Tired of d20 yet?

[Crothian]

Whereas high level play in 3.5 D&D is a breeze?!

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.

 

[WizarDru]

What you describe here in no way resembles my experiences with (moderately) rules light systems.

I never implied or meant to imply that it did.

(I will be very curious to know how the experiences of you and Psion somehow falsify the actual play experiences of my group -- and many other groups that I know about!)

I would be too, since my experiences can't falsify your group's experiences. I'm really not sure where you got the idea that it did. Perhaps you missed the "My experience has been that..." part of my sentence? My experiences don't invalidate yours any more than yours do mine.

I never refered to any game as incomplete, although arbitrary is clearly a point of view. Do you consider Castle Falkenstein to be an incomplete game, for example? I loved the setting, but my group and I rapidly grew irked with the game's mechanics. I converted it to GURPS and we were all much happier with it. I've never played the Unisystem or C&C, so I have no idea how light they actually are.

I do know what my and my groups experiences with 'rules-light' systems are... unsatisfying, generally. That doesn't make them 'bad' or 'wrong' or an inherently inferior system...it simply means that I won't enjoy it on the same level. YMMV.

 

[Quasqueton]

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

 

[Akrasia]

High level 3.5 play may take more record keeping and a bit more time, but it's hardly difficult. Maybe not as much as a breeze as say, C&C, but it's still easy enough for me.

Kane

Lucky you! IME even ardent 3.5 supporters acknowledge the frequent slowness of high-level play, especially combat. (And as for prepping adventures for PCs level 12+, egh, I'd rather not even think about that.)

 

[Akrasia]

You seem to be in denial that that rules light systems must lead to inconsistant rulings.

My own experiences have led me to acquire different beliefs -- ones that seem to be supported by repeated empirical testing.

Now I wonder why we came to different conclusions in our so called "empirical" testing.

Hmmm... could it be different conditions like different players, maybe?

Hmmm... could it be that many GMs of rules light systems don't make inconsistent rulings, but for some reason you have not encountered any such GMs in your gaming experience?

I have run two 3e campaigns since 2001 (each of which lasted roughly a year). As far as I can tell, I have been no more 'inconsistent' in my rulings in my non-3e ('lighter') games.

Great! Then why are we having this argument?

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

And I am avoiding work.

As for arguing whether rules light systems are 'better' than rules heavy systems -- well, I have never gotten into that sort of argument (at least not while sober), because that is a matter of taste.

I'll own that rules heavier game come with some attendant overhead in learning and or referencing rules. But my tastes and talents make this tolerable.

Now you own up that "rules light games require more ad hoc rulings with less benefit of forethought thus are more inconsistant, but your tastes and talents let you tolerate it."

Ready? GO!

Again, IME, having GMed both 3e and C&C (along with many other 'rules heavy' and 'rules light' systems over the years), I have not experienced any marked increase (or decrease) in 'inconsistent' rulings while running rules light games.

So I reject your claim.

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

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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. . .


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

Actually, I would make that claim. Doom 2 rocked, Quake and Quake 2 were fairy good. There hasn't been a shooter since that I have enjoyed, other than a few clones, such as Hexen, Blood, etc. Halo, etc, are not worth my time.

 

[Akrasia]

...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.
...

And your point here is ... ?
:\

 

[Kanegrundar]

Lucky you! IME even ardent 3.5 supporters acknowledge the frequent slowness of high-level play, especially combat. (And as for prepping adventures for PCs level 12+, egh, I'd rather not even think about that.)

IMO, slower combat is a price I'm willing to pay to play in a game that is so fun to use. Plus there a several programs out there that can help prep time quite a bit, not that it's overly difficult to get it done anyway.

I agree with Psion on the whole light vs heavy rules systems. It's a matter of taste. Sure 3/3.5 takes longer to set up and (at times) play than earlier editions or other games like C&C, but for the level of options in customization I'll gladly deal with it.

Kane

 

[Akrasia]

... I do know what my and my groups experiences with 'rules-light' systems are... unsatisfying, generally. That doesn't make them 'bad' or 'wrong' or an inherently inferior system...it simply means that I won't enjoy it on the same level. YMMV.

Fair enough.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

What's so wrong with inconsistent rulings, if they're fair? I'll use the oft abused chandelier for example.

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.

Either would be a fair approach, and while different, the game goes on without hunting rulle 17a on page 496 which references rulebook B which no one thought to bring to the game.