Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[JohnSnow]

This comes down to playstyle difference.

We're talking in circles because there isn't really a distinction of "rules-light" and "rules-heavy." So I levvy a criticism at one particular game (Castles & Crusades), which defines itself as "rules light," and get told "not all rules-light games operate that way." That's fair and it may address the nebulous criticism of rules-light games in general, but it doesn't address my criticism of the game in question.

Let me be absolutely clear. C&C defines itself as "rules light." That's not my definition, that's the definition used by C&C's creators in the game's introduction. It has also been upheld by many here as an example of a "rules-light" version of d20 (by comparison to 3e D&D). My criticisms of C&C as a game are as follows:

1.) Character concepts restricted to generic archetypes - mechanically speaking.
2.) The skill system is too "generic."
3.) Combat-focused characters have no mechanically different options in combat which are not inferior to "I whack him."
4.) There are no ways to give those characters more options in the C&C RAW.
5.) Claims of "balance" are impossible to test since the classes do not progress in experience at the same rate (in other words, they aren't "balanced," and admit it).
6.) As a GM, the guidelines for establishing consistent rulings for the same "in-game situations" are nebulous.

The rebuttals have been:

1a.) Not all rules-light games are like that. True, but not relevant to my critique of C&C.
1b.) C&C is supposed to be like that. Maybe also true, but doesn't suit my taste.
1c.) Storytelling options can make up for mechanical shortcomings. Again, true, but doesn't address the criticism.
2a.) Skill system isn't that relevant. Opinion. One I disagree with.
2b.) 3e's skills aren't realistic anyway. Also opinion. And imperfect doesn't mean "throw out."
3a.) Not all rules-light games are like that. Again True, but again not relevant to my critique of C&C.
3b.) Storytelling options can make up for mechanical shortcomings. Again, true, but again doesn't address the criticism.
4a.) Rules can be added to do this. - True, but why should I have to add rules to a game to make it playable? If that's the kind of game C&C is, it's not the game for me.
4b.) That's not the kind of detail C&C addresses. Okay, but then C&C's not the game for me, and this doesn't address my criticism of it.
5a.) The game is balanced by the different XP progressions. I submit this is impossible to test. You can't measure power vs. progression on any kind of meaningful scale.
5b.) The game isn't competitive, it's collaborative, so this is not relevant. I should be able to pick a class and rest assured that I have fun things to do that another class can't do better than me. That's the definition of "balance" IMO.
6a.) There are guidelines - they just give the GM more control. True, but control without guidance is my definition of "nebulous."
6b.) The GM has total control over the world, so complaints about GM control are silly. GM consistency is relevant to the game's playability IMO. Obviously, a bad GM can abuse a rules-heavy system, but the same GM can abuse a rules-light system as well, so this argument is fallacious.
6c.) The 3e rules are so complicated, nobody can remember all of them. This goes to GM fallibility. The same GM is more likely to make inconsistent rulings without guidelines than he is to make inconsistent rulings with guidelines. The difference is that without those guidelines, there's no "litmus test" for his consistency.

I stand by all of my assertions. I admit that some people don't mind the tradeoffs between 3e and C&C. I do. Simple as that. However, I will not admit the legitimacy of any argument that says those tradeoffs don't exist.

Hopefull I've cleared up my position.

I also admit that there are many rules-light games which address some of the above, but in many cases they make some of the criticisms "worse." I like having a game where the options available to a player are distinctive mechanically. I would object to playing a game where all the details of the Princess Bride swordfight is flavor text determined by the players. That's not the sort of game I'm interested in. It may appeal to some people, but I have no interest in that kind of game. In fact, it does not, in my mind, really meet my definition of a "game" at all.

I would ask all of those who advocate for a game like C&C with simplified combat and skill resolution systems - would you be in favor of a spellcasting system where there were no spells, just a "spellcasting ability" that you could trigger where the flavor effects were all in the player's hands? If not, why does spellcasting need specific resolution if combat and skills do not?

Just curious.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Dude, we get that you don't like Castles & Crusades, already.

I think you have to remember that there's a lot of people posting in this thread, all talking about different things. And we're just giving our opinions.

If you're saying you can understand that some people might like the various tradeoffs involved in various levels of rules complexity, that's about all we're going to accomplish in this thread.

Really, I think what I figured out is that this was not a topic worth pursuing on ENWorld. The specific assumptions of what a roleplaying game are here are very different from my personal experience and what I've run into in discussions on other forums. I've also clearly failed to express the idea of "Hey, here are some other kinds of play, in case anyone's interested in discussing them".

 

[Turjan]

We're talking in circles because there isn't really a distinction of "rules-light" and "rules-heavy." So I levvy a criticism at one particular game (Castles & Crusades), which defines itself as "rules light," and get told "not all rules-light games operate that way." That's fair and it may address the nebulous criticism of rules-light games in general, but it doesn't address my criticism of the game in question.

This thread is not about C&C . If you want to talk specifically about C&C, start a different thread. Although there are already enough of this kind available .

I also admit that there are many rules-light games which address some of the above, but in many cases they make some of the criticisms "worse." I like having a game where the options available to a player are distinctive mechanically. I would object to playing a game where all the details of the Princess Bride swordfight is flavor text determined by the players. That's not the sort of game I'm interested in. It may appeal to some people, but I have no interest in that kind of game. In fact, it does not, in my mind, really meet my definition of a "game" at all.

That's fine. You want your criticisms to be addressed. Why? If you're happy with D&D as it is, just play it.

I would ask all of those who advocate for a game like C&C with simplified combat and skill resolution systems - would you be in favor of a spellcasting system where there were no spells, just a "spellcasting ability" that you could trigger where the flavor effects were all in the player's hands? If not, why does spellcasting need specific resolution if combat and skills do not?

Actually, many (I'd even say: most) fantasy RPGs are exactly like that. Spells are just available as modifiers, points damage or sometimes points damage specific to some kind of energy/some attribute. The player has to sit down and define the spell himself. As a result, each and every mage in these games uses their own, unique spells . Mechanically, there is no difference between combat, skill and magic resolution in those games.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Let me be absolutely clear. C&C defines itself as "rules light." That's not my definition, that's the definition used by C&C's creators in the game's introduction. It has also been upheld by many here as an example of a "rules-light" version of d20 (by comparison to 3e D&D).

Only TLG's personal definition, or direct comparison to 3.x D&D or perhaps late 2e D&D, could define a game that keeps so many of the D&D spells (and most of their 'charming idiosyncracies,' by which I mean arbitrary violations of the core mechanics) as "rules light."

I also admit that there are many rules-light games which address some of the above, but in many cases they make some of the criticisms "worse." I like having a game where the options available to a player are distinctive mechanically. I would object to playing a game where all the details of the Princess Bride swordfight is flavor text determined by the players. That's not the sort of game I'm interested in. It may appeal to some people, but I have no interest in that kind of game. In fact, it does not, in my mind, really meet my definition of a "game" at all.

I can see how you don't see it as a ROLEPLAYING game in the traditional sense, in that you're really more of a narrator/director than a direct player, but how is it not a game? You still have randomized results, they're just much more abstracted. I'd go so far as to say you could even make a competitive game in this manner, though it wouldn't be easy. The results in chess (or Magic: The Gathering, for that matter!) are very abstracted; that doesn't mean those aren't games.

I would ask all of those who advocate for a game like C&C with simplified combat and skill resolution systems - would you be in favor of a spellcasting system where there were no spells, just a "spellcasting ability" that you could trigger where the flavor effects were all in the player's hands? If not, why does spellcasting need specific resolution if combat and skills do not?

Just curious.

I would be strongly in favor of such a spellcasting system. It's called Fantasy HERO. Or SilCore. Or virtually any fantasy game I actually like. I'd love to see a version of it done (well) for d20; Mutants and Masterminds comes closer than probably any other, but it's not really directly compatible.

I say that as someone who believes skills and combat DO benefit from a more detailed resolution system.

 

[Akrasia]

As others have pointed out, C&C is hardly the only ‘rules light’ game around (and is really only ‘light’ relative to 3e and AD&D –- it is ‘rules medium’ compared to the range of games available).

Nonetheless, I have a few remarks:

...
1.) Character concepts restricted to generic archetypes - mechanically speaking.
2.) The skill system is too "generic." ...

C&C is meant to realize a specific genre and play style – namely, ‘old school’ D&D and AD&D. You can definitely ‘tweak’ C&C in many ways – and I tried to do capture a novel ‘feel’ for my own campaign – but it is definitely strongly tied to this genre and style. (In doing so, it is also meant to provide a faster and lighter alternative to 3e, but it is not meant to be ‘d20 lite’.)

It seems that you don’t like ‘old school’ style D&D/AD&D. Fair enough. Myself, I like some of that ‘Isle of Dread’ and ‘Descent into the Depths of the Earth’ fun every so often.

...
3.) Combat-focused characters have no mechanically different options in combat which are not inferior to "I whack him." ...

I actually think you are overstating this. There are combat options in C&C. While most may not be useful in ‘standard’ situations, some of those options will be extremely useful in certain situations.

But yeah, a fan of detailed tactical combat is not going to like C&C.

…
4.) There are no ways to give those characters more options in the C&C RAW. ...

See my earlier reply regarding C&C’s purpose.

Also, I think it is really important to realize that all of the ‘C&C RAW’ are not available yet.

The CKG will include a number of options and variant rules for C&C games (while optional, the CKG, like 3e’s ‘Unearthed Arcana’, will be an ‘official’ book for the system). (You know this fact, John, since I’ve pointed it out to you many times before. TLG is a small company – it took WotC a few months to get the DMG out after the PHB, so it seems unreasonable to take TLG to task for not having all the rules available yet.)

...
5.) Claims of "balance" are impossible to test since the classes do not progress in experience at the same rate (in other words, they aren't "balanced," and admit it).

5a.) The game is balanced by the different XP progressions. I submit this is impossible to test. You can't measure power vs. progression on any kind of meaningful scale. ...

Okay, I don’t understand this at all. The whole point of the different XP progression charts in C&C is to ‘balance’ the classes, and I don’t understand why you say this method of ‘balancing’ classes is not possible. Why is it not possible to ‘measure power vs. progression on any kind of meaningful scale?’ A perfectly ‘meaningful scale’ is provided by experience points!

According to TLG, there is a ‘system’ for assigning certain experience point requirements for different abilities (BtH progression, class abilities, etc.). This system will, I think, be presented in CKG, as part of the guidelines for designing custom classes. (I could be wrong about this, as I do not work for TLG, but this is my understanding.)

Really, using different XP progressions to balance classes is not new. There was a system for the old Basic/Expert D&D game that showed how, by assigning specific experience requirement to different abilities, the various classes were in fact surprisingly well ‘balanced’ (iirc the magic-user was the only one that was not ‘balanced’ – he was much weaker at lower levels relative to other classes).

In short, I don’t see why using a system of different experience point requirements as a method to balance different classes is any less valid or viable than the 3e method. (I can understand why you might not like this method. I myself prefer the 3e method. But that does not mean that it is not a viable system.)

… also admit that there are many rules-light games which address some of the above, but in many cases they make some of the criticisms "worse." ...

Well, this is obviously a vague claim.

I think it is undeniably the case that it is possible to design a FRPG that has the kinds of options you want (at least based on my reading of your posts here at ENworld), but is nonetheless much ‘lighter’ than 3e.

See Green Ronin’s ‘True 20’ game for one such example. See Eden’s ‘Cinematic Uniystem’ games (Buffy and Angel) for another example. These games are both about as ‘light’ as C&C, but include many options for players (as many as 3e D&D, as far as I can tell). Heck, even WFRP is much lighter than 3e D&D, while keeping plenty of flavourful options for players (including tactical combat, etc.).

For a campaign that did not have that ‘old school D&D’ flavour, I would use these games, rather than C&C, as a GM.

...
I would ask all of those who advocate for a game like C&C with simplified combat and skill resolution systems - would you be in favor of a spellcasting system where there were no spells, just a "spellcasting ability" that you could trigger where the flavor effects were all in the player's hands? If not, why does spellcasting need specific resolution if combat and skills do not?

Just curious.

I agree with Turjan:

...
Actually, many (I'd even say: most) fantasy RPGs are exactly like that. Spells are just available as modifiers, points damage or sometimes points damage specific to some kind of energy/some attribute. The player has to sit down and define the spell himself. As a result, each and every mage in these games uses their own, unique spells . Mechanically, there is no difference between combat, skill and magic resolution in those games.

Also, regarding:

I would be strongly in favor of such a spellcasting system. ... I'd love to see a version of it done (well) for d20; Mutants and Masterminds comes closer than probably any other, but it's not really directly compatible. ...

I think True 20’s magic system has a lot in common with M&M. In any case, I like its magic system much more than 3e D&D’s magic system.

 

[JohnSnow]

If you're saying you can understand that some people might like the various tradeoffs involved in various levels of rules complexity, that's about all we're going to accomplish in this thread.

Really, I think what I figured out is that this was not a topic worth pursuing on ENWorld. The specific assumptions of what a roleplaying game are here are very different from my personal experience and what I've run into in discussions on other forums. I've also clearly failed to express the idea of "Hey, here are some other kinds of play, in case anyone's interested in discussing them".

The first is precisely what I'm saying. Everyone has different tradeoffs. An acknowledgement that those tradeoffs exist is an important basis for discussion (and one we've reached after god knows how many pages of threads like this...) On the topic of "other kinds of play," I think Moogle's comment applies.

I can see how you don't see it as a ROLEPLAYING game in the traditional sense, in that you're really more of a narrator/director than a direct player, but how is it not a game? You still have randomized results, they're just much more abstracted. I'd go so far as to say you could even make a competitive game in this manner, though it wouldn't be easy. The results in chess (or Magic: The Gathering, for that matter!) are very abstracted; that doesn't mean those aren't games.

A game has defined rules and consequences that are the results of player choice. Given that the nature of RPGs is (in theory) an "open decision tree," the only way to preserve the "game" part is if, as in chess, the "rules of the world" are consistent and well understood. Yes, chess is an abstraction, but many people will tell you that chess is a strategy exercise, not a game. If the rules are variable and inconsistent, nothing of the "game" is left and it's just storytelling. That may be entertaining, but it's not, in my opinion, a game. What I'm saying is that the "story" overlies the "rules" elements. If you want to parse out the term "Roleplaying Game," I'd argue that the story is the "roleplaying" part and the rules are the "game" part.

I prefer to lay the story "on top of" the game. For me to truly enjoy the game, it has to be reasonably consistent. That's very important to me. I like feeling like my character is operating within a "consistent, believable world" because that's the point at which it feels "real" and my enjoyment is highest.

As others have pointed out, C&C is hardly the only ‘rules light’ game around (and is really only ‘light’ relative to 3e and AD&D –- it is ‘rules medium’ compared to the range of games available).

First - C&C defines itself as 'rules light.' That's the Trolls' definition, not mine.

Second, C&C is hardly 'rules light' relative to AD&D. It adds the SIEGE system and 'Primes.' It keeps the differing abilities for every class. It keeps the same magic system. It is, in essence, AD&D with THAC0 changed to BAB and a skill resolution system added. I admit it dumps some of the AD&D rules that hardly anyone ever used (like weapon speed) but it's basically AD&D. I will concede that it's 'rules light' relative to 3e, but I don't think the things it sacrifices (skills, feats, class abilities, and attacks of opportunity) bring as much complexity to the table as the things it leaves untouched (spells and magic items).

The second thing I'm trying to say is that there are aspects of 3e that I'd like to see addressed differently. I WANT a "rules-easier" version of D&D. My headache is not with Attacks of Opportunity or Feats however, but with the kludgy magic system. My second headache is with the pseudo-point-buy-powers of the wealth system (and magic items).

I would be strongly in favor of such a spellcasting system. It's called Fantasy HERO. Or SilCore. Or virtually any fantasy game I actually like. I'd love to see a version of it done (well) for d20; Mutants and Masterminds comes closer than probably any other, but it's not really directly compatible.

I say that as someone who believes skills and combat DO benefit from a more detailed resolution system.

I think True 20’s magic system has a lot in common with M&M. In any case, I like its magic system much more than 3e D&D’s magic system.

I can't imagine liking its magic system much less than 3e D&D's magic system. But holding out hope for anything similar to HERO doesn't exactly encourage me as I disliked having to "build" powers. I understand the theory behind "broad" abilities, but the practice struck me as clumsy. That said, I've not seen Fantasy HERO, just the basic rules as presented in the combined HERO System/Champions book (not sure which edition). So if Fantasy HERO did some of that building for me, then that's different.

I'd love a system where there were certain BASIC abilities. Energy Bolt. Energy Burst. Fly. Teleport. Conjure. Transform/Transmute. Shield. Sense. A few others. And spells are combinations of those effects with certain "other" aspects. Fire and "energy bolt" gives you "fireballs" like the wizard in Gauntlet. Fire and "energy burst" gives you "fireball" like in D&D.

The closest d20 system to that which I've heard of is in Black Company. However, I'd love to see a few more takes on it. And I suspect I will soon.

 

[francisca]

Second, C&C is hardly 'rules light' relative to AD&D. It adds the SIEGE system and 'Primes.' It keeps the differing abilities for every class. It keeps the same magic system. It is, in essence, AD&D with THAC0 changed to BAB and a skill resolution system added. I admit it dumps some of the AD&D rules that hardly anyone ever used (like weapon speed) but it's basically AD&D. I will concede that it's 'rules light' relative to 3e, but I don't think the things it sacrifices (skills, feats, class abilities, and attacks of opportunity) bring as much complexity to the table as the things it leaves untouched (spells and magic items).

Hey wow, I just might have to give C&C a look.

 

[Turjan]

Second, C&C is hardly 'rules light' relative to AD&D. It adds the SIEGE system and 'Primes.' It keeps the differing abilities for every class. It keeps the same magic system. It is, in essence, AD&D with THAC0 changed to BAB and a skill resolution system added. I admit it dumps some of the AD&D rules that hardly anyone ever used (like weapon speed) but it's basically AD&D. I will concede that it's 'rules light' relative to 3e, but I don't think the things it sacrifices (skills, feats, class abilities, and attacks of opportunity) bring as much complexity to the table as the things it leaves untouched (spells and magic items).

D&D's spell system is really one of the most baroque parts of the game. However, it's also one of the most flavourful. Simple fight spells are easy to emulate in a streamlined 'magic as skill' system, but 'Leomund's Tiny Hut'? That's also a kind of tradeoff. For a streamlined magic system in a game that's somewhat similar to D&D, though based on percentile dice, have a look at HARP.

If you want to see a somehow d20-based game that is really 'rules-light', have a look at Talislanta (4th edition, not the d20 version). It's only one mechanic. They even don't have a character creation system .

The second thing I'm trying to say is that there are aspects of 3e that I'd like to see addressed differently. I WANT a "rules-easier" version of D&D. My headache is not with Attacks of Opportunity or Feats however, but with the kludgy magic system. My second headache is with the pseudo-point-buy-powers of the wealth system (and magic items).

Good points. Perhaps, someone will be brave enough and go a little bit further in plundering M&M for d20 than True20 does. Or Rasyr will succeed in converting you .

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'd love a system where there were certain BASIC abilities. Energy Bolt. Energy Burst. Fly. Teleport. Conjure. Transform/Transmute. Shield. Sense. A few others. And spells are combinations of those effects with certain "other" aspects. Fire and "energy bolt" gives you "fireballs" like the wizard in Gauntlet. Fire and "energy burst" gives you "fireball" like in D&D.

The closest d20 system to that which I've heard of is in Black Company. However, I'd love to see a few more takes on it. And I suspect I will soon.

Did you take a look at Elements of Magic- Revised? From what I read and heard, it does something like that for d20. Can't say I likd what I saw, as I'm actually a fan of D&D-style magic, but I thought I'd mention it in case you haven't checked it out yet.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

A game has defined rules and consequences that are the results of player choice. Given that the nature of RPGs is (in theory) an "open decision tree," the only way to preserve the "game" part is if, as in chess, the "rules of the world" are consistent and well understood. Yes, chess is an abstraction, but many people will tell you that chess is a strategy exercise, not a game. If the rules are variable and inconsistent, nothing of the "game" is left and it's just storytelling. That may be entertaining, but it's not, in my opinion, a game. What I'm saying is that the "story" overlies the "rules" elements. If you want to parse out the term "Roleplaying Game," I'd argue that the story is the "roleplaying" part and the rules are the "game" part.

I prefer to lay the story "on top of" the game. For me to truly enjoy the game, it has to be reasonably consistent. That's very important to me. I like feeling like my character is operating within a "consistent, believable world" because that's the point at which it feels "real" and my enjoyment is highest.

The difference is that, in the type of rules-lite game you're talking about, the "rules," and the "game," are about the "story." They don't have to be variable or inconsistent in the least. Whether those games succeed in being consistent is up to the gamer to decide, but nothing about abstracting elements further makes it otherwise.

For example, if you roll 3d6 of 'Investigate Crime Scene' against an NPC's 2d6 of 'Commit Perfect Crime' and get a higher number, you find a clue. If you roll under, you don't. Consistent. The game might even provide a range by which you can succeed or fail. You might not even need a GM (in which case the 2d6 of 'Commit Perfect Crime' belong to another player - the fiend!) and the game may even be competitive.

How is this not a game?

First - C&C defines itself as 'rules light.' That's the Trolls' definition, not mine.

Second, C&C is hardly 'rules light' relative to AD&D. It adds the SIEGE system and 'Primes.' It keeps the differing abilities for every class. It keeps the same magic system. It is, in essence, AD&D with THAC0 changed to BAB and a skill resolution system added. I admit it dumps some of the AD&D rules that hardly anyone ever used (like weapon speed) but it's basically AD&D. I will concede that it's 'rules light' relative to 3e, but I don't think the things it sacrifices (skills, feats, class abilities, and attacks of opportunity) bring as much complexity to the table as the things it leaves untouched (spells and magic items).

The second thing I'm trying to say is that there are aspects of 3e that I'd like to see addressed differently. I WANT a "rules-easier" version of D&D. My headache is not with Attacks of Opportunity or Feats however, but with the kludgy magic system. My second headache is with the pseudo-point-buy-powers of the wealth system (and magic items).

I solve this by moving from pseudo-point-buy to true point-buy.

I can't imagine liking its magic system much less than 3e D&D's magic system. But holding out hope for anything similar to HERO doesn't exactly encourage me as I disliked having to "build" powers. I understand the theory behind "broad" abilities, but the practice struck me as clumsy. That said, I've not seen Fantasy HERO, just the basic rules as presented in the combined HERO System/Champions book (not sure which edition). So if Fantasy HERO did some of that building for me, then that's different.

I believe Fantasy HERO builds a goodly number of example powers for you. I don't have that book yet, myself.

I'd love a system where there were certain BASIC abilities. Energy Bolt. Energy Burst. Fly. Teleport. Conjure. Transform/Transmute. Shield. Sense. A few others. And spells are combinations of those effects with certain "other" aspects. Fire and "energy bolt" gives you "fireballs" like the wizard in Gauntlet. Fire and "energy burst" gives you "fireball" like in D&D.

A system like... HERO, you mean?

What part of what you describe is different from how the HERO core rules for powers work? I really don't understand. Energy Burst? Fly? Transform? Shield? These ARE the HERO powers! The only difference I can see is that you want the aspects spelled out. I really don't understand that.