I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Janx]

Honestly, I vastly prefer homogeneous action resolution mechanics. To me, it makes for a much cleaner game and smoother play. And, that's not where you're ever going to find support for character individuality. Action resolution diversity gets you various mini-games from which the player can choose to use at the gaming table.

I think what you're saying is this:

Bob the fighter uses a short sword and specialized in it (applicable even in 2e, possibly 1e)

Rob the fighter uses a quarterstaff and specialized in it.

Bob is clearly better at using short swords that Rob, though both weapons do the same base damage of 1d6 (true in just about every ruleset of D&D that I know of).

They are differentiated by having a rule that lets the PC pick something to be better at.

The rule mechanics and resolution are the same for both PCs.

If both PCs got lost their weapons, they could fashion quarterstaves, and Rob would have an advantage that fit his character and the situation. This adds some flavor and pseudo-realism.

In too simple of a ruleset (no specialization, armor vs. weapon rules, feats or other choices), then both fighters are functionally equivalent and interchangeable.

 

[Hussar]

I think what you're saying is this:

Bob the fighter uses a short sword and specialized in it (applicable even in 2e, possibly 1e)

Rob the fighter uses a quarterstaff and specialized in it.

Bob is clearly better at using short swords that Rob, though both weapons do the same base damage of 1d6 (true in just about every ruleset of D&D that I know of).

They are differentiated by having a rule that lets the PC pick something to be better at.

The rule mechanics and resolution are the same for both PCs.

If both PCs got lost their weapons, they could fashion quarterstaves, and Rob would have an advantage that fit his character and the situation. This adds some flavor and pseudo-realism.

In too simple of a ruleset (no specialization, armor vs. weapon rules, feats or other choices), then both fighters are functionally equivalent and interchangeable.

And that's where I disagree with Tyrlaan. To me, there is no particualr mechanical difference between the two fighters he labeled. When they face an opponent, the only difference between them is one rolls +X while the other rolls +Y.

To me, that's not a difference at all. Not in the feel of the character anyway.

The difference between the two characters comes out in how they are played at the table. Or, to put it another way, if the only difference between two characters is a +X during combatr, there is very little differentiating those two characters.

Look at it another way. In Basic/Expert D&D, there is no difference particuarly between a halfling, dwarf and a fighter. Slight hit point difference is about it. All weapons do a d6 damage.

Saying that all characters are exactly the same in play assumes that all differentiation is expressed solely through combat.

 

[tyrlaan]

Janx, spot on! Precisely what I'm trying to say.

Hussar, I feel like you're honing in on details and not looking broadly. Let me explain. Yes, if all the differences between fighter 1 and fighter 2 are things like weapon focus etc, the difference isn't that great. It is a difference mind you, and mayhaps to you that doesn't support individuality, but I can see how it can to others.

However, what if fighter 1 has: Cleave, Great Cleave, and Whirlwind Attack while fighter 2 has: Weapon Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Combat Reflexes? That's not just a difference of +X vs +Y. Fighter 1 and Fighter 2 have significant and different tactical options in combat based on the diverse mechanics they have selected through character building and advancement. That's character individuality.

And I'm not saying individuality can only be found in combat. Far from it. However, D&D has always provided robust combat mechanics and therefore those mechanics provide the best and easiest fodder for examples. However, it's easy enough to argue mechanical diversity in non-combat D&D can be found simply through skill selection. If Fighter 1 is trained in Athletics and Fighter 2 is trained in Endurance, both have different options and capabilities, and hence character individuality.

I'm also not saying all characters must be the same in play if you don't have this mechanical diversity. Rather I'm saying that such mechanical diversity either (a) facilitates character individuality, (b) supports character individuality, or at least (c) enhances character individuality. There are various reasons a player and/or game might need (a), (b), or (c), but I waxed philosophic on that earlier in the thread and my posts tend to be too long as it is ;-)

 

[Garmorn]

\ sniped

The difference between the two characters comes out in how they are played at the table. Or, to put it another way, if the only difference between two characters is a +X during combatr, there is very little differentiating those two characters.

Look at it another way. In Basic/Expert D&D, there is no difference particuarly between a halfling, dwarf and a fighter. Slight hit point difference is about it. All weapons do a d6 damage.

Saying that all characters are exactly the same in play assumes that all differentiation is expressed solely through combat.

Differences that accrue out side of the rules, i.e. role playing is not dependent on simple rules. It is dependent on the skill of the players and the DM along with their gaming style. Simple systems depend on the skill of the DM to make and run a consitant game and create and use house rules. More complete (not necceary complex) take stress off of the DM, make it easier for players who have multiple DM's, and reduce the need for the DM's to create house rules.

In my exprence house rules are not campaign related tend to hurt most game because most DM's are not skilled or talented enough to create working balanced rules.

 

[Hussar]

I mostly agree with that except for this line:

Simple systems depend on the skill of the DM to make and run a consitant game and create and use house rules.

I'm using an extremely simple system currently. The actual mechanics cover about a page and a half. Yet, because the rules are very robust and easily applied to most situations, I disagree that simple systems depend on house rules.

Simple does not necessarily mean less comprehensive.

 

[Garmorn]

I mostly agree with that except for this line:



I'm using an extremely simple system currently. The actual mechanics cover about a page and a half. Yet, because the rules are very robust and easily applied to most situations, I disagree that simple systems depend on house rules.

Simple does not necessarily mean less comprehensive.

Here I will have to say I need a better world then simple. How do you decribe a game that the rules cover most things but are not long or complex ver. rules that are simple and incomple. Fantasy Trip had very simple rules but where complete ODD where simple but not complete. I would rather play Fantasy Trip then ODD or either 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D.