Tired of d20 yet?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Several of my examples did not assume any change, whatsoever, in the in-game situation.

Actually, by my reading, only one of them had a rules change that didn't involve an in-game change. This one:

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.

The others all either had a rules change predicated on some other in-game changes (change in target, change in where the jumper was starting, etc.) or stuck with the original ruling.

EX1: In-game change and rule change
EX2: No change
EX3: No change
EX4: Possible in-game change and rule change
EX5: In-game change and rule chage

I say that it's a possible in-game change because the opponent is now even more off-kilter than he was before. The person who acrobatically leaped to the chandelier, true-swashbuckling style - was at a small advantage against his opponent and at a disadvantage in terms of AC, whereas the lumbering brute is at an even greater advantage against his opponent and has no particular disadvantages

The inconsistency in this case clearly favors the lumbering brute - which is a problem that can often arise with ad hoc rulings.

Of course you're right that inconsistency is only a problem if the gaming group cares - but then any "gaming problem" is only a problem if the gaming group cares, so I find that particular objection to be pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

The problem may particularly arise in the case that the acrobatic fellow had an ability or two that depended on surprised opponents - his maneuver may have been cooler and more fun for all involved had he benefitted from the second ruling, rather than the first.

 

[Akrasia]

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".

Well, despite being rather thick, I was well aware of the latter objection to 'rules light' systems (and I think my posts are pretty clear on that). Obviously it is important to some players that they know their PCs' 'precise abilities' at diplomacy, bluff, etc., whereas other players are satisfied simply knowing whether or not their PC is a "charismatic hero" or not.

What I was confused about was why the more general 'rules light' approach necessarily led to inconsistencies. It seemed to rest on a confusion between 'rules light' systems and 'incomplete' systems -- a confusion I frequently encounter on these boards. Okay, I now see that there is another, more plausible, basis for this line of reasoning.

...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.

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

 

[WizarDru]

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

If popularity were a factor, I'd be wrong all the time.

I think arnwyn's point was to your original contention that when I was discussing a rules-light game, you assumed I must have meant an incomplete system, because it shouldn't have led to inconsistincies that I experienced; when in actuality it was that my group and I don't enjoy the lack of fidelity that some systems with less rules necessarily entails. In other words, Psion and I weren't incorrect, at least from our point of view. Of course your statements were correct to you, that wasn't what he was addressing.

 

[Treebore]

I've always been for a rules lite system, when one was available for the genre that I wanted to play, except when it comes to Traveller. For some reason I prefer the original system. Probably because it is simple, until you get into ship creation. Some people find ship combat complicated, but it isn't once you realize it is like it is to hopefully involve as many characters as possible in the combat.

Shadowrun isn't exactly complex. I think my problems with that system is that too much of it is undefined, especially with the magic part of the system.

As for 3E. IT is well defined. It has become too defined for my tastes. I may as well as play Rolemaster for the complexity, which is why I stayed away from Rolemaster in the first place. It is also why I don't play Aftermath, even though I really like that specific genre.

So yes, I have become tired of 3E, and I will no longer DM it after I wrap up my current campaign. Hopefully this weekend. I'll play it whenever I can. Playing isn't complex. DMing it is.

I also have come to feel that the complexity has hampered the fun of the adventures. Yes, we now have a rule to cover just about anything, but using those rules add to the complexity, slow down game play, and prevent or cause a "disconnect" between the player and the events of the game. In other words, my players become far less emotionally involved in what is happening. They have way too much numbers crunching going on, keeping them emotionally detached. So I do not see the excitement I used to when I DM. Nor do I see or feel it when I am playing.

I am not saying I do not feel any excitement. I am saying I do not see or feel anywhere near the level, or intensity, of excitement I used to see around the gaming table. I still see it when I GM Traveller. Heck, I even see it with Shadowrun.

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.

I haven't done it since 3E came out. I have seen others get that way only a handful of times, while playing 3E. I have seen it every game session with Legend of the Five Rings/Rokugan. I have seen it with every gaming session of Traveller. I have seen it with every session of Shadowrun. Even GURPS. I even saw it with a 2E game my wife ran for several weeks.

My current gaming group has proven this to me more strongly than ever before. They play other games, under their original DM, before I show up. They have usually been playing 3 to 4 hours by the time I get there. While sitting there, waiting for them to wrap up the game they were playing so we can play either the game I run or the game I play in, I have noticed something I find very striking.

I see them more excited, more into, what their characters are doing then I have ever seen them in any of the 3E games I have played or DMed with them, or even watched them play. Usually we have one player who is always able to get excited to a very noticeable degree in comparison to the other players. When I watched them play Exalted, or Witches, or some other one shot, they talk louder, move around a lot more in their seats, are watching the DMing, hold their dice waiting to make their next roll. Just like the player who is normally excited to play.

While playing 3E I see them reading gaming books, crotcheting, nitting, messing with little toys, needing to be prompted that it is their turn to roll the dice, regualrly getting up to get a drink or snack, or go run a load of laundry.

So, yes, I am tired of D20. I think a lot of players and DM's are, but just haven't noticed yet, because they still have fun, just not as much as they could if they played something else.

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.

A lot of you sound like you have that kind of involvement with 3E. I hope you really do. I don't. So I am looking for something better.

 

[diaglo]

If popularity were a factor, I'd be wrong all the time.

i luv ya, mang.

 

[Kanegrundar]

So, yes, I am tired of D20. I think a lot of players and DM's are, but just haven't noticed yet, because they still have fun, just not as much as they could if they played something else.

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.

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.

A lot of you sound like you have that kind of involvement with 3E. I hope you really do. I don't. So I am looking for something better.

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

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

So, how do we get DM into the game? There's not a lot of books to help DM, just tools. That's like giving a person with no carpentry skill a hammer and tell him to build a house. Let's face it, there is a reason why 1 out of 5 gamers are DMs. No one wants to do the works or at least dread the prep 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.)

I can relate. I never liked the d6 System but my friend is bugging me to run a Star Wars (before d20) because he wants to be a player. I ran the game entirely with as little rolling as possible except for combats. They had a great time and want me to do it again, and I didn't.

 

[Kanegrundar]

So, how do we get DM into the game? There's not a lot of books to help DM, just tools. That's like giving a person with no carpentry skill a hammer and tell him to build a house. Let's face it, there is a reason why 1 out of 5 gamers are DMs. No one wants to do the works or at least dread the prep time.

There is no easy answer here. Introductory adventures help get even a newbie DM into the mode of running a game. Granted running a game and running a game with ease are two totally different things, but it will get their feet wet and the wheels turning. Not to mention gives them a chance to get a better handle on the mechanics of the game. I'm not sure beyond that. It must not be too much of a problem with all the people that are supposedly playing D&D (and rpg's in general) across the country and beyond.

Kane

 

[Tyrrell]

I was incredibly sick of D&D, (the only D20 game that gets played around my parts). So were many of my friends. So we played Fireborn, we played the end of the world in a Werewolf the appocalypse game, I ran an exalted game for ten sessions, we played Ars Magica (which is still going strong, fifth edition Ars Magica is incredible, go buy it), we started an ill-fated Vampire Dark Ages game that no one apart from the GM could get into and now a year and a half later, I'm getting a half-elf barbarian/rogue set up for a new D&D game and I can't wait.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Change of pace is a good thing. When I don't feel like running D&D (back when I still had a group), we'd break out Warhammer Quest or Doom or a different RPG (I'm jonesn' for some WHFRP 2E right now) to run for a little bit. It refreshed us and got us ready for our regular game.

Kane