Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2393862" data-attributes="member: 20239"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />   Write a novel why don't you!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> OK.  This is the problem with starting a discussion with one poster (in this case 2, Buzz and Psion) and continuing it with someone else 5 pages later.  I think we've gotten off track here, because you've placed me as defending positions I never took and don't agree with.I am NOT:1 - Defending rules-lite games as "better" than rules-heavy.2 - Defending C&C or any other game as better than D&D.3 - Saying that rules-lite games provide just as much structure or pre-existing guidelines as rules-heavy games.4 - Saying that rules-lite games do not have their own problems, especially including that they are unmitigated disasters when the group playing them doesn't have some consensus about what to expect in terms of task resolution.I AM:1 - Defending my original thesis. Namely, that rules-heavy games ALSO require (to virtually the same degree as rules-lite games) that the group share a similar "assessment of reality" (let's call it AOR)or the game will suffer.  With the addendum that rules-heavy games sometimes offer a bit of psychological comfort by either hiding differences in "AOR" or in some cases, exposing them very quickly.Do the "answers" you come up with always coincide with the GM's rulings?  If so, is that because you're playing a rules-heavy game or because you and your GM share a similar AOR?  I would argue that, no matter what game you were playing, if you and your GM didn't share a common AOR you wouldn't feel comfortable figuring things out on your own.Maybe this is just a case of our POV differing to the extent we really can't understand each other.  I don't view the DM saying..."It's a 10ft pit, there's mud around it, so players move at 1/2 speed and running isn't possible (therefore no running start, double the DC of Jump checks), there's a really strong updraft, so that adds a circumstance bonus to the Jump check....so the final DC is X"...as playing D&D rules-lite.  I see it as the DM doing what the rulebooks instruct him to do - apply circumstance modifiers when appropriate.  Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "appropriate" in this context.Again, we're off track.  I'm not commenting on the level and frequency of judgement calls, I'm questioning the assertions of two other posters who said they preferred rules-heavy games (especially D&D) because when playing them, the GM doesn't have to make judgement calls because the rules tell him what to do.  My counter to that is that every time the GM applies or doesn't apply a modifier based on his interpretation of the environment in which the PC finds himself, he's making the same kind of judgement call that seems to be so distasteful in examples of rules-lite play.  The only difference I can see is that the judgement calls take place on another level, hidden behind a veneer of rules.There are a lot of comments like this in the rest of your post.  Ones that would put me in the position of defending rules-lite or C&C vs. rules-heavy or D&D (or whatever other games are being used as examples).  Please don't be offended that I'm going to skip over them and not answer/respond.  I'm not ducking the question, I just don't want to take the position of defending those things because I don't believe in them.  I'm asserting the statement I listed above, nothing more.Right.  I agree.  Back to my original point....If D&D requires a DM to make some subjective judgement calls and you, as a player, are comfortable with the way your DM handles himself in those situations - why would it make you uncomfortable to expand the instances when those judgement calls are necessary?  From my POV, a player will either trust or not trust the GM and if he trusts (usually because of a shared AOR and/or good dialogue between the player and GM) then the move to rules-lite shouldn't be a problem.  Buzz and Psion seemed to be (I won't put words in their mouths, but this is the impression I got) saying not that D&D requires fewer instances of the DM making subjective judgement calls, but actually provided a ruleset in which the DM needed to make no subjective judgement calls at all and consequently playing 3e D&D by the RAW makes a shared AOR and dialogue irrelevant.  That is the idea that I'm taking issue with.This is where these discussions usually diverge.  I disagree that rules-lite absolutely necessitates that the game be rules-insufficient.  The difference between a rules-heavy game would be that tripping, tumbling past, disarming, wrestling, pushing someone around, etc. might all share the same dice roll mechanic, but would get vastly different modifiers for the same pair of combatants, would have numerous special rules that apply for each action, would interact with other combat actions or aspects of the game (feats frex.) in different ways, etc.  Whereas, in a rules-lite game, all of those situations would be covered in the rules, all would have clearly defined consequences, but since all are essentially combat actions that produce the effect of "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do" they would all use the same roll, with the same modifier (or with only one of a very few modifiers based perhaps on whether the action is based on raw strength, raw agility or training) and that roll would be the same as the normal combat roll (since dealing damage to your opponent also qualifies as "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do").  This is NOT something C&C does - which is one of the reasons I don't like it, refuse to defend it and find it a convenient but in some ways unfortunate example of a rules-lite game to use in this discussion. Flip that around and you have exactly the same question I put to Psion and Buzz.  Sure some GMs can run a good game of D&D with the players feeling comfortable that their AOR and the GM's are essentially the same, but that's looking at a best case scenario (i.e - players and a GM whose AOR are already similar enough that they probably wouldn't run into problems playing a rules-lite game either).  What's the worst case scenario?  Does D&D really produce a noticeably better outcome when you're playing with a DM whose AOR significantly differs from your own?Again, I'm going to say that you're putting the best-case spin on the rules-heavy game and the worst-case spin on the rules-lite game.  If the rules-lite players all share a common AOR with their GM the amount of necessary communication isn't all that great.  If the rules-heavy players all have a completely different AOR than their GM, the amount of necessary communication shouldn't be (IMO) significantly different than the same group playing a rules-lite game.  Players in the rules-heavy game might think they are safe figuring out things like DCs on their own, but will their assessment match the assessment of the GM often enough that they become comfortable doing it?I play with people who all share a very similar AOR when it comes to RPGs, so it rarely matters how heavy or lite our rulesets are.  For the record, I've never played (and have no desire to play) C&C - which (although unquestionably rules-liter than D&D) isn't IMO a particularly well done example of a rules-lite game.  I'm familiar enough with the rules in terms of how skill-like activities are handled to use it as an example in comparison to 3e D&D - that's about it. Again, is this because of the ruleset or because of the DM's personality and the commonly arrived at consensus of the group about what's expected and wanted from the game?For the record, when I ran 3.x D&D I tended to use all the codified modifiers plus any other modifiers that seemed reasonable.  I would say 80% of the time, the written modifiers were the only things I used, but on certain occasions when I had included specific world details I thought should be represented numerically in play, I felt no compunction in applying circumstance modifiers.  Personally, I don't see that as running the game rules-lite (since I was actually using all of the rules at the time).I would argue against this.  Most new people who entered my games of D&D took time to adjust to the shared AOR of the group just as they would in a rules-lite game.  Hence my assertion that, while the numerous rules tend to give the illusion that you can have a certain level of expectation when you game at a new table, it's really only an illusion.  I played by the RAW, but my creation, as DM, of the game world (a completely subjective activity) affected the in-game reality to such an extent that rules knowledge didn't translate to an automatically shared AOR.  That takes interaction, communication and consensus - activities I would argue occur in every successful RPG group and the lack of which are the main cause of most unhappy, unsuccessful RPG group.OK, let's talk about really rules-lite for a moment and compare OD&D (3 LB only) and 3e.  In an OD&D game, numerous activities a gaming group might want to engage in are completely undefined.  Many of those activities are completely defined in 3e D&D.  OD&D requires that the group discuss and experience the game together and reach a consensus on their AOR to be successful.  Since they are at different ends of the complexity/coverage spectrum the process of reaching a shared AOR will look completely different between a group playing OD&D and a group playing 3e.  However, I believe that the process of reaching a shared AOR still goes on in 3e and to nearly the same extent as it does in OD&D for successful gaming groups.  IMO it has to because, no matter how many activities are covered by the rules, the game still ultimately comes down to an imaginary space created by the GM and shared by the players.  If the GM's view of the imaginary space does not mesh with the player's view, the game will feel arbitrary and inconsistent to the players no matter how clearly defined the rules are.I really don't think that.  I just don't believe that the codified modifiers cover every situation that might call for a numerical representation in the game.Let's just say that I think that in a game run by a consistent, predictable and fair GM, the amount of insecurity incorporated into play by the randomness of the dice is something the players can gauge and depend on.  That they can expect from game to game that certain types of dice rolls come with certain types of consequences.  For example, that missing an opponent engaged in melee with an ally with a ranged attack won't simply be a miss with no chance of hitting your ally one game session and call for a roll with a 90% chance of outright killing your ally at the next game session.That's just it.  I'm not interested in how long it takes to accomplish certain tasks during the game.  I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, so I'm in no hurry.  I don't consider a player asking relevant questions to be "bogging down the game".  That activity is part of the game and AFAIC a large part of the fun.  I do consider looking up rules to be "bogging", because it's not actually play, it's work I do in order to get back to the play, and it's work that I want to do as little of as possible.</blockquote>

Verification