Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2425337" data-attributes="member: 32164">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.</blockquote>

Verification