Tired of d20 yet?

[Akrasia]

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?

Um ... I never claimed that GM adjudication in rules light games can't be inconsistent. I don't know where you are getting that. :\

I did claim that GM adjudication need not be inconsistent, or any more inconsistent that it is in rules heavy games.

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..

Well, my use of the word "necessarily" emerged because of how your phrased the issue. Let me quote what you said in an earlier post:

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

...

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."
...

I substituted "necessarily" for your use of the words "must" and "require" -- but I don't think that doing so involved any distortion in meaning.

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.

Sorry for being a bit thick, but I am not sure what you are saying here. :\

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.

Ummm ... what do you mean by 'fidelity'? Fidelity to what? If you mean 'accuracy' (i.e. fidelity to 'reality'), then I will concede that some rules heavy systems do have this as a design goal. However, 3.5 D&D is a rules heavy-ish system that does not attempt to model 'reality' -- anything but! The detail in 3.5, as far as I can tell, serves some other function.

A moderately rules light system can give relatively general rules to cover all relevant situations that emerge in game play. These rules mean that the resolution of various tasks, etc., will be a bit more 'rough grain' in nature than rules heavy systems (i.e. fewer adding and subtracting of various modifiers, etc.). But this does not make them arbitrary or inconsistent. The extent to which people like or dislike this is, as I think we both agree, a matter of taste.

 

[Psion]

Sorry for being a bit thick, but I am not sure what you are saying here. :\

Okay, in an earlier post you alluded to the idea that rules light games can be "more consistent" by virtue of using a more simlpe mechanic across the board. Though that's not what I was meaning by "consistent", I was compelled to agree that your results would be more "consistent". But the loss of detail is likely to be less satisfying at some level. Which is why I brought up the "flip a coin" thing.

And you attack me for "not considering alternatives." I brought it up precisely because I was ceding you a point, and I get bashed for it.

Ummm ... what do you mean by 'fidelity'? Fidelity to what? If you mean 'accuracy' (i.e. fidelity to 'reality'), then I will concede that some rules heavy systems do have this as a design goal. However, 3.5 D&D is a rules heavy-ish system that does not attempt to model 'reality'

You'll note I didn't invoke the term reality... which was purposeful, I assure you.

I was thinking of it in terms of "detail of model." Sort of like a high fidelity recording captures subtle details of a song. I am speaking in terms of correspondance of the game model to the world which it hopes to represent, not the real world. For example, presumably, in Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, people bleed, lose limbs, etc., but the system does not model this. So in that matter, it lacks some fidelity.

At any rate, if I only use a single coin flip to represent all conflicts, that is a very low fidelity game model, but very good consistency. Having a chance based on character skill but only representing three areas of capability, is still fairly low fidelity, but better.

A system which allows for different representations of character skill and different difficulties is higher fidelity still. If those modifications are codified, it is more likely that the same circumstance will be applied consistently between different games, or between the same GM in different times, which gives the game consistency. These codifications are a form of rule.

So, as I see it, there are a couple things that create rules - codifications that provide consistency, and categorizations which provide fidelity. To strive for a more rules light game, you can remove either categorization details or codification details. Some rules cover both to some extent, and some are minutia that really don't perform either function.

A moderately rules light system can give relatively general rules to cover all relevant situations that emerge in game play.

That's entirely a matter of perspective. What is irrelevant to you may well be relevant to me or my players. The games characteristics are, in fact, affected when you remove rules. That it did not rob it of qualities that concern you does not mean that they weren't altered.

But this does not make them arbitrary or inconsistent.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point, but it still stuns me that you can't see it (but I guess it shouldn't, because we've had this argument before.) Barring a GM who is more superhuman than any I have ever run under, more reliance on GM ajudication = more inconsistancy (given the caveat that you want a reasonable degree of fidelity). Period. That does not mean I think GM ajudication is bad; even the heaviest of games could not cover all bases without it.

 

[Akrasia]

Okay, I think I have a better understanding of your overall position now.

Barring a GM who is more superhuman than any I have ever run under, more reliance on GM ajudication = more inconsistancy (given the caveat that you want a reasonable degree of fidelity). Period.

That caveat is pretty important. If the rules already establish the desired level of 'fidelity' (e.g. they are generally 'good enough' for the group in question in 'modeling' the nature of 'Middle-Earth', or whatever), then it is, if anything, probably easier to be consistent with a rules light system than a rules heavy system.

What attracts many GMs and players to rules light systems, IME, is a desire to stop 'sweating the details' (e.g. adding up endless modifiers, etc.), and 'get on with the game/story'. Hence they are less likely to introduce ad hoc 'fiddly' modifiers in particular situations in order to 'simulate' those situations better. This is what you refer to as 'fidelity'. Since the desired level of fidelity has already been achieved by the rules, for the most part, then IME GMs have not been any more arbitrary in their rules light games than they have been in their rules heavy games.

So, as I see it, there are a couple things that create rules - codifications that provide consistency, and categorizations which provide fidelity. To strive for a more rules light game, you can remove either categorization details or codification details. Some rules cover both to some extent, and some are minutia that really don't perform either function.

So according to your view, games can achieve varying degrees of:

(a.) Fidelity (detail provided in order to simulate, or provide information about, the game world in question);
(b.) Consistency (consistent rules/guidelines for relevant situations).

The more 'rules light' a game is, the more it has to 'sacrifice' one of these features (or some combination of both).

I don't think I disagree with this -- in fact, it looks right. And I guess the source of my disagreement with your earlier claims is based on what I said above, namely, that many 'rules light' GMs are not overly concerned with achieving a high level of fidelity, whereas you seem to be assuming that they are (and thus are willing to sacrifice consistency).

 

[Andre]

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."

Concerning point 1) That's why I suggest the the rule is "needlessly" complex. A +1 bonus to AC is so minor in gameplay that it shouldn't require extra effort to remember it, either by the GM or the player. Whether or not the rule should be explicit (rules-heavy) or implicit (rules-light), it's not a well-written feat, IMO.

Concerning point 2) Agreed. In fact, I like the fact that 3.x has attempted to codify a number of common situations which, in the past, were left up to GM fiat. While players should not know everything that is happening, they should have a consistent set of rules on which to base their decisions. Having common skill DC's explicitly stated, having the effects of conditions (sickened, etc.) clearly defined is a huge help in play.

My concern has less to do with the rules-heavy/rules-lite discussion, and more to do with your concept of fidelity.

I'll start with an example of where I think 3.x got it right: Saves. We have only 3 types of saves, each is clearly distinguished from the other, each is tied to exactly one stat. If a GM creates a new spell, it's almost always obvious which type of save should be applied. A reasonably simple mechanic that effectively differentiates differing effects.

Now one could argue that this is too simplistic. That we need 10 save types, dependent on a mix of stats and/or skills. That an auditory illusion requires a different save type than a charm effect. And so on. While I might agree with the reasoning in theory, in play the difficulties of the more complex rule would not be equaled by the benefit in fidelity.

IMO, 3.x too often falls into the trap of using a complex rule, when a simpler one would suffice. Grappling is different enough from normal combat that I can see the argument that it should have its own rules. But could these rules be simplified and achieve the same effect? My answer is clearly yes. The same with polymorph/wildshape. The same with many feats and spells. And the simpler the rules, the easier it is to master a rules-heavy system such as 3.x, which leads to greater consistency - presumably the whole point of creating a rules-heavy system in the first place.

Of course that raises the question of where do the designers draw the line? As you've pointed out, "People's preferences in games are different because they value bona fide attributes of those games differently." This applies not only to the amount of rules, but to their complexity. Presumably the designers felt that 3 save types was enough, but less than 18 bonus types wasn't. I disagree, but I understand how they could reach that conclusion. My solution would be to make the simpler rule the default rule, and the more complex rules official, but optional. In effect, creating "official" house rules within the core books. Not that I ever expect it to happen, but I can always hope...

 

[jeff37923]

Tired of d20 D&D system yet? Finding yourself wandering more and more often to other games?

Nope. Don't see myself getting tired in the foreseeable future, either.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Exactly my point.

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.

Etc. The initial assumption was that, in-game, both situations were identical. The only thing that changed is how the rules handle them. If you're going to change the situation, then, generally, the rules should reflect that.

 

[woodelf]

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.

To me, they don't (vary greatly). That was the point. I had previously thought that you would consider them significantly different, based on our discussions. [And, yes, the dicepool should be ignored--i simply was pulling an existing system out of my head, rather than try to invent a hypothetical that was completely devoid of baggage.]

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.

OK, i think i see the difference in our POVs.

Let us assume, for the moment, that all of the various modifiers and DCs in D&D3E were arrived at by applying a consistent set of basic underlying rules, and that there are no exceptions. Moreover, let's assume that those are
"reasonable" principles, ones that we would agree upon, and apply in our own games.

Given those precepts, i consider the game with just the basic modifier principles given, and the game with all those principles applied and pre-calced for a lot of common situations (but the underlying principles themselves not ennumerated) to be functionally equivalent in terms of fidelity to the setting/genre being emulated. Even if the underlying principles are as simple as "any (dis)advantage significant enough to merit notice is worth +/-2; a really major (dis)advantage is worth +/-4" (which *does* seem to be the underlying rule in D&d3E).

Now, i suspect we've already parted company to some degree: if i've read you right, you've said that your experience is that the game that spells all that out, rather than just giving the guiding principle, will be more consistent.

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. 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.

Contrariwise, IME, given a simple-enough set of basic principles to keep in my head, i can produce results that are not merely as consistent as, but actually more consistent than, an elaborated ruleset.

And this may be a playstyle issue, or just one of communication on the forum here, but i think the other difference is in how we play. In my group, rulings are kept consistent not because the GM has a phenomenal memory, but because the group, collectively, has a sufficient memory. That is, the GM doesn't need to remember how it was done last time, because one of the players will usually remember. And if no one remembers, then no one is aware of any inconsistency, so it doesn't matter if it's consistent. Do i understand you correctly that your experience is that a GM will make a ruling in a rules-lite game that is inconsistent, the player(s) will be aware of this, and they will either not speak up, or will speak up but the GM will ignore them? Yeesh--i can see how that would put a bad taste in your mouth.


*And, yes, i'm aware that D&D3.5E fixed that. Whether it was an error or a poor design decision in 3E is irrelevant to my point--the point is that the inconsistency got in there, not how it got there.

 

[Arnwyn]

That caveat is pretty important.

And there you go. Issue resolved.

I'm a little surprised that you couldn't figure out that when people have a negative opinion on rules-lite systems, and say that they lead to either inconsistencies (an "incomplete" game as you termed it) or unsatisfying gameplay (but with a consistent mechanic, like 'd02' at the extreme end of the spectrum), that they're talking about the level of (to use Psion's term) "fidelity".

I have no doubt whatsoever that "in your experience" you've never had inconsistent rulings in any "good" rules-lite games. However, I also have no doubt that you and your players tolerate a reduced level of "fidelity" that others (who dislike and may have had problems with rules-lite systems) won't.

And, as Psion pointed out, that's where any complaints lie. (And clearly, IMO at least, ENWorld is made up of those who prefer higher fidelity to lower. Psion's caveat rules the roost.) Both Psion's and Wizardru's original posts/comments were correct.

 

[woodelf]

Etc. The initial assumption was that, in-game, both situations were identical. The only thing that changed is how the rules handle them. If you're going to change the situation, then, generally, the rules should reflect that.

Several of my examples did not assume any change, whatsoever, in the in-game situation. I maintain the point that it is not the changing of the rules that matters--it is the players having a problem with it that matters. If the players don't remember, or don't care, then it doesn't matter. Inconsistency, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad. It may even be good. Frex, why not let the strong character make a strength check and the nimble character make a dex check, when both want to swing on the same chandelier?

 

[Psion]

Whoa. Well obviously opinions still differ, at least I finally feel like I am communicating with Akrasia (and Woodelf). I fully expected this thread never to come to closure until someone got tired of it and walked away. My hat's off to you gentlemen for the friendly discourse.