Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Quasqueton]

Maybe you would have never charged . . . we weren't limited by what the game spelled out.

So, your DM allowed you to charge back when there was no rule for it, but you say that a DM didn't allow you to do it now that there is a rule for it.

"We used to get to school just fine back when we had no car. But now I can't get to school at all because Dad misplaced the keys to the car."

You're using double standards.

Quasqueton

 

[Gentlegamer]

Firstly, there was a rule for charging in AD&D, both original and Zeb edition. Secondly,my point was general, concerning "allowed" actions.

 

[Quasqueton]

There certainly was one in 1e.

Yes, there were rules for charging in AD&D. In first and second edition.

What was the rule, please (AD&D1)? All I remember is there being a penalty (possibility of the enemy having set weapons against a charge) for "charging". I don't remember any benefit to the charger.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Secondly,my point was general, concerning "allowed" actions.

Yes, your point was that if the rule didn't exist, the DM still allowed the action. If the rule did exist, a DM could misunderstand the rule and disallow the action. You're comparing a good DM without a rule and a bad DM with a rule.

Quasqueton

 

[buzz]

I don't. Not picking on any one person, as I've got no idea who's said this, but a common complaint (or perhaps insult) from rules lite folks is that rules heavy systems cater to gamers with little imagination who can't think of things to do with their character unless it's spelled out for them. And then ironically, those same folks seem to stymied that they can't figure out how to do something that's not specifically called out in the rules of a game like d20. Who is it that lacks imagination again?

You know, I actually find HERO to be ridiculously liberating when it comes to inventive combats, and HERO is arguably even more complex (in some ways) than your average d20 game. I love that my PC can try anything, and be supported rules-wise as they do it. It's awesome.

OTOH, I felt quite a bit at sea when I ran Buffy. I mean, even initiative in Buffy is left to GM fiat. I knid of felt that I was just telling the players what they could do, as opposed to adjudicating what the players did. Not that I don't really like Buffy, but I think that next time I'd opt to use more rules options.

Mearls touched on this in a blog posting about why he loves battlemats. Basically, having exact locations lain out empowers the players. Wihtout minis, combats become "mother may I". Player: "Am I close enough to hit him?" GM: "Yeah, sure. Go ahead." The player has no power.

Granted, as I mentioned in a post above, this can be minitaged if tactical placement is irrelevant to the resolution system. E.g., Player: "Am I able to attack him?" GM: "What traits do you have?" Player: " I have 'My Name Is Inigo Montoya, You Killed My Father, Prepare To Die' at Rank 17." GM: "That's two higher than his 'Spineless Coward' trait, so you can make your attack."

Yes, I'm looking at HeroQuest here.

 

[mcrow]

Ahem.

I as a GM prefer rules heavy. Because I feel many creative heads are better than one and I appreciate the benefit of forthought, and I feel as if the players deserve to have a small handle on the rules of reality, and because I am a setting-driven GM vice story driven.

I feel the same way about RH & RL. I have played both and have liked both but prefer RH as a player for the crunchy bits. As a GM RH & RL are a toss up though. On one hand RL has less stats/stat blocks to worry about so therefore less time spent on that aspect. RL also forces you to be a more of a on the fly GM, so if you don't like GMing on the fly this sytem will suck for you. RH OTOH requires much more stating which equals more prep time but the players have a better idea of what is or isn't going to work. Knowing more the players can then contribute more to the game and won't be affraid to ask if they can do something.

I guess it all depends on taste for the players & GMs. Just so certain people don't go saying one system is better because it sells more. That's like saying Walmart is the best store to shop @ because they have higher gross sales than any other retailer. Walmart might vary well be the best store to shop @ if your primarily worried about price on the next set of tools you buy but if you are more worried about quality you would go to Sears.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

What was the rule, please (AD&D1)? All I remember is there being a penalty (possibility of the enemy having set weapons against a charge) for "charging". I don't remember any benefit to the charger.

Quasqueton

Well then clearly there were mechanics, ones you do not recall completely.

+2 to hit. Move quicker then when you aren't charging. (incomplete but that is right off the top of my head)

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yes, your point was that if the rule didn't exist, the DM still allowed the action. If the rule did exist, a DM could misunderstand the rule and disallow the action. You're comparing a good DM without a rule and a bad DM with a rule.

Quasqueton

My friend was not a bad DM! I'm merely giving an anecdote how exposure to a RH system contracted his conceptions of certain things. I said RH have a tendancy to do this, not that they invariable do so.

 

[rogueattorney]

Well then clearly there were mechanics, ones you do not recall completely.

+2 to hit. Move quicker then when you aren't charging. (incomplete but that is right off the top of my head)

Yup. Faster speed, +2 to hit, lost any Dex bonus, init determined by longer weapon. Certain weapons doubled damage roll when charging (lance) or set (spear).

R.A.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Granted, as I mentioned in a post above, this can be minitaged if tactical placement is irrelevant to the resolution system. E.g., Player: "Am I able to attack him?" GM: "What traits do you have?" Player: " I have 'My Name Is Inigo Montoya, You Killed My Father, Prepare To Die' at Rank 17." GM: "That's two higher than his 'Spineless Coward' trait, so you can make your attack."

I"m rather fond of "Kill Every Mutha in the Room" . . .