Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8181887" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Going back through the thread...The longstanding debate about simple vs complex has been around since the release of Tunnels and Trolls in 1975.Mr. Pulsipher's piece, due to his editorial limit, isn't easily parsed. One of the fastest games for new players to learn is WEG/Nocturnal's D6 system... a new player can have a new character in 5 minutes and be given a 5 minute intro, and be effective in play. It's a single resolution mechanic, very consistent (well, until the current edition, which added ads and disads; now in its third ownership).MLP:Tails of Equestria is actually slower to get players up on, but is easier to play due to comparison only, rather than doing calculations.D&D is a generic system, but not  a universal one. It is focused upon one  specific genre - and it's a genre created by D&D, but shared in T&T, C&C, Pathfinder,One of several conflations common in the subject at hand.Length vs complexity - while corelated, it's not terribly strongly so.Crunchy vs complex - again, while corelated, it's not a given.Example: T&T 5e, while 100 pages, is a 3 mechanic system: Spell casting, Combat Rolls, Saving Rolls.Moldvay D&D basic is 64 pages, has spells, combat rolls, saving rolls, turning undead rolls, thief skill rolls, Morale rolls, and fuzzily included attribute checks and percentage likely checks (those last two on p. b60)...T&T5 is mechanically simpler, despite being longer.T&T5 does, however, have much less covered explicitly, but has a  very simple, fleble and singular mechanic for non-spell, non-attack, resolution.Despite that, T&T is also often crunchier - the rules elements are used more than the mechanics are in BX/BE play.D&D stats in BX/BE require tables to explain their uses.T&T stats generally don't... except Cha.D&D stats in BX/BE generate a modifier that makes them less important than class and level most of the time.T&T stats are used directly, and indirectly, but only spellcasting is actually limited by level. Spell casting, allowed weapons, and allowed armor are class limited, much as they are in D&D.BX D&D weapons tables have: Name, Damage*, Weight, and an annotation for 2-handed, plus range for missiles.T&T has Name, Damage, Weight, Req STR, Req DEX, Hands, and, for ranged, range.*Not that anyone I ever played with used the every weapon does 1d6... but technically, the damage column is optional in BX.It's not needed if the game is one where player inputs are constrained and only certain items are mechanicalized.  The games I've seen that don't have either rotating GMing, or no difficulty levels. A number of games make the rules authority the group vote, and deny GM authority over rules calls.The issue of problem players with rules arguments isn't specific to his group, it's pretty commonWhen I was running games back in '81, Aaron, Sam, myself, and John basically, read Moldvay page B60, right col, as including advice to seek rules concensus with GM only as tiebreaker, not authority.Reading the various eras of Gygax's advice, a lot of people lean on the AD&D era advice... his earlier advice was less toxic in content, less narrow in scope, and less toxic in presentation than his late 1E advice in dragon, and his advice in the AD&D 1E DMG..It's not a cohesive whole. Likewise, the OSR movement isn't a cohesive whole. (It's a very loud but not very big minority).I, myself, don't agree with Mr. Pulsifer's definitions. My own functional definition is "A game¹ where players control one or more characters' attempted² Actions³ in a situation presented either by participant creation or by a module⁴."¹: an activity with rules. not all games are competitions, and not all play is in/part-of a game.²: Most RPGs, the rules mechanics, either as called for by the GM or by the rules, determine success; the player declares the attempt only.³: Note the capital A in Actions - using it to refer to any effort that has a mechanical resolution mechanic.⁴: This weasel wording is to include the solo modules, as well as GM-less modules for groups, and GM'd modules.There have been attempts to seriously analyze games and gamers in the context of RPGs... the problem is that those doing it have all too often fallen prey to confirmation bias and/or selection bias. Part of the problem is that RPGs are generally played in private, and those who play aren't objective, and those who don't play generally aren't interested in doing the research.I'll also note: D&D 5E has had the largest data collection effort - it's deeply mired in selection bias, but it's the best dataset... and D&D 5E was the result.  As with all things heavily built upon feedback, it's development narrowed the response window by discouraging dissenters via increasing moves in the majority opinion direction. And that data collection has not ended with publication... WotC has done more market research than most of the rest of the industry.</blockquote>

Verification