When the system gets in the way

[buzz]

They may be more willing to try outlandish things if there are no big penalties.

I've found that there's a lot of cool stuff you can do in RAW 3.x, penalties or no. Moreso than I saw in 1e, which, IME, mirrors Hussar's 2e experience. And you can always throw in stuff from IH or BoIM.

 

[WizarDru]

I would have called for a roll, but I wouldn't have had any modifiers. I'd use the cop's base skill of 4d (professional training). My thinking is that this is what the roll is for - to decide what happens - not the GM.

I'm not sure I'm exactly following the functional difference. On the one hand you're saying that the DM shoudn't influence the outcome of the action, which would suggest to me that you want the rules to handle it. But then you want the DM to decide what the actual challenge will be and set the difficulty level and context of the rolls...which is pretty much the same thing.

It was that very concept that made me drop Castle Falkenstein's system in favor of porting the setting to GURPS, years ago. As GM, I could choose when to initiate a challenge and what form the challenge took, and since I ran through cards much faster than the players, I could virtually always decide (if I so chose) the outcome of any contest. This removed any sense of simulation from the game, which made it less fun for me and my players.

Essentially what you're saying is that if the system is less quantified for your group, they are more willing to take risks. Is it possible that this is because the GM is more willing to entertain such ideas when he has no external metric, and thus they think (correctly or no) that they have a greater chance of doing such actions?

I think the real difference is that, in D&D, there's generally only one way to take a guy out in a fight - reducing his HP to 0. I've not met many DMs that will let a fight end on a (per the RAW) Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate check.

Well, there our experience differs. I have met more than a few, and like to think I am one. However, again I think we may be comparing apples to oranges, here; comparing a cyberpunk-ish Shadowrun game to a D&D game, motivation and settings-wise, things work on a very different level. Generally, D&D players are actively encouraged to roam the countryside killing things...actions that, by definition, would get the average runner killed if done indiscriminately. In fact, that is what we're discussing in the example...the cops are coming to investigate and the players are on the run. This is a common Shadowrun scenario, but a rare D&D one. Different genre, different conventions.

Especially since I think that many players and DMs tend to ignore many of the combat options in the PHB, often concentrating on the style you mention. The grapple rules are a mess, but they do work...and we've had plenty of combats that end in a pin, trip and sunder. But if a DM sets it up so monsters never do anything but fight to the death...then sure, that's all that will happen. I don't see that indemic to the rules, but to the very concept of D&D, which is going into a creature's lair, kiliing it and taking it's stuff. Mutants and Masterminds uses a variant of d20, and killing there is positively rare. Again, different genre.

 

[LostSoul]

I've found that there's a lot of cool stuff you can do in RAW 3.x, penalties or no. Moreso than I saw in 1e, which, IME, mirrors Hussar's 2e experience. And you can always throw in stuff from IH or BoIM.

I've found that the things that really matter are all written up already. Hit him, trip him, grapple him, silence him, flesh to stone him, etc.

I guess it would be like saying, "I'm going to use my Knowledge: Engineering to collapse the dungeon wall on him!"

If that happened in d6, I'd probably have the PC make an Engineering roll vs. the NPC's Dodge check. That would be the damage roll (so if the NPC wins that roll, he gets out of the way; if not, depending on how much he lost by, he could be buried by rubble or just off-balance).

It's something like that that's harder to do with D&D.

edit: I guess I should say that it's harder for me to do in D&D; I just don't think that way when I'm playing.

 

[LostSoul]

Your post has me a little confused; hopefully that's because I'm a little sick, and not just stupid.

I'm not sure I'm exactly following the functional difference. On the one hand you're saying that the DM shoudn't influence the outcome of the action, which would suggest to me that you want the rules to handle it. But then you want the DM to decide what the actual challenge will be and set the difficulty level and context of the rolls...which is pretty much the same thing.

I'm not following you here. What do you mean by "actual challenge?" (Is it what we are actually rolling about - what success or failure means?)

I guess I'm setting the Difficulty when I stat up the NPC. Which isn't so bad, because then I can't decide, moment-to-moment, how the game will go.

What is the "context" of the roll? (Is it how we describe/role-play the action?)

 

[Barak]

I've found that the things that really matter are all written up already. Hit him, trip him, grapple him, silence him, flesh to stone him, etc.

I guess it would be like saying, "I'm going to use my Knowledge: Engineering to collapse the dungeon wall on him!"

If that happened in d6, I'd probably have the PC make an Engineering roll vs. the NPC's Dodge check. That would be the damage roll (so if the NPC wins that roll, he gets out of the way; if not, depending on how much he lost by, he could be buried by rubble or just off-balance).

It's something like that that's harder to do with D&D.

edit: I guess I should say that it's harder for me to do in D&D; I just don't think that way when I'm playing.

For.. Real? An engineer who encounters someone in an hallway can just make the wall fall on them? Woah, I missed my major in college.

 

[Odhanan]

The system's properties are unchanging. It's the players whose responses vary; since Group A can roleplay satisfactorily with Game Y, and Group B cannot but find Game Z to their tastes where Group A hates it, I would argue that it's clearly the people and their tastes which make the difference.

In other words, the game only gets in the way if you're the kind of player who's bothered by its kind of features.

Quoted for emphasis. Perfectly true.

 

[Odhanan]

That's an excellent point. Actually, I posit that rules-light systems would suffer even more from min-maxers. Luckily, min-maxers tend not to like rules light systems, since their fun comes from making great (as in powerful) characters. Let me explain.

*nods*

In my experience, rules-light systems rely on a tighter social contract between the players and GM. In a sentence, you've got to trust your GM's rulings more. Rules-light systems empower game masters.

In that context, to have the character the most effective at the table in a rules-light game is no longer a problem of game mechanics and optimization, but a problem of aura you project as a player around the table and particularly how the GM trusts you and let's you "get away" with more or less borderline actions in game. I tested this theory, and it works in practice.

Bottom line, it's done for exactly the same reason (be the cool guy at the table), but somehow, "powergamers" are stigmatized as using the system, and not the social relationships, to their advantage, and somehow that would be worse. Yeah, right.

 

[Psion]

IMO, traditional "rules-lite" games require a pretty high level of group trust, as fiat is generally a big part of the resolution process.

I think that, generally speaking (there are exceptions), rules light game require trust of the GM, whereas rules heavy games require trust of the players.

 

[Odhanan]

I think that, generally speaking (there are exceptions), rules light game require trust of the GM, whereas rules heavy games require trust of the players.

Which explains why narrativist DMs will like rules-light systems, since they find themselves empowered.

 

[LostSoul]

For.. Real? An engineer who encounters someone in an hallway can just make the wall fall on them? Woah, I missed my major in college.

Sure, why not? It's cool, something fun to see and do, and it doesn't break the game in any way. What could be wrong with that?

I'm not trying to simulate reality here, though.