"I hate math"

[RFisher]

At any rate, you can have a simple, flexible system that's not-at-all narrativist. The kriegspiel (wargame) of the Prussian military fits that description perfectly -- at least once they moved away from rules and towards expert judgments:

Heh. That's a lot like the draft of a minimalist RPG I have, which I called IVDICIA (judgements). It's basically: The judge determines the percentage change of success based on the character stats, the situation, common sense, & his best judgement. Then the player rolls d%.

I wrote it when I realized that OAD&D had an unwritten metarule: Figure out the odds & then pick an equivalent die roll. (Notice how Gygax's writing often focuses more on the odds than the die roll. He writes "1 in 6" rather than "1 or 1d6".) Everything in the book is just an example of implementing that metarule.

About the same time I noticed that classic Traveller had had a metarule. We extracted it from the rules as something like: Roll 2d6+skill level; referee determines outcome based on the total. Looking back at the LBBs, I suspect Miller always used a rule closer to T4's: Figure out the probability. Choose a number of d6 to roll consistent with that probability. Roll that many d6+skill level. Referee determines the outcome based on the total.

As I recall, the kriegspiel was an influence on the braunstiens which influenced blackmoor & thus, D&D.

 

[woodelf]

Perhaps I was not clear about the context. I was referring to the notion of the stat block containing multiple sections for the possible combinations of conditions and spells in operation. I was also referring to this in a published adventure module.

My comment has nothing to do with rules supplements, or the fluff/crunch ratio therein.

A published adventure has a limited amount of space. The more space used to show different versions of the same creature means less space available to present encounters or plot in the adventure. That is why I am saying that stat-blocks in modules (adventures) probably deliberately do not include multiple variations of the villain. That is the DM's job, really; to adjudicate them.

Additionally, the original comment was about how the stat blocks in high-level modules stopped listing variations. I think this is also, in part, because lower-level modules are geared (somewhat) toward new DMs who need more hand-holding while getting used to the system. At higher levels, this would be less necessary.

No, i understood the context you're addressing. I'm not convinced that adventures are any different than any other kind of supplement, in these areas: all supplements have a page-count limit, but it's not an absolute one--you can always up the pagecount and charge more. I just see adventures as a subset of RPG products in general, and expect them to be treated roughly the same way by consumers. That is, i'd be surprised to see the consumers of a specific game line prefer all-crunch supplements, and then want narrative [writing style, not Narrative game style] adventures with minimal crunch attached. Thus, in broad strokes, i'd expect that those playing D&D3E, a relatively crunchy system, are probably very much interested in things like alternate statblocks for buffed NPCs, probably even to the point of sacrificing flavor text if the pagecount can't go up.

As for the correlation to level of adventure: i haven't bought any, so i can't comment--is there one? Or is it rather a correlation to publisher, with the only publishers who've included those sorts of multiple statblocks having published only, or primarily, lower-level scenarios?

 

[redhawk]

It's not brain surgery. It's not rocket science. But it is a pretty good approximation of tax accounting.

I've done that too (bachelor's degree in Management). Lots of rules, but the math itself is bog-simple.

Much like D&D, come to think of it. Hrm - WOTC = FASB? Naaaaah, I doubt it.

But the stacking rules make things a lot easier, and if you treat things like triggers (I minored in IS. it resolves things like the rogue example quite nicely.

Redhawk

 

[woodelf]

Back to the main point though - I can't think how to effectively simplify 3e as it stands, because the "issue" is built into the fundamental mechanics of the system. Perhaps moving to an entirely simpler combat system like SNAP d20 would do it, but there we have the issue once more... a fundamental change to the way that combat works (which is pretty much central to most games of D&D I imagine!).

What is this SNAP D20 of which you speak? A quick Google doesn't turn up anything related to RPGs.

 

[Saeviomagy]

OtE doesn't, by design, really reflect tactical play in the usual sense. It's more about strategic play.

I think my real point, in the context of this thread, is that if you are working with a heavily gamist system, and want great flexibility, you'll need great complexity. But let me borrow a bit from the description of Kriegspiels:



IOW, you don't need a heavily gamist system to support tactical play. After all, my roommate engages in some seriously-tactical exercises without any "rules" whatsoever as part of her military training. All you need to do is adopt a simulationist model, and you no longer need all those rules.

Unfortunately, you're trying to run a game which can basically be attempting to simulate ANYTHING. Anything at all. Which means that the GM (who, in the game of kriegspiel must be a totally unbiased expert in military tactics whos judgement is totally accepted by all the players) needs to be a respected expert in EVERYTHING. Otherwise the game breaks down into arguements about... everything he's not an expert in. Beyond that, few GM's are capable of that sort of totally unbiased judgement, especially in the face of an argumentative player. The D&D game system is an attempt to set out rules which, while not accurately simulating everything, do provide a common ground to work with. Throwing them out in favour of a wholly judgement-based system is, IMHO a bad idea.

Furthermore, any game which is wholly relying on the whims of the GM (which, lets face it, this model is) is not a simulationist's game. It's a narrative game. It may be a really realistic story, but it's still a story before a game or a simulation.

Which, btw, gets me back to Four Colors al Fresco. I've actually been wrestling lately with the question of whether it's really a simulationist or narrativist model. I used to call it "pure" narrativism. But now i'm thinking it's more accurately described as either a hybrid, or even more on the simulationist side. One piece of evidence: it most definitely *does* support tactical play, and quite well--certainly as well as my experiences with D&D3E. It just does it in a completely different manner, mechanically.

How does it support tactical play? Tactics tend to be based on a firm understanding of the situation, which is why they're totally ruined by bad intelligence.

If that bad intelligence is part of the game (ie - your character doesn't understand fact X), that's fine - it's still tactical play.

If the bad intelligence is rooted in the system (ie - noone knows what the rules actually are, or the rules change often), then tactical play becomes impossible.

Or, put another way, if that's what you want, it'd be a lot less effort to switch game systems than to 'fix' D&D3E to do it.

Yeah, but I don't think any of the systems you've brought up would have the 'feel' of D&D in the slightest.

Those are all pretty good, and i think go a long way towards simplifying the game. But haven't you eliminated options with every one of them? How are those eliminating complexity without eliminating flexibility?

The power attack one just eliminates the bonuses for power attack on AoO's. You could also allow power attack on an attack by attack basis, so you NEVER need to remember the power attack number. That increases options and reduces complexity in the same way.

The expertise one doesn't remove any options.

The dodge bonus one doesn't remove any options - it just makes the dodge feat more powerful.

Modifications to AC simply mean that incorporeal touch-attacking creatures are the same as any other touch-attacking creature. Which doesn't really limit options. If you want defense against them, you can get it. The only difference is that it's an active defense, not a passive one.

Time alterations on spells don't actually make a difference. In practise, 1 rd/level spells last for a single combat, and expire if there's a break. 1 minute/level spells last until there's a pause in the action, like taking 20, or resting. 1 hour/level spells last all day. This is because, in practise, the DM governs how much time things take. If you step through an entire adventure in 6-second increments, you'll usually find that the whole thing gets done in almost no time at all. Typically a DM will declare, as fiat that a particular spell, or group of spells has expired as characters fart about. It makes no real difference to how the game goes, unless you're in a habit of playing high-level characters who routinely break of combat and return to it because they know their spells will last.

I only kept the last one because i have specific comments: i really like it in some ways, and hate it in others. I've been wrestling with a way to have D20 System cleanly scale with power level, so that anybody sufficiently less powerful than the PC just becomes a mook (i.e., one-shot kill), without having to designate them specifically ahead of time, and without ditching hitpoints. I've so far resisted using the damage save, but it accomplishes pretty much the same thing--i just think that hitpoints are integral to the feel of "D&D", so i want to retain them. I think it represents exactly the sort of "paradigm shift" in the mechanics that i was saying would be necessary to really make a difference in complexity without killing flexibility, unlike the rest of your suggestions, which are definitely just "cleaning up" the existing mechanics. It's also the one of your suggestions that i think would have the biggest positive impact (at the "cost" of a fundamental shift in how the game plays).

Actually - I don't think it does. Typically the players NEVER get told how many hitpoints a monster has. Typically the DM doesn't get much of an emotional attachement to an individual monster. Hence swapping out hps for a damage save IN THE CASE OF LOW IMPACT MONSTERS will have no effect on flavour at all, but will have an immense impact in terms of speeding up gameplay.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

This damage save sounds like a really nice idea for great big groups of mooks. How does it work?

 

[Plane Sailing]

What is this SNAP D20 of which you speak? A quick Google doesn't turn up anything related to RPGs.

Simple Narrative Action Plug-in for d20 combat, 4 page rules by Reimer Behrends. I uploaded a copy in this thread here

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=89243 (post number 10)

Cheers

 

[mmadsen]

Unfortunately, you're trying to run a game which can basically be attempting to simulate ANYTHING. Anything at all. Which means that the GM (who, in the game of kriegspiel must be a totally unbiased expert in military tactics whos judgement is totally accepted by all the players) needs to be a respected expert in EVERYTHING. Otherwise the game breaks down into arguements about... everything he's not an expert in.

How is that different from D&D? D&D presents fairly clear-cut rules for combat and magic. For just about anything else, the DM sets a Difficulty Class and asks you to roll.

In a kriegspiel, there are fairly clear-cut rules (or guidelines) for easily quantified elements of war, e.g., how far troops can march in a day. For anything else, the umpire (DM) makes a decision on the outcome or sets the odds and rolls a die.

Furthermore, any game which is wholly relying on the whims of the GM (which, lets face it, this model is) is not a simulationist's game. It's a narrative game. It may be a really realistic story, but it's still a story before a game or a simulation.

If the DM's goal is to accurately assess what would happen, it's a simulation -- maybe a flawed simulation, but a simulation. If the DM's goal is come up with something entertaining, with reversals, clever plot twists, etc., then it's a narrative game -- maybe realistic, maybe not.

 

[mmadsen]

The power attack one just eliminates the bonuses for power attack on AoO's. You could also allow power attack on an attack by attack basis, so you NEVER need to remember the power attack number. That increases options and reduces complexity in the same way.

Agreed. Anytime you have one less thing to track, you've streamlined the game a bit.

The dodge bonus one [transforming dodge into +1 AC] doesn't remove any options - it just makes the dodge feat more powerful.

Again, one less thing to track -- and, really, is it worth tracking a +1 bonus anyway? (We all feel compelled to track it, but is it worth it?)

 

[RFisher]

If the DM's goal is to accurately assess what would happen, it's a simulation -- maybe a flawed simulation, but a simulation.

And, arguably, no more flawed that a heavily simplified numerical simulation that's playable enough to be included in a pen-&-paper RGP.

Which means that the GM [...] needs to be a respected expert in EVERYTHING. Otherwise the game breaks down into arguements about... everything he's not an expert in.

No. The players just have to cut him some slack. Besides, the GM can always leverage the knowledge of his players in making decisions.

Come to think of it, even back in my worst rules lawyery, argumentative youth, when we played a free form game I uncharacteristically didn't argue with the GM.

Beyond that, few GM's are capable of that sort of totally unbiased judgement, especially in the face of an argumentative player.

Well, that's not been my experience. Every GM I've played with has been unbiased enough. Heck, argumentative players can see bias even where there isn't any.