Tired of d20 yet?

[Akrasia]

... 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.

Excellent post.

You do a superb job of explaining the point that I only gestured towards in an earlier parenthetical remark (that consistency in play might be easier to achieve in a rules light system).

Thanks!

 

[woodelf]

It could be an argument against any system of moderate or greater complexity. I'd still argue that even RISUS is going to take some time.

Yep--i'm not meaning to single out D20 System, by any means.

One might also postulate that the shallow learning curve of "lite" games also corresponds to a shorter overall lifespan of game-play. I.e., you end up at the "been there, done that" point with the system sooner.

Is that pure hypothesis, or have you actually seen that? Depending on why one games, that *is* a plausible consequence, but not one i've ever heard of or seen myself.

I'm happy you've leanred so many games. This doesn't really impact my statement, i.e., that I can understand, and sympathize with, inertia.

My point wasn't that i've learned lots of games--it was that laziness, if not inertia, could actually be in favor of multiple simple games over one complex game, if you were to do a strict analysis. It depends on the games in question and the gamers in question, but it is at least possible that you could spend less effort learning a whole new simple system than simply keeping up with additions to a more-complex one. Or that you could, over the course of multiple games, spend less effort to learn a new system for each campaign, if all of them were rules-lite, than you spend to learn just one system, once, and apply it to all the campaigns, if it's particularly complex.

Or, to get back to my specific experiences, if i wasn't running Arcana Unearthed right now, i'd've had several more hours per week to spend on something else, whether that was better scenario preparation (as opposed to statting things up for the scenario), or learning yet more alternative systems (which often improve my GMing in whatever i'm running at the time), or writing.

More accurately, the *perceived* cybermen-like market behavior.

Hey, it's a fact that some games that used to have their own system have been published in a new edition with D20 System (in at least some cases replacing the old system), and that some games that were initially going to be a new system ended up becoming D20 System before they saw print. It might not be very many of them, but it *has* occurred. It's not just a perception, it has actually occurred. Now, the idea that "everything is going to be D20 System, and it's all gonna suxxors"--that's just a perception (and an opinion).

Not to be confrontational, but I'm not really sure why you post here, woodelf. Reading your posts here and elsewhere, it doesn't seem like you like D&D/d20 much at all. What is ENWorld's appeal to you?

• i love the potential inherent in open-content game development, and specifically in having a system with the relative robustness and completeness of D20 System available for anyone to play with. This is, in many cases, the best place for discussions relevant to this.
• I can't stand D&D3[.5]E--but there are plenty of D20 System games i like, a couple i love, and some that i think are the best thing on the market for their niche (such as Spycraft).
• There's not much point in "preaching to the choir"--if the only people on EnWorld are those who love D20 System and D&D3E, and the only people on RPGNet are those who can't stand D20 System and/or D&D3E, there's less useful communication going on. Nobody's gonna discover the game on the other side of the divide that'd interest them. if i hadn't continued to look at D20 System games despite my initial negative reaction, and my horrible experiences with D&D3E, i would've missed Spycraft, Grimm, Nyambe, and some other really phenomenal RPG books. If things were to become insular with "D20 System players" and "everyone else", the guy who asked about Riddle of Steel last week wouldn't've gotten any answers, and wouldn't have discovered a game it sounds like he'll love. [Yes, this is hyperbole--there's plenty of crossover between systems. But there is certainly a noticeable impetus among D20 System players--not all o them, but there are some examples in this thread alone--and with Dragon/Dungeon to act as if the rest of the RPG world doesn't exist.]
• An open mind is always a good thing. I may not care for the high-crunch tendency of D20 System RPGs, but tons of people love them, so i figure i should pay some attention, because they might know something i don't.
• I'm running a D20 System game right now. Since crunchy games aren't really my forte, i often turn here for system-specific advice. Can't ask on Monte Cook's boards, because one of my players reads those.
• As i said above, i'm not averse to D20 System in the abstract, just a lot of its instantiations. So if i can have any influence in shifting that a bit--such as by talking up the ones i like in the hopes that others will like them, or by tossing out ideas--i win.
• I may not like a lot of the elements of D&D3E, but D20 System is a very cool framework to play with as a game designer. IMHO, there're two really satisfying aspects to the mechanical side of game design: creating something creative and new and nifty, and building something cool with an existing structure. D20 System, for me, best satisfies that latter itch. It's a bit like the people i know who make their living doing MSWindows tech support, even though they personally use a Mac: i like to do game design with d20 System, but when i "get home" i prefer something lighter to actually GM with.
• I've run into way too many "one true way" RPers over the years who, once i overcame their resistance and got them to try something radically different, discovered they really loved it, to quit trying. Heck, i'm one of them, in a very minor way: i always hated combat in RPGs, it was my least favorite part of the game, as a GM or player--i could just stand it as a GM, but always avoided it as a player. Then i discovered the gestalt combat system in Over the Edge, and realized that it wasn't violent conflict resolution in RPGs that i hated, but lots of fiddly details.
• The tone is different here than other places, so conversations go in different directions. It's refreshing.
• I love D&D. It really is fun. It's just that i think that in the redesign from AD&D1/2 to D&D3E, they threw out the baby with the bathwater--almost all the elements that made D&D "D&D" for me, and made it fun, are gone. And the few things that i did think needed fixing didn't get fixed. This causes me to sometimes be bitter and frustrated, because i want to play a game that doesn't exist. Or, rather, didn't exist until Arcana Unearthed was published. And i'm hardly alone in this--there're certainly plenty of participants in therads i've been in who seem to share my attitudes towards D&D3E--in whole, or just specific subsystems. Do you ask them what they're doing here?

[aside]You guys gotta quit putting the Chicago gamedays on top of or right next to conventions, especially major conventions. Even if i'm not totally wiped out from Origins, the odds of my finances handling the trip to Chicago for a weekend are really slim.

 

[woodelf]

The reference to Castle Falkenstein made me think of Caslte Wolfenstein, which made me think of DOOM, which made me think of Half-Life 2. . .

Remember when first person shooter computer games only let you run around and shoot things? Then we got jump and crouch. Then we got reloading our weapons. Then we got tracked vehicles. Then we got free-steering vehicles. Then we got interactive items. Then we got interactive NPCs. Etc.

Way back, there was the four movement keys and the fire key. Then we got keys for changing weapons. Then two more keys for jump and crouch. Then another key for reloading weapons. Then we got keys for using objects and NPCs. Then keys for steering vehicles. Then we got keys for activating our microphones. Etc.

Funny how one rarely (if ever) hears gamers arguing over whether computer games have gotten too complicated. Or whether the simplicity of Caslte Wolfenstien made it a better game than the latest Half-Life.

Quasqueton

That's not a particularly useful analogy, IMHO. In a computer game, your only options are what the rules allow. In an RPG, you can do all sorts of things outside of the formalized rules, so, depending on your playgroup, adding options to the rules might not be adding options to gameplay, just formalizing them.

Or, more simply: In Half-Life, you can do more than in Castle Wolfenstein*, while D20 System pretty much gives you the same options as Hero Wars.

*I'm taking that statement on faith. My experiences with computer games pretty much consist of River Raid (back when it was new), Tetris, Mines, and a couple versions of Solitaire.

 

[woodelf]

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.

First, that's only a problem if it's a problem for your game group. For many of the groups i've been in, that would be a non-issue--especially if it meant that both players got to have fun because their respective characters got to do cool stuff when the opportunity came up. It only might become a problem if Bob then *does* try to swing on the chandelier, and performs less well and doesn't get to do cool stuff. For some playstyles and/or -groups, everybody having fun is simply way more important than consistency, either mechanically, or within the game world.

But, back to the actual problem (as in, a group for which the above is a problem). If nobody remembers, then it is, once again, a non-issue--nobody knows that the rules have changed. Likewise, it would be no benefit for the rulings to be consistent, because no one would have sufficient data to realize that the rulings were consistent.

If somebody *does* remember (whether a player or the GM), then they say so, and it's fixed, right there, before the problem occurs:

Player 1: i want to swing on the chandelier and drop on the guard
GM: hmmm..., ok, how about a jump check to get there, a strength check to hold on, and i'll treat it as attacking with surprise if you manage it.
Player 2: when Player 3 tried it at the lord's manor, you said it was a tumble check, and then treat the attack like a charge because of the extra momentum
GM: yeah, but that was when you were leaping down at the chandelier from a balcony--Player 1 is trying to jump up to the chandelier from the stairs.

or

Player 1: i want to swing on the chandelier and drop on the guard
GM: hmmm..., ok, how about a jump check to get there, a strength check to hold on, and i'll treat it as attacking with surprise if you manage it.
Player 2: when Player 3 tried it at the lord's manor, you said it was a tumble check, and then treat the attack like a charge because of the extra momentum
GM: ok. sure, that makes sense--we'll do it that way again. So, instead, tumble check, +2 to attack but -2 to AC.

or

Player 1: i want to swing on the chandelier and drop on the guard
GM: hmmm..., ok, how about a jump check to get there, a strength check to hold on, and i'll treat it as attacking with surprise if you manage it.
Player 2: when Player 3 tried it at the lord's manor, you said it was a tumble check, and then treat the attack like a charge because of the extra momentum
GM: Does that seem fair to everyone? OK, we'll do it that way.

or

Player 1: i want to swing on the chandelier and drop on the guard
GM: hmmm..., ok, how about a jump check to get there, a strength check to hold on, and i'll treat it as attacking with surprise if you manage it.
Player 2: when Player 3 tried it at the lord's manor, you said it was a tumble check, and then treat the attack like a charge because of the extra momentum
GM: Does that seem fair to everyone?
Player 1: But i'm no good at tumbling! Plus, i'm wearing heavy armor. But i'm really strong--i should be able to jump the 5' to the chandelier, making up for my lack of dexterity with brute power.
GM: ok, that makes sense. So, we'll stick with the jump and strength checks.

or

Player 1: i want to swing on the chandelier and drop on the guard.
GM: I'm thinking jump check to get there, a strength check to hold on, and i'll treat it as attacking with surprise if you manage it--does anybody remember how we handled it at the lord's manor last month?
Player 2: when Player 3 tried it at the lord's manor, you said it was a tumble check, and then treat the attack like a charge because of the extra momentum
GM: Oh. Well, what exactly are you trying to do, Player 1? Where are you going to jump from?
Player 1: i was figuring the open staircase--that's only 10' from where i am now.
GM: Then let's stick with the jump and strength checks--you're trying to leap up to something, while Player 3 was trying to catch the chandelier after leaping off a balcony above it at teh lord's manor.

or

something else. The point is for everyone to have fun, and for there to be as much consistency as the group wants--no more, no less. Inconsistency is only a problem if the group decides it is (just as millions of movie goers every year decide to suspend disbelief and not care about inconsistencies in movies they're enjoying, while others can't enjoy movies with inconsistencies [n.b.: i happen to be one of the latter, generally]).

 

[woodelf]

Then they'll be equally at sea no matter what game they pick up. Especially so, arguably, if they're using a system that relies more on GM fiat than rules.

Possibly. Depends on what the group is expecting. If they're coming at it from a "collaborative storytelling, but with more rules" approach, then they'll be more comfortable with fewer rules to keep track of. If they're coming at it from a "adventure game, but with more flexibility" approach, then they'll be more comfortable with less necessity for fiat. I've seen both sorts of beginning GMs (those flummoxed by rules; those flummoxed by lack of rules), and matched with both sorts of groups (those who have a problem with inconsistency and/or fiat; those who have a problem with complexity). I've been the token non-newbie in a few first-time GM's games. In those experiences, more-detailed systems generally made the Gm more confident/comfortable before the game, and crappier during the game (because they were afraid to "break" the rules). The best 1st-time events were with someone who understood the sort of rules embodied in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, and was dealing with a system of BESM complexity or less. [It didn't matter whether they could actually remember all the rules perfectly, what mattered is that they felt like they could, so they had the confidence to not worry about screwing up the rules part of the game.]

 

[woodelf]

When d20 hit we got so wrapped up in understanding the mechanics that role-playing really started to suffer. Now that we have that all figured out, we are now getting back to higher quality role-playing. No way am I changing systems again!

Huh. If i were ever playing an RPG whose system got in the way of the RPing, i'd just pick a different system.

Let me put forth a hypothetical: if a new system would take you a session of actual play to get completely comfortable with, and therefore you know that your group's RPing would suffer for that session (because that's what happens when your group is learning a new system), would that be too big of a cost? What if it would take you an hour of actual play to get comfortable, during which the RPing woudl suffer? What if it was 15min?

Now, how many hours/sessions does it take to get completely comfortable with the rules when you add a major new chunk of rules, like the environment books, or Complete ____ ?

These are semi-rhetorical questions--feel free to answer them, but my point is simply that the lost time/effort of learning a new system can be less than that incurred on an ongoing basis with a complex system (assuming you make changes to the rules ever, such as by introducing new books).

Or, another way to look at it: let's say your RPing suffered for 6 sessions as a result of learning D20 System. Now, let's say you've played it for 3 years. Would you be any worse off if you'd played 3 different systems, each for a year, and spent one session learning each? You'd have "wasted" 3 sessions, instead of 6, and now there'd be 3 systems that you'd already know, and not have to spend any time learning, should you be invited to play, instead of just 1.

IME, the familiarization time for something very crunchy like Hero, GURPS, or D20 System can literally be an order of magnitude or more greater than for something rules-lite like Over the Edge or Everway or Dread. I'm not saying this would necessarily be true for you, or any particular reader of this thread, but it is certainly true for some. I've dealt with a fair number of gamers, frex, who still hadn't really grokked D&D3E after 6mo of weekly gaming. Some of those same gamers were comfortable with BESM by the middle of the first session. I can't say for certain that this is an artifact of complexity, rather than style, but it certainly looks that way.

 

[Psion]

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

Well, you certainly sounded like you were saying that GM ajudication in rules light games can't be inconsistent, which dumbfounded me since I know that GM ajudication in rules heavy games can product inconsistency, so why wouldn't it do the same thing in rules light games?

And it seems to me that any worthwhile rules light game is going to bank a good deal on GM ajudication.

I think you're grossly oversimplifying the cases here in order to support your position.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing in the last post I was replying to, in which you were using the word "necessarily" to make it into a black or white picture.

'Rules light' and 'rules heavy' are matters of degree.

I never claimed otherwise. I speak only in terms of qualitative trends here. The increase in inconsistency when you lean more heavily on GM ajudication will be a matter of degrees as well.

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.

Oh, the irony. I brought up the d02 point because, well, you pointed out rightly that if you just don't care about the differences, you can be perfectly consistent, which is somewhat true, if (as someone else put it when you take it to the extreme condition) unsatisfying. So, for considering the alternatives I get bashed for not considering the alternatives. Oy vey.

Again, here, don't misaprehend me. Again, I speak in degrees. d02 is just an illustrative example showing that you can choose to sacrifice fidelity instead of consistency when removing rules. But in reality, loss of fidelity is not an all or nothing proposition.

In my experience, most rules-light games sacrifice a degree of both consistency (by leaning more heavily on GM ajudication) AND a degree of fidelity (by excluding details the deisgner considers "not worth the effort") compared to a similar heavier rules game. To slash rules using one technique or the other would, as far as I can tell, create a less playable game than one that makes light cuts in both areas, a less than optimal tradeoff.

Once again, I am not saying this is a bad thing. In the end, it's still a trade-off between ease of use and support. The right balancing point for a given person is their own decision.

 

[woodelf]

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 think the only point of debate is whether a rules-lite game has more inconsistency than a crunchy game. IME, no. In yours, yes. I'm not sure anything more-objective can be said on the matter.

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.

Of course, you allude to my problem with crunchy games: i either am incapable of keeping track of a game with the details of Arcana Unearthed, or don't have the time and inclination to devote to doing so. So the fact that there are rules there for everything makes me no less likely to be inconsistent, because i may not remember them, or remember where to find them quickly. Moreover, i may remember the rule one time, or bother to look it up, and make a contradictory ruling another time because i consider it more important to get on with the game than to "get it right". Mind you, it's probably not as horrible to play in my game as that might sound to you: i do a pretty good job of maintaining verisimilitude, so while my rulings might be inconsistent mechanically (then again, they might be consistent--haven't really had any complaints), they are guided by the underlying logic of "reality"--i.e., how things work in the real world. (Since, IME, it's things like swimming and chandelier-swinging that end up being ad-hocced, not things like magic or other fantastic elements, for which the rules are always present and used.)

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.

What do you think of the sort of system that has an underlying system a lot like the underpinnings of D20 System:

roll a bunch of dice equal to your skill+attribute
for each difficulty you have to overcome, you need one success

compare to D20 System:

roll a die + attribute + skill > DC
DC=10 + opposed stat, +2 for each factor against you, -2 for each factor in your favor

That is, isn't "treat a variety of disparate situations with an over-simplified mechanic" excatly what D&D3E does, it just has some specific situations already spelled out for you? What's the difference? [seriously--i'm not sure i'm understanding the distinction you're making.]

 

[Psion]

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.

Very interesting. But I think this brings up two points.

1) If you think the dodge bonus is bad, consider for a second if the dodge rule was only in the GM's head, and was spontaneously awarded to the player, and nobody else understood when it did or did not applied. That "rule", if anything, is going to be more inconsistantly applied. At least with the written rule, your friends can be familiar with it, remind you of it, etc., instead of leaving it in the province of the single most overworked and distracted participant in the game, the GM.

2) And the fact you house ruled it highlights a second advantage. Everyone knows the rule, how it works is down on paper, and it can be analyzed, criticized, and house ruled. Again, something that is much less likely to happen with a ruling that is only in the GMs head. Congratulations! You have just discovered what I have called in this thread "the benefit of forethought."

 

[Psion]

What do you think of the sort of system that has an underlying system a lot like the underpinnings of D20 System:

roll a bunch of dice equal to your skill+attribute
for each difficulty you have to overcome, you need one success

compare to D20 System:

roll a die + attribute + skill > DC
DC=10 + opposed stat, +2 for each factor against you, -2 for each factor in your favor

That is, isn't "treat a variety of disparate situations with an over-simplified mechanic" excatly what D&D3E does, it just has some specific situations already spelled out for you? What's the difference? [seriously--i'm not sure i'm understanding the distinction you're making.]

Okay, I'm not sure what you are saying, so let me just take up your question and let's go from there.

I'm not seeing, when it comes to factoring in difficulty, how the two models you propose vary greatly. (I have other reasons for disliking the dice pool, but I don't want to sidetrack, even though it is marginally related.) Qualitatively, they have a similar approach and are a nice starting point for a robust system.

Now, if you stopped there, I would say you have a system, in either case, that has a large degree of reliance of GM ajudication. One GM may rule something a factor for or against that another would not, or the same GM may rule differently in similar circumstances.

Now if you allow different sizes of bonuses or penalties, and assign some common "factors" specific bonuses or penalties, the game becomes more rules heavy, but it becomes more consistent, since there are certain things that will always be factors for or against, and these things are recorded. Further, even if your list of factors is less than exhaustive, they can be used as reference points which can make even your GM calls more self consistent, since you have a sort of standard.