Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Abstract versus concrete in games (or, why rules-light systems suck)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2310652" data-attributes="member: 32164"><p>The funny thing is that we had exactly this discussion in our group. For the record, I'm one of Akrasia's players, and very sorry that he's moving to Ireland at the end of the month. I understand the desire for "rules-light" systems where the system doesn't "get in the way." However, there are certain aspects of the rules that are wrapped up in each other. You can't just create a character, call the strength attribute "speed" and have it work the same way. A character with a dex-prime doesn't get to add his "prime" bonus to AC any more than a str-prime character gets to add his "prime" bonus to his attacks. So primes basically come into play in skill checks and saving throws. So you can't make a "fast fighter" with high strength, light armor, and low dex, cuz his AC will suck.</p><p></p><p>The balance that gets struck in an RPG (or any game) is ALWAYS one of "customization" versus "simplicity." Personally, I think 3e has it about right except that maybe it has too many bonus types and a few too many weird "combo" rules. Some people prefer checkers to chess, in a sense, that's what you're talking about here. D&D 3e is more like chess in that it has more tactical options. C&C, in my opinion, drifts toward checkers. The advantage is that it's easier to learn and faster to play. The disadvantage is that the tactical options are much fewer. And basically, that's the crux of the matter. C&C cuts down on player options.</p><p></p><p>Please note that I'm not dissing C&C, as I play both chess and checkers, and enjoy them both. But I certainly perceive the difference. And my preference is chess.</p><p></p><p>Sometime I want to take a poll and check a theory I have. I think most of those who prefer C&C are "wizard players" by preference, and that most of those who don't are not. Spellcasters are the undisputed kings of any game if you take out feats and such. And they retain tactical options (spell lists) that the other classes do not. This makes them more interesting (in other words "fun") to play to everyone but those for whom Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser or similar characters are the archetypes that attracted them to RPGs.</p><p></p><p>For the record, I've never been particularly fond of wizard PCs and my score on that silly test is ENTP (although I'm only slightly E).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 2310652, member: 32164"] The funny thing is that we had exactly this discussion in our group. For the record, I'm one of Akrasia's players, and very sorry that he's moving to Ireland at the end of the month. I understand the desire for "rules-light" systems where the system doesn't "get in the way." However, there are certain aspects of the rules that are wrapped up in each other. You can't just create a character, call the strength attribute "speed" and have it work the same way. A character with a dex-prime doesn't get to add his "prime" bonus to AC any more than a str-prime character gets to add his "prime" bonus to his attacks. So primes basically come into play in skill checks and saving throws. So you can't make a "fast fighter" with high strength, light armor, and low dex, cuz his AC will suck. The balance that gets struck in an RPG (or any game) is ALWAYS one of "customization" versus "simplicity." Personally, I think 3e has it about right except that maybe it has too many bonus types and a few too many weird "combo" rules. Some people prefer checkers to chess, in a sense, that's what you're talking about here. D&D 3e is more like chess in that it has more tactical options. C&C, in my opinion, drifts toward checkers. The advantage is that it's easier to learn and faster to play. The disadvantage is that the tactical options are much fewer. And basically, that's the crux of the matter. C&C cuts down on player options. Please note that I'm not dissing C&C, as I play both chess and checkers, and enjoy them both. But I certainly perceive the difference. And my preference is chess. Sometime I want to take a poll and check a theory I have. I think most of those who prefer C&C are "wizard players" by preference, and that most of those who don't are not. Spellcasters are the undisputed kings of any game if you take out feats and such. And they retain tactical options (spell lists) that the other classes do not. This makes them more interesting (in other words "fun") to play to everyone but those for whom Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser or similar characters are the archetypes that attracted them to RPGs. For the record, I've never been particularly fond of wizard PCs and my score on that silly test is ENTP (although I'm only slightly E). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Abstract versus concrete in games (or, why rules-light systems suck)
Top