Tired of d20 yet?

[Psion]

Because I objected to your claims about rules light systems. They struck me as false.

Now consider this. Above you tell wizard dru that basically, his experiences are false and he was telling your experiences are false (except he didn't... he, like me, said "IME".) Now, you are doing the same thing to me. There are some things about my experience with rules light game that makes me not like them. They are there, whether or not those are things that bother you or are beneath your notice. Much like the supposed angry ache of rules complexity that you harp on is there, just beneath my notice.

Please, recognize the place for both subjective positions and objective qualities in this debate. Just because you don't perceive it to the level that bothers you does not mean that it isn't there.

Listen carefully:
People's preferences in games are different because they value bona fide attributes of those games differently.

However, I'm happy to 'own up' that rules light systems do not give many people as much detail as they would like!

Which is pretty much what I just said, except for the bits you are in denial about.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Joe the fighter wants to swing on the chandelier and drop down onto his foes.
DM: Make a dex check to grab the chandelier as you leap. I'll treat it as a charge, +2 to hit but you're off balanced, so -2 to ac.

3 months later, same scenario. M: Okay roll a strength check to han onto the swaying chandelier. Good. Eh, 30% chance the chandelier breaks from your weight. Nope, it holds. Okay, I'll treat it as a surprise attack, so you get a free swing at the enemy

Because Joe the Fighter is a high-dex character. It's easy for him to catch and swing on the chandelier, and, therefore, easy for him to accomplish this particular task.

Three months later, Bob the Fighter - who is a high-strength, not high-dex, character - attempts the same thing. Because the rules changed, and we're now dealing with strength checks, it's easy for him to catch and swing on the chandelier, and, therefore, easy for him to accomplish this particular task.

If Bob had attempted his maneuver three months ago, he'd have failed the Dex check.
If Joe had attempted his maneuver three months later, he'd have failed the Str check.

Nothing in the game world has changed - it's the same chandelier, the same target, and the same desired results - but suddenly, someone who could pull something off easily can no longer pull it off, and someone who was incapable of doing something can do it with ease.

 

[Akrasia]

Comparitively so, yes. The characters in D&D stay much more equal then in unisystem. Sure Wizards can get really powerful but they have limits on spells. In Unisystems the Slayer got so good she could do called shots head all the time and have a prettyy good chance of success. The White Hats goit to a point were they could alomst take on some vamps alone, but stuill relied heavily on drama points. D&D was built to be a more balanced systems at all levels, simple unisystem was built to allow people to play Buffy. They both did the job well, but neither can do what the other does well.

I agree with your overall point here, I think. But the fact that Buffy/Angel had different design goals than 3.5 doesn't undermine the fact that the former game system is both consistent and complete -- i.e. does not lead to inconsistent or arbitrary decisions by GMs.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Because Joe the Fighter is a high-dex character. It's easy for him to catch and swing on the chandelier, and, therefore, easy for him to accomplish this particular task.

Three months later, Bob the Fighter - who is a high-strength, not high-dex, character - attempts the same thing. Because the rules changed, and we're now dealing with strength checks, it's easy for him to catch and swing on the chandelier, and, therefore, easy for him to accomplish this particular task.

If Bob had attempted his maneuver three months ago, he'd have failed the Dex check.
If Joe had attempted his maneuver three months later, he'd have failed the Str check.

Nothing in the game world has changed - it's the same chandelier, the same target, and the same desired results - but suddenly, someone who could pull something off easily can no longer pull it off, and someone who was incapable of doing something can do it with ease.

That only applies to 3e, where the differences in dex and strength can be up to +15 to the roll. In C&C, a 9 is +0, and a 19 is +3. Not a whole lot of difference there. Factor in primes and the low dex guy might just be better at it.

Anyway, I'd have no problem with a dm doing the above if it saved 30 minutes looking up a rule and then arguing about it, because of some supposed sage advice column or whatnot.

When did we become so distrustful of dms? I have yet to play with one who was out to get me.

 

[Akrasia]

...
There are some things about my experience with rules light game that makes me not like them. They are there, whether or not those are things that bother you or are beneath your notice.

While I cannot comment on your experiences with rules light systems, I can dispute the truth of your claims about certain features of those systems -- viz. that they necessarily lead to 'inconsistent' GM rulings, etc.

(In fact, since there are fewer rules to keep track of, one could make the argument that rules light systems are actually easier to apply consistently -- but that is a tangent that I am not going to bother exploring in detail here.)

...
Please, recognize the place for both subjective positions and objective qualities in this debate. Just because you don't perceive it to the level that bothers you does not mean that it isn't there.

No, the features that you attribute to rules light systems aren't there -- or at least not as necessary features of rules light systems. It is as simple as that.

...
Listen carefully:
People's preferences in games are different because they value bona fide attributes of those games differently.

I would not deny that. But your claim that rules light systems necessarily yield inconsistent rulings, etc., is simply false. That is not an intrinsic feature of all such game systems, and it certainly has not been a feature of my GMing such systems.

GMs can make inconsistent rulings with either 'rules heavy' or 'rules light' systems. That is a feature of GM style; not a feature of either type of game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That only applies to 3e, where the differences in dex and strength can be up to +15 to the roll. In C&C, a 9 is +0, and a 19 is +3. Not a whole lot of difference there. Factor in primes and the low dex guy might just be better at it.

All you've done is redefine high Dex into "not really high Dex."

This, however, is immaterial, because it doesn't address the fundamental problem: Bob had a better chance to catch the chandelier 3 months ago than he does now.

He's doing the exact same thing he did three months ago - real time, mind you, and probably more like two weeks ago game time, depending on how often you play - except, inexplicably, it's harder this time. Also, suddenly, there's a chance that the chandelier will come crashing down on top of him - causing an ad hoc save or die, no doubt.

 

[Akrasia]

I am actually not that tired of 'd20', btw. (3.5 D&D, gods yes, I'll never DM it 'as is' again. But there seems to be a fair bit of interesting d20 stuff out these days.)

 

[Psion]

While I cannot comment on your experiences with rules light systems, I can dispute the truth of your claims about certain features of those systems -- viz. that they necessarily lead to 'inconsistent' GM rulings, etc.

Every game will experience inconsistant rulings, whether they be rules heavy or rules light... unless they cover EVERYTHING. So why should I suppose that rules light games would not also. To suggest that there is no room for inconsistency is simply unsupportable.

I would not deny that. But your claim that rules light systems necessarily yield inconsistent rulings, etc., is simply false.

"Necessarily" is a slick wording. It's possible that a rules heavy game could be so ham handed that the nature of its rulings are so "all over the place" that they lack internal cohesion (in fact, you could argue RIFTS qualifies). Likewise, a GM can have such a good memory and consistent methodology that he does not benefit greatly from the benefit of forethought given more extensive rulings.

But as the saying goes, "The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, or the fight to the strongest, but that's the way to bet."

GMs can make inconsistent rulings with either 'rules heavy' or 'rules light' systems. That is a feature of GM style; not a feature of either type of game.

Yes, they can, and I just said as much.

The difference is that with the general paradigm shift between rules light and rules heavy games, in rules heavy games you address more situations in the rules. In rules light game, you rely exclusively on GM ajudication. Now unless your GM has a memory like a steel trap or a detailed set of consistent principles such that he always rule the same way twice. In which case I assert that
a) it's not really a rules light game, but a rules heavy game in which the GM has all the rules in his head (which IMO is not a desirable situation because it keeps the players in the dark.)
b) there was really no point in striving for a rules light game in the first place, since the GMs memory is obviously good enough that he could have memorized all the rules anyways.

The only alternative to this is to treat a variety of disparate situations with an over simplified mechanic and call that "consistent" (like the aforementioned "flip a coin.") If that's is sufficient for you, then have at, but for me, that fails to do the job that an RPG needs to do. Consistency is not good if it's consistently SOD-shattering.

 

[Akrasia]

Every game will experience inconsistant rulings, whether they be rules heavy or rules light... unless they cover EVERYTHING. So why should I suppose that rules light games would not also. To suggest that there is no room for inconsistency is simply unsupportable.

Huh? I don't think I was claiming that.

The difference is that with the general paradigm shift between rules light and rules heavy games, in rules heavy games you address more situations in the rules. In rules light game, you rely exclusively on GM ajudication. Now unless your GM has a memory like a steel trap or a detailed set of consistent principles such that he always rule the same way twice. In which case I assert that
a) it's not really a rules light game, but a rules heavy game in which the GM has all the rules in his head (which IMO is not a desirable situation because it keeps the players in the dark.)
b) there was really no point in striving for a rules light game in the first place, since the GMs memory is obviously good enough that he could have memorized all the rules anyways.

The only alternative to this is to treat a variety of disparate situations with an over simplified mechanic and call that "consistent" (like the aforementioned "flip a coin.") If that's is sufficient for you, then have at, but for me, that fails to do the job that an RPG needs to do. Consistency is not good if it's consistently SOD-shattering.

I think you're grossly oversimplifying the cases here in order to support your position. 'Rules light' and 'rules heavy' are matters of degree. It seems perfectly possible to have a comparatively rules light system (compared to 3.5 D&D, I mean) that can be applied consistently and fairly by a competent GM, without that system being as simple as d02.

There is a vast amount of (what I take to be) unnecesary detail in 3.5 that could be removed without the resulting system requiring the GM to 'build up' to 3.5 levels with house rules, relying on inconsistent ad hoc rulings, or reducing the system to d02. Your characterization of the alternatives leaves this fact out. Such alternatives do exist.

 

[Andre]

From what I've read above, the discussion concerning consistency seems to be centered on the idea that a rules-heavy system provides more rules for more situations than a rules-light system. In theory, these additional rules will give us more consistency in rulings than the average GM would on his/her own. And for many groups, I think that's accurate. But I also think that discussion only covers part of the issue with consistency.

Consistency is also dependent on the complexity of the rules elements. For instance, the Dodge feat grants a +1 AC vs. one opponent, selected at the beginning of the feat owner's turn. Many groups houseruled this to be +1 AC vs all opponents. Why? Because players and GM's too often forgot to select the opponent. Because it's too much work to remember this one feat for the small benefit gained. Because a +1 AC vs all opponents is hardly unbalancing for a feat.

Similarly, most races have bonuses to saves, AC, attacks, and/or skills - bonuses which only apply in limited circumstances. Quick, when was the last time your halfling remembered to use his +2 bonus to saves vs fear effects? Or the GM remembered to give your gnome a +2 bonus to his save against an illusion?

And then we have a slew of spells which produce certain effects, the exact nature of which requires a lawyer to resolve. We're still having discussions on these boards concerning basic spells, such as polymorph, protection from evil, grease, and others. Many of these spells could have been written more broadly and simply, but fear that they would be abused apparently led to a confused tangle that players and GM's are still trying to figure out.

The basic fact is that much of the complexity in 3.x/D20 is not necessary. It's a design choice - we have 18 bonus types, rather than a half-dozen. Some stack, some don't. We have 8 item creation feats, instead of 3 or 4. We have spells which provide a narrow effect in special circumstances.

All of this complexity leads to inconstency in play. I'll bet any amount that my group is getting some of the rules wrong. And - with the possible exception of Hyp's group - every other group is too. Heck, we have articles on the WOTC site, ostensibly to help explain the most problematic rules (Rules of the Game), which often show that even WOTC is often confused by the rules. This problem is not a case of needing rules for common or uncommon situations, it's a reflection of the unneccesary complexity in numerous elements within the system.