Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[fredramsey]

Movement rate for unencumbered human = 12"

Converting for indoor movement = 120 feet

Converting for battlemat scale of 1 square = 5' (and it was, or you could never stand side by side in a 10' square) = 24"

24" = 2 feet of movement per round. Check your battlemat.

Average dungeon room = 30' x 30'

30' x 30' = 6" x 6", real measurement.

Movement rate of an unencumbered human per round = 24 squares/24 real inches.

Thus, you could move from any point in the room, to any other point in the room, at no penalty. And, other than stepping up to the next opponent, what encourages you to move? Fireballs? Indoors, Fireball took up so many cubic squares.

Outdoors, range was in 1" = 10 yards, or 30 feet.

Movement rate for an unencumbered human outdoors? 12"

1" = 10 yards = 30 feet = 60"

My battlemat didn't span 5'

So, again, only for relative positioning.

Does that make it any clearer? No tacticial movement rules, period.

Near as I can tell, these are tactical combat movement rules. Perhaps someone will translate it into English (or another language more widely recognized than that of the old PHB, such as Latin? Or Klingon?)



Although even less clear and precise, Melee Combat on pg. 104 and pg. 105 and Example of Combat on pg. 105 indicate the importance of position (as does the use of a radius spell, silence 15 ft. radius, in the example). They also discuss grappling, and the very quick progression from being grappled to probably being slain outright!

 

[Desdichado]

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

According to that classification scheme, I'm not sure how d20 is "rules heavy" then either. Especially since most of the rules of D&D are optional monsters, spells, magic items, etc.

 

[Ourph]

Becasue a DM in D&D is not allowed, in the RAW, to just set the DC for a 10' jump as high as she wants. There's a contract between the players and the DM that the rules in the book apply. The rules dictate modifiers for the jump based on distance, terrain, etc. The DC produced by those rules will vary by +2/-2 at best unless the DM is outright ignoring them.

That's simply not true. The +2/-2 suggested modifier is just that, a suggestion. In addition, if the DM decides there are seven factors that all add +2 to the DC, then the total modifier is +14. As a player, it would be reckless to assume that there will never be a situation when more than one modifier might apply to a certain check. In addition, the Jump rules specifically allow for a DM call that greatly affects the DC of a jump (doubling the DC for a longjump when no running start is possible). Whether a running start is possible is dependent on any number of factors and is clearly up to the DM.

I mean, I understand what you're getting at, that there's potential in any RPG that the GM can potentially ignore rules willy-nilly.

But I'm not talking about ignoring rules, in any system. My point is that a DM is required to set DCs in D&D just as CKs are required to set TNs in C&C. A D&D player who assumes he knows which modifiers apply in any given situation is just as likely to run into problems as a C&C player who fails to communicate with his CK about the difficulty of a task before attempting it.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Well, as someone who feels this way about HERO, allow me to explain. Bear in mind that I never really "got into" HERO, and so I'm sure my opinion is colored by limited exposure. It's also worth mentioning that my sole exposure to HERO as a ruleset concerned a Champions game, and that supers games are, by definition, going to involve a fair amount of adjudication of "special effects."

I statted up a relatively simple character for a Champions game. This was the early 90s, so the character had a fair amount of influence from the comics of the period. He was a telepath/telekinetic with a military background and a preference for carrying firearms (so basically a Jim Lee/Rob Liefeld mutant). We started a game and the GM put me into a combat with other characters. I started using my "powers" as did the other characters. Half an hour later, the 30 second combat was done.

See, my issue with HERO isn't that it's complicated. It's that it takes a long time to resolve combat. If I can explain by analogy, HERO combats seem to play out in "Bullet Time." It's highly detailed and you can watch Neo dodge all the bullets, but the frenetic action of a scene is lost. Anyway, that's my issue with HERO.

Cool. I understand much better now.

I'd never think to count the actual in-game time (30 seconds, in this case) because I'd be busy smiling that a combat was resolved in just a half hour of play. However, I can see how the HERO method (where everything plays out) could be less satisfying than the D&D method (where 90% of all attacks/parries/dodges/etc. are just imagined) if the actual in-game time mattered.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

That's simply not true. The +2/-2 suggested modifier is just that, a suggestion. In addition, if the DM decides there are seven factors that all add +2 to the DC, then the total modifier is +14. As a player, it would be reckless to assume that there will never be a situation when more than one modifier might apply to a certain check. In addition, the Jump rules specifically allow for a DM call that greatly affects the DC of a jump (doubling the DC for a longjump when no running start is possible). Whether a running start is possible is dependent on any number of factors and is clearly up to the DM.

I don't think I've ever assigned more than, at most, two or three +/-2 modifiers to a skill check. If you, or a DM you know, routinely applies SEVEN, then I can see why rules-light would be the way to go.

Yee!

But I'm not talking about ignoring rules, in any system. My point is that a DM is required to set DCs in D&D just as CKs are required to set TNs in C&C. A D&D player who assumes he knows which modifiers apply in any given situation is just as likely to run into problems as a C&C player who fails to communicate with his CK about the difficulty of a task before attempting it.

If the DM is routinely tossing around total situational modifiers in excess of +/-4, he isn't playing anything approach RAW d20, in my opinion. That's no different than ignoring the rules, for better or worse.

 

[Psion]

But both systems still require communication between two people (DM/CK and player) to establish what the ultimate difficulty is; and both situations still leave the power to determine that difficulty in the hands of a single person acting as "referee".

Okay. I'm not sure what else I can amplify.

In both cases, you're still relying on the person acting as referee to make reasonable decisions.

Sure.

But lets say a given book gives me a -4 modifier for a strong wind. It's always going to give me a -4 modifier for a strong wind, unless I specifically decide to change it. In absence of a reason for thinking that number is wrong, I'll use it.

But now if a system provides me with no modifier for wind, I might not even think about factoring in a modifier for wind, and I might not chose -4. On two different occasions, I might decide that two different numbers are appropriate. And in the exact same situation, another GM would pick a totally different number.

Even if they don't, simple communication between player and DM removes any ambiguity and I maintain that D&D requires that communication just as much any other system,

I'm not saying that it doesn't. But it's not the communication where the difference lies. It's in the interperetation. What does a strong wind mean? How much does it affect my chances? Those things would normally be GM calls if not spelled out in the rules. And without any sort of guideance, there is nothing short of memory and happenstance to ensure that the same situation has the same difficulty in different instances.

Players are still going to have to engage in some form of communication in order to ascertain the difficulty in most situations or risk making a decision without all the relevant facts.

Okay, that doesn't bother me. I'm fine with the players not knowing exactly what the odds are. But I do think it is better if they have some notion. If they have some notion of how many feet a +1 modifier to jump is but don't really know what other modifiers their might be, that gives them a mixture of immersion (because their character might have a good estimation of how far they can jump) and aprehension (because they have never tried *this* before.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

According to that classification scheme, I'm not sure how d20 is "rules heavy" then either. Especially since most of the rules of D&D are optional monsters, spells, magic items, etc.

Because most of the spells, many of the magic items and a handful of the monsters (though I can't think of one offhand) have rules attached to the options.

By rules, I mean exceptions to the core mechanic. Elements that aren't resolved by rolling 1d20 and adding modifiers opposed to either another d20 roll or a target number, or dealing xdy+z damage - the two core mechanics of d20.

Fireball's burning save is one example.

Almost every spell over 5th level is another. :\

d20 D&D has less, but still more than HERO, and certainly a greater percentage.

 

[Mallus]

Becasue a DM in D&D is not allowed, in the RAW, to just set the DC for a 10' jump as high as she wants. There's a contract between the players and the DM that the rules in the book apply. The rules dictate modifiers for the jump based on distance, terrain, etc. The DC produced by those rules will vary by +2/-2 at best unless the DM is outright ignoring them.

First off, I'd like to chime in and say the only implied contract between me and my players states that we'll all try to entertain each other. There's no langauge concerning the slightly arbitrary assignment of Jump DC's

Now, specifically to your point about Jump. What if I as DM decide to employ bigger circumstance penalties than +/-2? (I always thought that limit was way too low). Perhaps its raining heavily, or someone turned the gravity up .3g's, or something else weird, wacky and wonderful that can occur in a fantasy RPG, and I decide that a circumstance penalty of -4 is in order, seeing as the rules didn't specifically model the given situation. Am I still ignoring the rules? And if so, what harm has it done?

The basic assumption is that the rules will be used, and by the rules, the D&D version of the check will not vary, and thus the player can accurately assess how his PC's capabilties function within the game world.

What if the basic assumption is a little different. What if the DM and players assume that the rules amount to a toolkit from which the game experience is built? What if the players accept a slightly less accurate, more ballpark-ish assessment of their capabilities in any given situation. And the reason they accept this is because the believe than no game system is up to the task of modelling every possible action that might be used to resolve a task. The players accept a 'fudge factor' and even a little inconsistency in return for being able to interact with the play environment in ways not explicitly covered in the rules.

For me, rules-sufficient (I'm going to stop saying "heavy" here) is more fun,

I think we disagree on whether D&D 3.x strictly by the RAW is rules-sufficient. I'd say its certainly good enough for me and my pals to make a fun game out of it (we have a mix of tacticians, drama-queens, and after-work catharsis sociopaths, playing a mix of rules-heavy and rules-light, and somehow it all works).

If it's wholly up to whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed, well, I guess I'd rather just go home a read a book (or write one).

While I understand what you're saying, at some level doesn't it always come down to that?
Players come up with a plan, DM decides how well it will work. No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up...

 

[Psion]

Because most of the spells, many of the magic items and a handful of the monsters (though I can't think of one offhand) have rules attached to the options.

So does almost every power, advantage, and disadvantage in HERO. I'm not seenig the distinction, other that in HERO you would be building the spells and attacks. But still, there's a book full of 'em.

 

[Psion]

If the DM is routinely tossing around total situational modifiers in excess of +/-4, he isn't playing anything approach RAW d20, in my opinion. That's no different than ignoring the rules, for better or worse.

Eh. I've got to disagree with that. I think +2/-2 was chosen because its large enough to be sensible yet small enough not to make or break your roll, a quick and easy thumbrule. I have no DMG handy, but if you are fixating on the RAW, I seem to remember the verbage "or larger" to provide for the possibility of larger modifiers. (Not like I wouldn't feel free to use larger modifiers if it didn't say that. Use the rules, don't let the rules use you!)