you are denying concepts (dex-based fighters).

CoC and other Rules-Lite (including my beloved Basic D&D) only really work well when you stick to archtype. If you don't mind your fighters as brutes, mages as weaklings, rogues who pick pockets and rangers who duel-wield, you're fine. But woe to those who stray off the path.

3.5 is guilty of this sin as well, but has at least made steps to lessen the blow for going out-of-archtype (weapon finesse, eldrich knights, varied skill selection, archery combat mastery).

 

[Jupp]

Pardon me for skimming this thread.

I have to agree on one thing: a rules-lite system becomes bloated quickly the more you have to adjuncate on the fly.

A good DM either makes the ruling sensical or has players willing to overlook his tweaks based on situation.

Otherwise, you are adding either house rules (skill systems, martial arts systems) or you are denying concepts (dex-based fighters).

CoC and other Rules-Lite (including my beloved Basic D&D) only really work well when you stick to archtype. If you don't mind your fighters as brutes, mages as weaklings, rogues who pick pockets and rangers who duel-wield, you're fine. But woe to those who stray off the path.

3.5 is guilty of this sin as well, but has at least made steps to lessen the blow for going out-of-archtype (weapon finesse, eldrich knights, varied skill selection, archery combat mastery).

Yup, A rules lite system does not mean the absence of rules but the simplification thereof. It is always the job of the DM to introduce house-rules only where absolutely needed. If he does not do this it does not matter what system he plays, you will get a book full of house rules shortly after the game has started. Just because 3e does have lots of rules I do not think it is protected against house rules. In fact it is my belief that with a system that has lots of rules the DM might go the way to simplify some of them, thus creating house rules as well. I do not know if that is any better than adding rules to a rules-light system

If a DM is constantly adding rules to the existing system he really should not play such a system but instead should switch over to something that suits his gameplay style. In that case the problem is not the game system, it's the DM that has decided to run with the "wrong" system.

 

[RFisher]

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.

Actually, one of the things that turned me back towards lighter games was indeed my quest for better simulation. I started to realize that more rules & detail often didn't result in a better simulation.

As one example, in a real fight, there are fients & secondary attack modes (e.g. shield bash or using the butt end of a weapon instead of the business end). As with any rule, you have to find a compromise between simulation & playability. So, the simulation of these details yields to playability concerns. Plus, the player now has to know when to use these techniques. Often, the player doesn't know that as well as his PC should, making an even worse simulation. (Or the other way around: The player knows--by this specific set of rules--when to use certain techniques better than his PC should.)

By raising the level of abstraction, you end up with a better, if less detailed, simulation.

I have to agree on one thing: a rules-lite system becomes bloated quickly the more you have to adjuncate on the fly.

IME, lighter games don't get bloated with house-rules to reproduce the complexity of a heavier game. There'd be little point if that were the case. Instead, people playing lighter games are aiming for a higher level of abstraction. The extra detail, if desired, comes from imagination, interpretation, & description rather than from rules.

Otherwise, you are adding either house rules (skill systems, martial arts systems) or you are denying concepts (dex-based fighters).

CoC and other Rules-Lite (including my beloved Basic D&D) only really work well when you stick to archtype. If you don't mind your fighters as brutes, mages as weaklings, rogues who pick pockets and rangers who duel-wield, you're fine. But woe to those who stray off the path.

To me this is a different issue that rules-light v. rules-heavy. Risus is lighter than classic D&D or C&C, but it denies almost nothing!

I do think that, in some ways, classic D&D is a better game for denying some character concepts. But that's a separate issue from it being rules-light.

Re: different mechanics for different things: I think this can be a good thing, even though it tends towards rules-heavy rather than rules-light. (Though, oddly enough, many rules-heavy systems have a unified mechanic.)

Classic D&D used different mechanics for "to hit" & damage because that way they were simple to design, are simple to understand, simple to use in play, & give the results the designer wanted. Classic D&D used d% for thief skills rather than the d20 used for "to hit" & saving throws because the designer thought it was important to be able to graduate the abilities in increments less than 5%. Each side rolling 1d6 for initiative was choosen because it was the simplest way to get ties 1/6th of the time with an equal chance of either side winning the rest of the time.

When it comes right down to it, classic D&D (at least my favorite edition: c. 1981) has only a handful of mechanics that are all very, very simple. Not hard to get a grasp on at all. Most of us around here did it pretty quickly when we were about 10-12 years old. I've worked on unifying several of them before, but in the end, any gain from unification wasn't really worth it, IMHO.

(With a few exceptions, almost everything in classic D&D is roll above or below a target number on 1d (counting d% as 1d). Make it nd & there are even fewer exceptions. While unifying on roll high or roll low might be worthwhile, I don't see that unifying on a particular die type to be. I could probably argue that every dice mechanics in classic D&D is one of three unified mechanics. 3e has at least that many.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I have to agree on one thing: a rules-lite system becomes bloated quickly the more you have to adjuncate on the fly.

A good DM either makes the ruling sensical or has players willing to overlook his tweaks based on situation.

Otherwise, you are adding either house rules (skill systems, martial arts systems) or you are denying concepts (dex-based fighters).

This is why I've always tried to avoid allowing anything not explicitly allowed in the rules. Since each time you allow a character option/combat maneuver/spell that isn't normally allowed in the rules, you are setting an expectation that everyone can have it. It then starts the dreaded "book of house rules" problem.

If the rules don't cover the situation, I normally tell people they can't do it, or give them an option that is already in the rules that is as close to what they want as possible. This may mean restricting the choices of players, but it means keeping the game consistant.

That's likely why I like rules heavy systems. It means more options for the players. It means even if something isn't covered by the rules, there is a rule that is close enough to satisfy the player.

 

[National Acrobat]

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.

I would have to disagree with that. When I run C&C, and someone wants to attempt something, whether it is a class skill or not, I simply set the DC, they roll the D20 and if they make the DC, they succeed.

There isn't anything ambiguous about that. If they attempt something that isn't a class skill, they still make a d20 check.

In C&C a fighter can attempt to pick pockets, A cleric can combat maneuvers on horseback, a Paladin can attempt a Knowledge Check, etc.

It would be untrained, but still possible. Ability score modifiers and level would still be taken into account on the D20 check and again, the DC needs to be hit to succeed.

 

[Akrasia]

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

Yes I did. See:

...
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). ...

As for:

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 ....

My point was that C&C comes close to having a 'unified resolution mechanic' -- much closer than 3e -- since everything except magic and combat is handled by the SIEGE system.

Indeed, since the SIEGE system also covers saving throws, it handles most of the magic system as well.

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.

My objection had to do with this comment:

...
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. ...

I don't think C&C is a 'rules-absent' game. It has all the rules it needs to cover all the situations likely to arise in a session.

I see now that your point was probably that C&C is really a 'rules-medium' game, or not as 'rules-light' as some other systems. If that was your point, I misunderstood it. For that I apologize, as well as any perceived (though unintentional) 'snideness' on my part.

 

[Akrasia]

...
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!
...

And the rules as written in C&C do a reasonably good job in capturing this fact.

 

[Akrasia]

Actually, one of the things that turned me back towards lighter games was indeed my quest for better simulation. I started to realize that more rules & detail often didn't result in a better simulation.
...

By raising the level of abstraction, you end up with a better, if less detailed, simulation.

I actually do not disagree with you on this point, and think it is compatible with my overall point. At the same time, though, I understand (even if I do not agree with) those players who think that greater detail makes the system achieve a greater degree of verisimilitude (for them).

 

[Henry]

This is why I've always tried to avoid allowing anything not explicitly allowed in the rules. Since each time you allow a character option/combat maneuver/spell that isn't normally allowed in the rules, you are setting an expectation that everyone can have it. It then starts the dreaded "book of house rules" problem.

If the rules don't cover the situation, I normally tell people they can't do it, or give them an option that is already in the rules that is as close to what they want as possible. This may mean restricting the choices of players, but it means keeping the game consistant.

I'm not saying that it would work for you this way, but in my case, my path to becoming a better DM in the past 5 years has been going the OPPOSITE way -- that is, if the player has a creative idea for an action, say "yes" more often than "no," and I actually got this from Piratecat -- both observing him, and speaking with people who have played with him. I try to map the rules to a situation first, but if the rules don't exactly apply, I'll try to house-rule it to accomodate and at least give them a chance for doing so.

I find that when I restrict actions due to lack of governing rules, I force players into what they KNOW works, rather than breaking out of the box, and some of the better players I've seen are new players who DON'T know there is a box to be broken out of. In an ENWorld moderator pickup game at Gencon, one player who had never played before that game was the one we unanimously agreed stole the show...

 

[rogueattorney]

In direct response to this thread, I went out and bought three copies of Everway on ebay.

R.A.