Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[DaveMage]

Sounds good. Wil does great fluff but is weak on mechanics. Monte seems generally strong on mechanics but weak on fluff/flavour (IMNSHO). Skip is mediocre all-round, so leave him out. Tweet is brilliant but iconoclastic.

Oh, and add Aaron Allston. He knows how to (a) Keep It Simple and (b) Make It Fun.

Nah - just let Mearls write the whole thing.

He'd have it done in 20 minutes...

 

[delericho]

Sounds good. Wil does great fluff but is weak on mechanics. Monte seems generally strong on mechanics but weak on fluff/flavour (IMNSHO). Skip is mediocre all-round, so leave him out. Tweet is brilliant but iconoclastic.

Oh, and add Aaron Allston. He knows how to (a) Keep It Simple and (b) Make It Fun.

Interesting. If I were running a (relatively) big game company, I might be tempted to identify people into two camps: mechanics-people and flavour-people. (Obviously, some people straddle the fence.) Then, when assembling the team for a project, I would ensure that at least one strong representative from each side were involved in the team, with a roughly equal balance between the two sides.

However, when putting together the team for a new edition of the core rulebooks, I would probably emphasise the mechanics side of the task. It strikes me that there is relatively little flavour text in the core rulebooks - certainly that can't be carried over almost wholesale from the current and previous editions - while there will necessarily be a huge amount of mechanics work involved in anything more radical than a slight update of the rules.

 

[Khairn]

I see the division between rules-light and rules-heavy as simply being a symptom of the fact that preferences within the hobby differ along many axes. I think what everybody's saying is true for them, within their own location on those axes.

It makes a lot of sense for a game whose primary intent is to make a lot of money to appeal to the most popular collection of preferences. No argument there. It would be nice if people would do more along the lines of "That product isn't meant for my preferences" rather than "That product is terrible because it fails at X,Y, and Z (all of which are my preferences)".

IMHO, that pretty much sums up my opinion as well.

My gaming groups personal experience is that a "fun game" depends less on the system and more on the GM, the players and the immersion they are able to experience in the adventure.

Games that we consider to be great fun include Rolemaster, D&D 3E, AU, Amber, OD&D, True20 and oWoD.

Enjoyment is not defined by "the system".

 

[fredramsey]

(long)

First of all, I'd like to apologize, not to anyone in particular, for my previous tone. Sometimes I am far too sensitive to statements that sound like someone is saying, "You are playing a game of Let's Pretend wrong." That irks me to no end, but it also does not do me or anyone else any good for me to lose my temper about it.

Now...

Part of the problem, as far as I am concerned, is there is still not a good definition of "Rules-Lite", and I don't see one coming any time soon.

The system I am currently in a love affair with is Savage Worlds. Some hate it, some like it, some are indifferent about it. But many people call it "Rules-Lite". And to a certain degree, I would agree with them. But I call it, myself, "Complexity-Lite". There are rules for darn near anything, even some situations that D&D 3.5 does not cover, like permanent injury.

I'm not going to spend a long time detailing or defending the mechanics. That goes no where. But my point is, in a nutshell, that no "game" simulates "reality" whatsoever. Seriously. What happens when a fighter in D&D, for example, who starts with 100 hp, has taken 99 hp of damage over a few rounds, then takes 2 hp of damage from a dagger? I mean, I know what I would say in a game to justify that, but in no way is this modeling "reality". So I wonder why that appears to be such a strong argument?

I DM'd 3.x since it came out. I wrote custom software to track initiative and roll attacks for NPCs, etc. Combats went Ok, until someone came up with a combination of spell, attack method, etc. that we had to look up. Because of the fact that 90% (guesstimate) of things that players want to do *are* covered in the rules, I felt compelled to search the various tomes until I found the exact rule. Many do not feel this need, and adjucate on the fly.

So now, with Savage Worlds, because of the way the rules are laid out, I rarely have to look anything up. There are rules covering most situations; they are just not legion in their numbers and complexities. And if something unusual does arise, it is farily simple to say, +2/-2 for most things, +4/-4 for major things, and +6/-6 for outrageous things. Neither I nor my players (who are a reasonable group of people, there to have fun rather than arguments) have no problem with this whatsoever.

Why? It comes down to what I said about game mechanics not simulating reality. It's called being reasonable. If we are playing in a genre that does not allow superhuman feats, they know that there is very little chance to jump a 20' gap. In a genre with over the top antics, there is a better chance of jumping that gap.

There is enough "crunch" to make combat fun and exciting. The rest we fill with plot, characterization, descriptions, interaction, etc. And we have *fun*. Fun, badwrongfun, if *you* want to think about it that way, but fun to us nonetheless.

I don't expect everyone in the world to like the same things. Can't and won't happen. What I do get irritated at, is people who think that I/we are wrong for having this fun, and for sounding like their way is somehow superior, and that they can look down on me and my group in a derisive manner. Makes me kinda peeved.

So if you want to discuss improving D&D, that's cool. If you want to say, "I need a lot of charts, modifiers, and other fiddly bits to have fun," that's cool too. But it is unecessary for us to "take sides". For god's sake, we are all on the same "side". We are the freaks and the weirdos who like to roll funny dice and pretend we are someone else. Who cares how?

Fighting amongst ourselves over these issues is destructive to the hobby as a whole, and does nothing but make us look silly.

You play d20? Cool. I've played that before, I liked it a lot. I'm glad you're having fun with it. I'm having lots of fun in my game too. See you at the game store. I hope we both can get the chance to spend our money on cool, geeky game supplements for a long time to come.

 

[Nathal]

Doesn't the rules light v. heavy debate hold some weight when talking about introducing the game to younger audiences? Wasn't that the reason for having a "basic" and "advanced" game? Yes, I'm aware of the Arenson/Gygax reasons for splitting the two games dramatically, but I don't know that I would have stayed with the hobby if I picked up anything other than the Basic Set in 1983. I was about 10...that beautiful red box set was perfect for kids, and it was definitely "rules light".

 

[Cergorach]

Doesn't the rules light v. heavy debate hold some weight when talking about introducing the game to younger audiences? Wasn't that the reason for having a "basic" and "advanced" game? Yes, I'm aware of the Arenson/Gygax reasons for splitting the two games dramatically, but I don't know that I would have stayed with the hobby if I picked up anything other than the Basic Set in 1983. I was about 10...that beautiful red box set was perfect for kids, and it was definitely "rules light".

This is also what i was thinking. When i hear 'rules light' i think, stripped down version of the 'rules heavy' game. Sort of what D&D0E was to AD&D2E (1E is just before my time). I remember the basic (red) box when i was younger (twelfisch), for me as a player it just held one important booklet and it was only 64 pages thick. D&D3E is 320 pages thick and although that's for a lot more levels then the basic box and for a lot more classes and races, it's still awefully 'scarry' for folks new to roleplaying or folks that are very young.

3E currently suffers from feature creep, and i'm not really talking about third party products, i'm talking about WotC D&D products. There was a time when a few more prestige classes, feats, and spells were welcomed. But now, as a DM i have spent more time undoing the works of WotC then adding to them. WotC has made the impression that when players buy 'official' D&D products they are legal and the DMs are obliged to let players use the books they've bought. This has even gotten so far as players starting to notice that there's just too much stuff (a new level where a feat can be chosen will see players rumaging through piles of books).. That power shift from DM to Players is all neato and stuff, but when DMs have to convince the players why they can't use a feat or prestige class from splat book #66 is the day when DMing becomes a burden, and that day has passed...

Personally i would like to see a guide that actually handle the management of all the player/dm resources, because if i have this 'problem' i'm certain that folks a damned lot less experienced at DMing are having this problem.

ps. i hate the "i am dm, i am god" card and i never use it, but WorC is actively undermining DM 'authority' by leaving out simple phrases as "ask the DM if it's allright to use this in your games". (Or if it is somewhere in there, it just gets lost in all the new goodies that advance the arms race.)

 

[Spell]

I believe strong GM power is a key to the attraction of most rules lite game systems.

if i can throw in my tuppence, i believe that the strength of rules light games is the flavour text. or the price. in other words: there are either less pages in the book (and so it is cheaper), or much more flavour text, random ideas, art, and so on.

personally, i love rule light systems, BUT i spent a good amount of money on GURPS books. why? because i feel that GURPS empowers me to create every character i want, for an animated banana, to a futuristic alien race. that is reasonably true with the d20 system, but i think GURPS is way better when it comes to flexibility and ease of use.

let me add another thing.
the d20 system can be a very precise, but i had to drink loads of coffee to stay awake and read those rules. AD&D was vary less organised and less logical, but even the core books offered me a couple of ideas to incorporate in my campaigns. just check the "ecology" sections of the old monstrous compendia, and appreciate the difference.

i am told that the "new generation" of d20 books is more flavour friendly. that might be true, i don't know. if i had to return to D&D/AD&D, though, i would pick up either hackmaster (because there's virtually no conversion work to be done from AD&D, so i could use my old books straight away) or the good old D&D (because, in those days, you wouldn't need to be aware of the effect of a hundred rules (because each spell/ feat/ skill is, in fact, a rule on its own) to run the game... you might say that you don't need to know the effect of every spell or feat in the core books... but then what's the difference between this D&D and the old rule light one?).

 

[Dragonblade]

Ryan Dancey said one of the things they wanted to engineer was a system with complexity that increases over time. This is to reward mastery of the game.

I agree with this in general. BUT, there is one problem, which I think is contributing to some people seeking out games like C&C. That complexity needs to be variable depending on the preferences of the group or individual. In other words, if I just want to role-play a fighter that I have envisioned, but I don't want to spend time picking out feats, allocating a lot of skill points, or what have you, the game should allow me to create a quick fighter, of any level.

However, those players who do like to pick every last feat and min/max their character to the Nth degree should have that desire supported by the same ruleset. They should be rewarded for their mastery of the complex rules system.

Now here is the kicker: Both characters, the one just thrown together and the one carefully crafted should both be viable builds without one being significantly unbalanced vs. the other. Furthermore, both players should feel that their characters are special and do something that other characters, even ones with similar builds, do not.

Failing that, the system needs to be designed so that increasing complexity does not also lead to an increase in prep time, character gen time, or combat time.

 

[delericho]

I agree with this in general. BUT, there is one problem, which I think is contributing to some people seeking out games like C&C. That complexity needs to be variable depending on the preferences of the group or individual. In other words, if I just want to role-play a fighter that I have envisioned, but I don't want to spend time picking out feats, allocating a lot of skill points, or what have you, the game should allow me to create a quick fighter, of any level.

Now here is the kicker: Both characters, the one just thrown together and the one carefully crafted should both be viable builds without one being significantly unbalanced vs. the other.

I seem to recall some discussions when 3rd Edition first came out regarding the original concept for the "Hero Builder's Guidebook", or whatever that book was called. Basically, what I think was expected, and something that would have been extremely useful, is a book that includes builds of characters from 1st to 20th level, demonstrating how to build various character concepts, including skill and feat selections, suggested equipment, and so on. This would have filled the 'quick fighter' niche you suggest above.

Furthermore, both players should feel that their characters are special and do something that other characters, even ones with similar builds, do not.

This, on the other hand, would be extremely difficult to engineer. Using any sort of 'quick fighter' concept built with the core rules is likely to create a fairly vanilla character. While it should be possible to ensure that such a character isn't too far out of balance with a custom-built character, it is probably not possible to provide a character 'hook' that isn't replicable with a custom build, especially if a wide range of supplemental books are used.

(Unless of course you ensure that each and every feat provides a unique hook, that cannot be replicated with similar feats - and with absolutely no wastage, but that's extremely difficult. You would need to ensure, for instance, that the effects of the Toughness feat cannot be replicated without the feat, simply by rolling higher hit points.)

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Now here is the kicker: Both characters, the one just thrown together and the one carefully crafted should both be viable builds without one being significantly unbalanced vs. the other. Furthermore, both players should feel that their characters are special and do something that other characters, even ones with similar builds, do not.

I don't see that as something D&D 3.x wants to do, and I'll make the comparison to Magic: the Gathering.

Both games have two sub-audiences: wide and deep, for want of better classification. The "wide" audience buys a PHB, or a starter deck, and can play. The "deep" audience invests time and money in analyzing the system and buying additional components (splatbooks or boosters) to add customization and power. Both help build the brand, one by having a lot of people with a little investment, and the other by having a limited group with a large investment.

The reason I don't think both character building methods are intended to give comparable results is the same reason that the MTG designers have given for why there are "bad" cards. The deep group is given a lot of components (cards, feats, PRCs, whatever), and some are more effective than others, which rewards their investment of time in analyzing them.

That kind of design decision is why I personally prefer RPGs that are complete out of the box (for whatever definition you want to use for complete). I'm personally more into games where the reward for strategic play happens during the play phase, rather than the preparation phase. (I think most board games fall into that classification.) Of course, both are valid strategies.