Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[The Shaman]

I want genre-appropriate archetypes with broadly defined abilities and skills.

Frex, d20 has Climb, Jump, and Tumble - Flashing Blades has Acrobatics. FB wins.

 

[nedjer]

Not to mention the arguments over who pays child support for it.

Not a problem in the UK, where a system of deferred payments made through the local bookmakers and bartenders lets women know they'll have to fend for themselves from the off.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Frex, d20 has Climb, Jump, and Tumble - Flashing Blades has Acrobatics. FB wins.

It would be good if rpgs had some system of concealing complexity until you need it. As if all you see in the book is acrobatics until you 'click' on it to reveal more options. Much easier to do with software than a book.

There could be three or four different systems for combat, of varying degrees of abstraction. Highly detailed for the final battle versus your arch-nemesis. Highly abstract for wandering monsters, mooks and minions.

Big Eyes, Small Mouth does this to a minor degree. There are only three stats - Body, Mind and Soul. If you want a character that's less strong than Body would indicate, then you have to specifically call that out. It's rather a clumsy implementation imo but the idea is interesting.

 

[The Shaman]

It would be good if rpgs had some system of concealing complexity until you need it.

They do. It's called the referee.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Personally, I twitch every time a GM restricts options because "that doesn't exist in my world" or "I don't know anything about that splat book." The only satisfying reasons to restrict material, IMO, are gross genre-crossing (I want to play a space monkey laser-slinger cowgirl from Zarton! In D&D.) or game balance.

I like to play kitchen sink games.

Finally, increasing options may actually narrow possibilities. If, for example, a version of the game has "Fighters", then a "Fighter" could be anything from Roland to Conan to Robin Hood. If, however, the game has Fighters, Barbarians and Rangers, each of these is actually more narrow than the three combined might be.

Eh, that's very debatable. D&D classes are far from consistent in any way; some cover only very specific concepts (ranger), while others can cover many concepts (fighter). So no, I don't think that adding 'barbarian' and 'ranger' to anyone's list of options makes the 'fighter' any less broad.

 

[Reynard]

Frex, d20 has Climb, Jump, and Tumble - Flashing Blades has Acrobatics. FB wins.

No matter what you do you can never get the granularity right. Some genre archetypes are going to be good with "broad skills" and some ate not: look at Conan, noted particularly for his climbing skill.

This is why essentially undefined skills - that is, reduced options- is preferable in many ways. You b/x fighter needed only a brief character background - a Cimmerians hill man - to expand because what "Cimmerians hill man" entailed and when it applied was based on judgement calla, not hard and fast rules.

 

[ArghMark]

I wrote an article for A KotDT mag on pretty much this topic. They were nice enough to publish me .

My experience was coming from a game where the game world drastically limited the amount of races you could play - in effect, human. As such, each person defined themselves much more fully as their person rather than as 'The Mysterious Elf Ranger from the forest'.

 

[IronWolf]

Personally, I twitch every time a GM restricts options because "that doesn't exist in my world" or "I don't know anything about that splat book." The only satisfying reasons to restrict material, IMO, are gross genre-crossing (I want to play a space monkey laser-slinger cowgirl from Zarton! In D&D.) or game balance.

It can be hard to keep game balance if the DM doesn't "know anything about that splat book."

 

[Lidgar]

Streaming down to a more basic system, with a more limited set of options, certainly can be fun, especially if the game gets dragged down in a onion of options at higher levels. It is also, in my opinion, easier to introduce the game to new players if there are more limited options.

To address some of these issues, I created my own version of 3.5 "basic". Classes include a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Thief. Feats are pre-set and are tied to level progression (for example, fighters get "Power Attack" at second level, wizards can create scrolls at third, etc.). Skill system is revamped -extremely consolidated and progression is pre-set (based on class again). Spell selection more limited. Good fun.

 

[The Shaman]

No matter what you do you can never get the granularity right.

"Never," Reynard, is a deeply subjective judgement.

I looked at a bunch of systems for running a 17th century swashbuckling game. Riddle of Steel and Swashbuckler were much too fiddly for my tastes. Lace and Steel was too gimmicky. Savage Worlds missed the strong genre archetypes out-of-the-box (and before the SW fans get in a snit, I bought Pirates of the Spanish Main and Soloman Kane, though I returned the latter).

I also considered using AD&D with the 2e historical supplement A Mighty Fortress, but the problem of "undefined skills" and "reduced options" for me is that it also utterly failed to capture the flavor of the swashbuckling genre.

So there was a good level of granularity for me in Flashing Blades: four archetypes, with characters choosing anywhere from three to six broadly defined skills, which makes a character on a par with an AD&D thief or ranger (or a B/X elf or dwarf) in terms of 'class abilities.' It does what I want it to do, without doing more than I need.

Some genre archetypes are going to be good with "broad skills" and some ate not: look at Conan, noted particularly for his climbing skill.

Conan's climbing skill is part of his general athleticism; I have no problem with assuming a similar level of skill to anyone in the fighter class, subject to the character's actual attributes.

This is why essentially undefined skills - that is, reduced options- is preferable in many ways. You b/x fighter needed only a brief character background - a Cimmerians hill man - to expand because what "Cimmerians hill man" entailed and when it applied was based on judgement calla, not hard and fast rules.

While I have no problem enjoying OD&D or AD&D as-written, the games I most enjoy add a bit more detail than that, but certainly nowhere near as much as d20, GURPS, Rolemaster or other more rules-laden systems.