Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 5821302" data-attributes="member: 63">Cool. So fewer rules are, in general, better for you, because you'd rather adjudicate the results of a character's actions with a simple game system, than have to be beholden to complicated rules of a complex game system. Is that what you're saying?In that case, I think a fairly simple system, with optional add-ons, would please us both. I mean, you're not just winging everything. Some rules help everyone grasp what's going on, and make it easier to tell a shared story. And for the type of stories you mentioned above, I think the following makes real smart sense.You have hit points. When you take damage, you lose hit points. When you're out of hit points, you're out of the fight. If someone deals more damage to you, you die. You can regain hit points, too.Easy. That allows various narrative conceits to work. HP they a little of everything: wounds, luck, grit, plot immunity. It works easily for a game, but for some people it's too abstract, because they want the rule mechanics to let them consistently parse game events into either narrative events or simulational events. As Mark Rosewater, lead designer of Magic: the Gathering, says, restrictions inspire creativity. If there are specific mechanics for wounds or for, say, special types of armor that are good against special types of weapons, some gamers will latch onto those and be inspired. In a simpler system, a player might be content to just swing his sword against every monster and add whatever flavor to his description that he thinks up. But in a middle-complexity system a player might like the reward of being more successful if he uses the rules well. He might try out something even more creative, because seeing lots of options encourages him to try them out. In 2e, one of my players made a fighter who hit things with his sword. In 3e, the same player saw the list of a lot of combat options, and he made a fighter who liked to grapple people and bite their ankles off. And there were actual mechanics so he could know what to expect -- the person would be immobilized, have X% chance of escaping, and, after his ankles were gnawed, he'd be prone, which would grant other benefits. He liked having the rules inspire him to try things.Anyway, I'm rambling. It's late. I like rules with more granularity, because . . . well, I just do. It's the design philosophy I enjoy. But I recognize the value of a simple core system. So yeah: You have hit points. When you take damage, you lose hit points. When you're out of hit points, you're out of the fight. If someone deals more damage to you, you die. You can regain hit points, too.</blockquote>

Verification