Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[Akrasia]

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. …

Consistency is indeed a good thing. However – and I’ve already made this point many times in this thread, and will probably have to make it many times again in future threads – there is nothing in a ‘rules light’ game that precludes consistency. It's perfectly possible to have a consistent rules light game.

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

Yes, I know. Nobody is debating this point. I think TLG is entitled to call C&C ‘rules light’ relative to 3e D&D and AD&D. But with respect to other games, it is a ‘rules medium’ system (comparable to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia).

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).

I disagree. I think it is obvious that C&C RAW is ‘lighter’ than AD&D RAW, and find it strange that anyone would even try to argue this point. (Read the section on initiative in the 1e DMG – that alone should show you that I am right about this.) Not only does C&C get rid of all the various rules that you claim people rarely used, but it uses a single mechanic – that d20 ‘higher is always better’ thing – for everything. So it does not have all the various mechanically distinct ways of dealing with different abilities and situations. The SIEGE and Primes system are incredibly simple – far easier to understand and use than the AD&D saving throw system and NWPs.

But frankly, while I think it is painfully obvious that C&C is ‘lighter’ than AD&D, I don’t see what hangs on this point. It is certainly not ‘heavier’.

As for 3e, I think that you’re wrong about the complexity that skills, feats, and AoOs bring to 3e. While I don’t have anything against the idea of skills and feats, per se, the way in which they are implemented in 3e makes keeping track of them as a DM a real pain in the arse. For skills, you have to keep track of class skills versus nonclass skills, synergy bonuses, etc. And with respect to feats, there are lots of prerequisites that have to be met in order to take them (either ability scores, skills, or other feats). Plus most feats entitle the character who has them to ‘break’ the rules in certain respects – keeping track of that can be a real hassle.

In short, while I think keeping track of skills and feats from a player’s perspective is pretty easy, things are considerably different ‘behind the screen’. And as levels get higher, things get worse.

(Of course I could probably just ‘hand wave’ all this as a DM and hope that the players don’t notice – but that would apparently violate one of the main virtues of 3e, according to you, namely its detail and consistency.)

As for AoOs, while the concept is not that difficult to grasp, using them IME pretty much requires some kind of graphic representation (at least for me). And this, in turn, requires a battlemat and minis (or something similar). Setting that up takes time – and really slows a session down.

…
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).

You should really look at True 20 Adventure, John.

It uses feats as the main way to distinguish different characters. And most feats don’t have prerequisites – thus statting up higher level characters is much easier. The magic system is based on feats and is quite impressive – flexible and simple. Finally, the rules do not assume that magic items are common – the classes, feats, and combat system make sense (are ‘balanced’) without magic items.

…
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.

Huh?

I am not sure what you mean by this, as I was referring to the True 20 magic system, not the HERO magic system. As I mentioned above, the True 20 magic system is based on feats. Powers are not ‘built’ as in HERO. However, PCs can do different things with the ‘supernatural powers’ that they have.

(I should mention that I am not that familiar with the HERO system. But my point is that irrespective of the details of HERO, the magic system in True 20, at least, is not a 'point build' system.)

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 ….

Can you predict what I am going to say here? Yes you can.

Really, John, you should look at True 20! Its magic system does what you want. Its list of ‘supernatural powers’ include things like: beast link, bliss, body control, calm, cold shaping, combat sense, cure, earth shaping, elemental strike, enhance senses, fire shaping, etc. Each ‘supernatural ability’ is gained by a feat, and has variable effects. It is a cool system.


(It doesn not include 'teleport' as an ability -- which I consider to be a good thing, since I loathe 'teleport' spells in FRPGs. But I'm sure one could easily come up with a 'teleport' supernatural ability if one wanted to.)

 

[Akrasia]

.... 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. ...

Yeah, the HARP magic system is pretty interesting. The 'supernatural powers' of True 20 really reminded me of the HARP system -- there are a lot of similarities.

 

[JohnSnow]

there is nothing in a ‘rules light’ game that precludes consistency. It's perfectly possible to have a consistent rules light game.

You keep saying this, so I'll bite. How?

While I don’t have anything against the idea of skills and feats, per se, the way in which they are implemented in 3e makes keeping track of them as a DM a real pain in the arse. For skills, you have to keep track of class skills versus nonclass skills, synergy bonuses, etc. And with respect to feats, there are lots of prerequisites that have to be met in order to take them (either ability scores, skills, or other feats). Plus most feats entitle the character who has them to ‘break’ the rules in certain respects – keeping track of that can be a real hassle.

I agree. Tracking class vs. cross-class skills is a PITA. But how does one keep the distinction between classes relevant without some form of distinction like this? Personally, I think it'd be easier to keep the max rank limit, but I suppose you could do away with that and somehow preserve the lower cost for "sticking to your specialty." I also agree that most feat prerequisites could go the way of the dodo and not upset anyone.

I admit that feats allow you to overcome certain restrictions. To my way of thinking that's the point of having them - to distinguish between otherwise mechanically similar characters. They make certain moves more attractive to encourage player decisions other than "I whack him." For the record; Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip, Improved Overrun and Improved Sunder all have the same effect: +4 on the maneuver and no attack of opportunity. Sounds like a pretty simple mechanic to me. I agree that synergy bonuses may be unnecessary, but they do provide an added incentive for the character to take ranks in related skills - a theory I like although the implementation is clumsy. Personally, I don't like all the +2/+2 feats and would be happy to see them gone, but skill focus seems like a useful addition.

You should really look at True 20 Adventure, John.

It uses feats as the main way to distinguish different characters. And most feats don’t have prerequisites – thus statting up higher level characters is much easier. The magic system is based on feats and is quite impressive – flexible and simple. Finally, the rules do not assume that magic items are common – the classes, feats, and combat system make sense (are ‘balanced’) without magic items.

Sounds...interesting. But I do like the variability of multiple classes. I'm somewhat concerned that reducing everything to feats is not the way to go. I've never been overly fond of "classless" systems, as the tendency for characters' abilities to overlap is quite high. That's just a concern though, not a criticism and one I'll revisit after I look at True 20.

I am not sure what you mean by this, as I was referring to the True 20 magic system, not the HERO magic system. As I mentioned above, the True 20 magic system is based on feats. Powers are not ‘built’ as in HERO. However, PCs can do different things with the ‘supernatural powers’ that they have.

(I should mention that I am not that familiar with the HERO system. But my point is that irrespective of the details of HERO, the magic system in True 20, at least, is not a 'point build' system.)

Okay, that's fair. I was confused. You compared True 20 to Mutants and Masterminds, which someone else compared to HERO, so I drew the A is to B, and B is to C, so A is to C analogy. The point-buy "construction" of powers is what I dislike in HERO though, so I'll probably like the True 20 magic system.

Really, John, you should look at True 20! Its magic system does what you want. Its list of ‘supernatural powers’ include things like: beast link, bliss, body control, calm, cold shaping, combat sense, cure, earth shaping, elemental strike, enhance senses, fire shaping, etc. Each ‘supernatural ability’ is gained by a feat, and has variable effects. It is a cool system.


(It doesn not include 'teleport' as an ability -- which I consider to be a good thing, since I loathe 'teleport' spells in FRPGs. But I'm sure one could easily come up with a 'teleport' supernatural ability if one wanted to.)

Fair enough, I'll check it out.

And I agree with you about teleport too.

Still looking forward to Iron Heroes though, since I think it'll add things I enjoy to the system while fixing some of the glitchy ones. And from what little we've been told, it sound like its magic system works similarly to True 20's. Except that it's at least partially class-based.

 

[Akrasia]

You keep saying this, so I'll bite. How? ...

For crying out loud John!

From earlier this thread:

I've made this point many times in the past, and I will probably have to make it many times again in the future ...

There is *nothing* intrinsic to 'rules light' game systems that render them more likely to be 'inconsistent/squidgy' than 'rules heavy' game systems.

Rules light(-ish) systems simply provide *more general* mechanisms to resolve situations. These can be used in a perfectly consistent manner through the course of endless gaming sessions. (Indeed, because these mechanisms are more general, and thus involve fewer variables and modifiers, their implementation is likely to be *more* consistent than the use of more complex mechanisms in rules heavy systems.)

Inconsistencies only arise if the GM of a rules light system tries to introduce numerous ad hoc modifiers and variant rules in order to better 'simulate' the environment/situation he/she is describing.

But, as I have also said many times before, if you want a 'simulationist' game, rules light is not the way to go.

And your reply:

So what you're saying is that rules are consistent at the level of detail that they try to represent to the extent that the gamemaster follows them?

Then I'd say we agree...

The difference between us has to do with ‘detail’ not ‘consistency’.

You feel that lots of detail is necessary in your FRPGs, whereas I do not. (I guess I just don’t get the obsession with ‘mechanical detail’ in a fantasy setting – certainly Tolkein, Howard, and Leiber never felt this compulsion, and chose to focus more on story elements. I prefer to focus on the forest rather than the trees – but that’s obviously a debate for another thread.)

Sounds...interesting. But I do like the variability of multiple classes. I'm somewhat concerned that reducing everything to feats is not the way to go. I've never been overly fond of "classless" systems, as the tendency for characters' abilities to overlap is quite high. That's just a concern though, not a criticism and one I'll revisit after I look at True 20.

I find this view somewhat strange. Why bother with both highly differentiated classes and lots of variation via feats?

My own view is that a game should either go with lots of distinct classes, or a few highly variable classes (something along the lines of either the d20 Modern basic classes, or the 'generic classes' in UA and True 20).

Really, once you introduce choice among feats, the whole idea of set 'class abilities' seems somewhat redundant.

In short, IMO, if you like strong classes, go with AD&D or C&C. If you like broad classes with lots of choice, go with the True 20 (or the UA) 'generic classes' or d20 Modern 'basic classes'.

The problem with 3e D&D (IMO) is that it is ‘neither fish nor foul’ (i.e. it combines both a class system and an ‘ability-choice’ system in a somewhat byzantine form).

Still looking forward to Iron Heroes though, since I think it'll add things I enjoy to the system while fixing some of the glitchy ones. And from what little we've been told, it sound like its magic system works similarly to True 20's. Except that it's at least partially class-based.

I'll probably look at IH as well, though I have a hard time seeing what it does that Conan OGL does not already do -- minus the cool setting and magic system. (And IH is probably not going to get the same kind of support over the long run.)

However, let me pre-empt a potential debate here by stating that both systems (IH and Conan) look far too 'crunchy' for my tastes as a GM.