Tired of d20 yet?

[buzz]

However, here's where i think we really disagree. IMHO, once a ruleset has reached the level of detail of D&D3E (or Storyteller, or any of a number of other systems), it has obfuscated those underlying principles due to exceptions, and/or just plain gotten inconsistent in the process of elaboration.

I think this is more an issue of the clarity of a specific text, and not part-and-parcel of rule-heavy systems. Monte Cook recently commented that he thought the 3e rules could have been laid out more clearly, i.e., the underlying structure made more evident to ease mastery of the rules. I basically agree.

E.g., HERO (in general, and the current edition specifically) is all about laying those foundations bare and striving for clarity and exactitude. While arguably more complex (and maybe a drier read) than D&D, I find it easier to use overall, as the text isn't trying to hide anything from me.

Conversely, I've seen plenty of rules discussion on sites like RPG.net about comparatively far simpler systems, precisely becasue, despite being simple, nothing prevents a rules-lite RPG from being obtuse.

A good game is a good game, lite or not, and vice-versa. Depending on your comfort level with GM fiat, you'll lean either to one or the other, or maybe not even have a preference.

(OTOH, I would never give a newbie DM a seriously lite RPG. Newbies need structure. IMO, lite RPGs require more experience to run well.)

 

[WizarDru]

i luv ya, mang.

Right back at ya, bubbula.

 

[Arnwyn]

Okay, I now see that there is another, more plausible, basis for this line of reasoning.

Indeed. The one that existed the whole time.

And mine weren't? :\ Or does merely popularity at ENworld determine 'correctness'? It seems, in retrospect, a matter of miscommunication.

Nope, yours were correct too. But entirely misplaced based on their original posts. (Yeah, Wizardru got my meaning.)

 

[Akrasia]

Indeed. The one that existed the whole time.

Yet explained clearly (after a few tries) only now -- or at least this is the first conversation I've had here where it's been explained clearly.

If this line of reasoning is so obvious, I am amazed that people still frequently seem to resort to the (incorrect) "rules-light-equals-incomplete" argument, or the "rules-light-necessarily-equals-arbitrary/inconsistent" argument.

Looking back over this thread -- and other conversations I have had with Psion -- it seems pretty clear that there has been some misunderstanding/misinterpretation on both sides of the debate. One thing that has been satisfying about this thread is that some of that has been cleared up.

Thanks, though, for your smug dose of snarkiness -- I was worried that this discussion might actually end on a positive note.

 

[Arnwyn]

If this line of reasoning is so obvious, I am amazed that people still frequently seem to resort to the (incorrect) "rules-light-equals-incomplete" argument, or the "rules-light-necessarily-equals-arbitrary/inconsistent" argument.

I think the difficulty is in actually articulating the position (possibly not helped with the messageboard medium?) - we've had to resort to using the word "fidelity" to mean a sort of bastardized combination of different degrees of detail/versimilitude/simulation/reality/modelling in the context of a PnP RPG game (not to muddy the waters any further, of course). Heck, people are still talking about the different "feel" of the editions... difficult to articulate, but it's there. [But then, I have yet to see the "frequent" arguments that you refer to - so it could be more heated and prevalent than I'm aware of. I'm more used to seeing Psion's and Wizardru's position - or maybe interpret all such positions as thus!]

I think the line of reasoning is obvious, even if difficult to articulate. I knew what Psion (and Wizardru) was getting at right from the very start, and am surprised if anyone didn't understand (though I do acknowledge that others might not, for whatever reason).

Thanks, though, for your smug dose of snarkiness -- I was worried that this discussion might actually end on a positive note.

*shrug* Sorry if you take it that way.

 

[Treebore]

I wish I had your psychic talents to be able to see what a lot of players and DM's feel. All I can say is from the groups I play in and those that I happen to get to stand in on at my local FLGS is that eveyone appears to be having a good time. I don't know if that has something to do with the fact that they're playing 3E (or some other D20 game) or just have a Dm running a story that everyone is really interested in.



IME, the level of enjoyment in the game has a direct corellation to how much the DM is into it. If the DM is into the game and can effectively convey that emotion and level of enjoyment to the players, they could be playing Uncle Wiggly and have a good time. That said, I can totally see how a person can feel unhappy in a game that used a system they didn't like. At some level that distaste is conveyed to the players, therefore pulling down on everyone's emotional levels. I know for me that a good DM can make even horrid systems like Rifts seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if I tried to run it again my players would end up having a terrible time. (I really hate the Rifts/Palladium system.)

Kane

No I am not psychic, but I am a psychologist. Plus I was very good at reading people before I earned my degree. So my opinion is based on my trained observations.

One other thing, I'm not sure you caught where I said they were still having fun/a good time, just not as good a time as I observed them having with other games that are also RPG's.

Plus, the key to any game is the DM/GM. I totally agree if the DM isn't "into" it, the game as a whole is going to be far less than it could be.

Which is another reason to go with a rules lite system. I'm betting I'll be a happier DM for it. Just like I am with Shadowrun, Traveller (d6), and L5R, plus others I won't bother mentioning.

Do I think I am going to change the gaming world by switching? No, but I am going to change my world, and be happier because of it.

I'm just putting my thoughts out there in case someone else is having the same kind of issues/realizations as I have been having. People often have an epiphany when they hear their thoughts said, or written, by someone else.

BTW, I have fun with Paladium, but I agree RIFTS breaks down fast.

 

[Psion]

However, here's where i think we really disagree. IMHO, once a ruleset has reached the level of detail of D&D3E (or Storyteller, or any of a number of other systems), it has obfuscated those underlying principles due to exceptions, and/or just plain gotten inconsistent in the process of elaboration. OK, that's the general statement; now i'm going to get specifically on D&D3E's case, because it's a useful point of common reference. If it has a consistent set of common principles, i can't see them. It looks wildly inconsistent to me.

I don't see the problem with that, myself. Some tasks strike me as inherently easier than others, and I don't see that as a consistency issue. It does make invoking common terms for ease or difficulty for a standards benchmark, but that's not CONSISTENCY in the way I am using it here. But to articulate, to me it's okay and expected that an "Easy" climb might be a DC 5 and an "easy" lockpick is DC 20. So long as the same hill is always DC 5 in the same conditions, that's still consistent, because the term "easy" is not a mechanical qualification in D&D, but a human one.

To take two specific examples off the top of my head: skill DCs (most skills start at DC10 or DC15 for "easy" tasks; lockpicking starts at DC20 for an "easy" lock), and combat actions (standing from prone is no AoO, many less-difficult tasks are yes AoO)*. So, my experience is that complex/detailed/elaborated systems produce inconsistent results, even before the GM gets in there.

I made this point upthread, but this compels me to point it out again. You have a view about the "consistency" (again, not my context in the thread of consistency) of application of a number of points. (I'd rather call it validity, BID). The fact that it is codified allows you to analyze, critique, and modify the rule. But such a arguably "inconsistent" useage in an ad hoc ruling is much less vulnerable to improvement, since it is not codified to allow people to make such judgements.

 

[Akrasia]

...
I want to play a fantasy game where I here the players voices shaky with excitement. I want to see them have a difficult time picking up dice because of how hyped they are about what is happening. I want to see them jump up and down with excitement when they finally killed that "Rat B**tard". I want to do those same things when I am playing.

...

So I am going to try to get people interested in a rules lite system. Inconsistencies and all. I want to see the intense emotional involvement again, every week. Most of all, I want to feel it. Even when I DM.
....

Right. This is why, after two 3e campaigns, I have moved into comparatively rules light systems as a GM (I say 'comparatively' because the games I am interested in playing these days -- e.g. WFRP, Angel/Buffy, C&C -- are really 'rules medium' in nature, and only light relative to 3e). With 3e, it just felt too cumbersome to be a GM, and the rules (modifiers, etc.) seemed to always be 'in my face'. The game just did not mesh with my GMing style. I think both campaigns were very successful, and the players certainly seemed to enjoy themselves (except for some painfully slow combat sessions), but I came to realize that I prefer a somewhat more 'immersive' experience than I could accomplish with 3e.

In short, you're not alone.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I got your meaning Treebore, I just thought the bit about sensing a lot of other groups' dislike of D&D as a tab bit of a generalization. I see that's not the case though.

I'm in your court when it comes to playing what you like even when we differ on preferred systems.

Kane

 

[warlord]

Yeah I'm a little tired of d20. Thanks to Akrasia I spend all my time with the BtVS rpg now.