Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Ourph]

Because he lacks the benefit of forethought. And referencing.

He could do it. The results would just either or both take more time (how far can you jump? I dunno... hold up while I look up some experiments on human factors on the internet...)

The point of simulationist rules heavy games is to compile this stuff for you so you don't have to do it yourself before or during the game.

I completely understand your point here, but is the extra detail a rules-heavy system provides an actual benefit or is it just a facade that makes everyone feel more comfortable while really changing almost nothing?

The discussion so far has centered around comparing D&D and C&C and how a "Jump check" would be resolved.

In C&C, the CK picks a target number and has the PC make an ability check. Almost no guidance is provided for what the target number should be (outside the base target numbers of 12 and 18). The modifiers are left to the discretion of the DM.

In D&D, the DM has several modifiers that can be applied to the Jump skill check, the result of which determines how far the PC actually jumps. The game provides heavy guidance on what modifiers to apply based on the situation. However, since the DM creates and explains the environment, he is in control of the situation and what modifiers apply. The DM is also allowed (even encouraged) by the rules to apply any additional situational modifiers he feels are appropriate. The +2/-2 rule is given as a guideline, but the DMG makes it clear that the DM should deviate from this suggested standard if necessary.

How are these two systems significantly different in the level of DM judgement required to resolve the situation? I suggest all of the extra rules and numbers are simply a screen that gives players the illusion that the DM is constrained in setting the difficulty. There's no real benefit in terms of how likely a player is to know his chances of success.

I have no proof and this is merely my opinion, but I suspect if you took the same DM and had him run a game with both rulesets and the same exact situation came up, the Target Number for the C&C game would not deviate significantly from the modified DC required to succeed in the D&D game. In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished. In D&D, the DM does so one level removed from the difficulty (by manipulating the environment in which the modifiers are applied) and in C&C the CK does so by directly modifying the difficulty, but the end result as far as the player is concerned is the same.

 

[diaglo]

No, they were to see how big the dungeon was. 10' wide hallways and all.

You can argue about "combat movment" rules in 1e all you want, but nowhere did the rules even point out about moving in combat. I seriously doubt that myself and those dozens of people I played 1e with simply ignored any tactical movement rules. Nor would I have begun to design some if they were there.

But I no longer have my PHB or DM guide. If you do, and want to post the relevant quotes, have at it.

i have several copies.

 

[fredramsey]

i have several copies.

And?

 

[diaglo]

And?

do you want me to send you one of each?

 

[fredramsey]

You've used this argument before, and it still pegs the meter.

There was a rule about withdrawing from combat. That's it.

they had attacks of opportunity in earlier editions.

 

[fredramsey]

do you want me to send you one of each?

No, I want you to use them to prove there was tactical movement rules.

If you succeed, I will buy used copies and sing your praises.

My wallet is pretty safe.

 

[diaglo]

You've used this argument before, and it still pegs the meter.

There was a rule about withdrawing from combat. That's it.

not exactly.

missile fire/ ranged weapons were handled differently.

so too were reach weapons.

Chainmail was a part of OD&D. not optional

 

[Psion]

I draw a distinction between rules (which tell you how to do something) and options (which provide you with the 'something' you're doing).

Since most if not all HERO powers operate under a relatively light set of rules, it's a rules-medium game at most - it just has a ton of options within the framework of its rules.

Um, well, okay, but I personally find that most people use rules heavy to refer to either. In fact, I find that options are a more commonly invoked usage of the term. I mean a thin book can have a difficult to use ruleset, but I woldn't call that rules heavy. I'd call it something else (detailed or clunky, depending on what the issue is...)

 

[fredramsey]

And, if you will bother reading the post, I was speaking of First Edition AD&D, not OD&D.

If you are going to dispute someone's point, it behooves you to actually know the point in the first place.

Chainmail was a part of OD&D. not optional

 

[diaglo]

And, if you will bother reading the post, I was speaking of First Edition AD&D, not OD&D.

If you are going to dispute someone's point, it behooves you to actually know the point in the first place.

i thought i said earlier editions in my first post of this argument.

otherwise how would setting a spear vs charge work? even in 1edADnD