Quote from: RandallS;749259Abstract mechanics are fine to an extent, but when you don't take into account differences in monsters for abstract mechanics like "do they stop attacking/following for food" you end up with nonsense results on occasion -- like vampires that stop for a pile of cooked meat or, in an example, from a real set of rules, 10 foot gelatinous cubes moved through a 10 foot corridor that the RAW has being knocked prone.  Perhaps you are willing to put up with nonsense edge cases to have nearly perfect consistency from the RAW, but I walk from games with such nonsense unless the GM overrules the nonsense results with rulings.

This is why I think the GM needs to occassionally step in and adjust for these sorts of things. A universal tripping rule is fine (and simple) but I expect the GM to rule it won't work in cases where it just doesn't make sense.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;749270This is why I think the GM needs to occassionally step in and adjust for these sorts of things. A universal tripping rule is fine (and simple) but I expect the GM to rule it won't work in cases where it just doesn't make sense.

This is pretty much how I view rules. Excellent to have but adjustable by the gm when situations arise the rules don't cover very well.

Quote from: BillThis is pretty much how I view rules. Excellent to have but adjustable by the gm when situations arise the rules don't cover very well.

Absolutely.  In a well-designed and well-GMed rules-heavy games, the wealth of rules aren't a straightjacket.  A big reason they're there is to make the GM's job easier, to take time and energy away from figuring out how to make fair and consistent rulings and concentrate on more interesting and creative things.  When I GM I recognize that sometimes I'll have to make up or adapt rules (and a good system ligh or heavy, enables and facilititates this kind of thing), but I don't want to spend a lot of mental effort making a stable, balanced, and fair rules system up on the fly.  A few open links and print-outs to refer to quickly in play, plus a system with enough rules to cover most things the PCs will likely attempt, do that job for me.

For a long time, I played an extremely rules-light mode of D&D. There wasn't much mechanical structure to the game besides rolling dice to hit and damage, spell descriptions, and abbreviated monster stats. I was very fluent running the game that way and making rulings on everything else that game up. My players were fine with it.

But eventually, I sought out more structured and detailed mechanical support. I simply became tired of bearing all the weight of improvisation, judgement, and adjudication. I wanted the system to carry more of the load to my players were engaged in more than leaning back in chairs and musing about what their character did. A more structured game (while still probably rules-medium for many gamers) has let me devote more of my energy to setting and roleplaying, rather than making improvised decisions and judgments on 90 per cent of PC actions.

Quote from: Haffrung;749338For a long time, I played an extremely rules-light mode of D&D. There wasn't much mechanical structure to the game besides rolling dice to hit and damage, spell descriptions, and abbreviated monster stats. I was very fluent running the game that way and making rulings on everything else that game up. My players were fine with it.

But eventually, I sought out more structured and detailed mechanical support. I simply became tired of bearing all the weight of improvisation, judgement, and adjudication. I wanted the system to carry more of the load to my players were engaged in more than leaning back in chairs and musing about what their character did. A more structured game (while still probably rules-medium for many gamers) has let me devote more of my energy to setting and roleplaying, rather than making improvised decisions and judgments on 90 per cent of PC actions.

That is intriguing, because I am the reverse. When I use a rules lite system, I feel it is easier to relax and just roleplay without thinking about mechanics.

But all that matters is what works for the individual to have fun.

Quote from: Steerpike;749326Absolutely.  In a well-designed and well-GMed rules-heavy games, the wealth of rules aren't a straightjacket.  A big reason they're there is to make the GM's job easier, to take time and energy away from figuring out how to make fair and consistent rulings and concentrate on more interesting and creative things.  When I GM I recognize that sometimes I'll have to make up or adapt rules (and a good system ligh or heavy, enables and facilititates this kind of thing), but I don't want to spend a lot of mental effort making a stable, balanced, and fair rules system up on the fly.  A few open links and print-outs to refer to quickly in play, plus a system with enough rules to cover most things the PCs will likely attempt, do that job for me.

All true, and in this way rules also serve better in games where you want the system to either highlight what makes the setting/game different, or when the GM wants the rules to cover a part of that game that you expect to be used a lot, like sanity rules for Lovecraftian game, or witchcraft rules in a game where reagents have a great effect on the spells, or rules for the growth of a stronghold where the players are expected to settle into that role eventually.

I personally feel that "rules heavy" and "well designed" is an oxymoron.

What other product prides itself on having a bulky, complex, reference required interface?

Quote from: Dunnagin;749359I personally feel that "rules heavy" and "well designed" is an oxymoron.

What other product prides itself on having a bulky, complex, reference required interface?

Microsoft Access

Rules are simple things, but have all but ceased to exist for the purpose they should be used for.

For most gamers, they have only two purposes these days-

1. Something to ignore and overrule so that the GM and players feel empowered, creative, and lords of all that they desire... and thus BA.

2. Yardsticks by which one can make their character BA, and thus somehow reach the conclusion that in turn it makes the player... BA.

Both uses are for immature minds that should have learned better from their cop and robbers days, except they likely weren't social enough to actually have played those games and thus never learn to outgrow them. Sadly these two mindsets control modern game design and game design discussion. They are overwhelmingly present in this thread from the straw-man topic to far too many of the replies.

What's almost funny about this is that those two mindsets both want the same thing but completely hate how the other goes about doing that. So we gets threads like this where they whine at each other drowning out any reasonable voices that might happen by.

Meanwhile the original and best purpose for rules in gaming is ignored and claimed to be boring at best and impossible at worst. The current crop of designers and publishers were born from this mess, and bring all its dysfunction to every new game published whatever its source.

It's enough to ruin my otherwise sunny mood.

This has certainly ventured into some highly spherical cow territory.

However, I do have one question for all the honest participants.  Let's say you were looking at a game list at the LGS.  An advertisement for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition" game catches your eye.  You make up a character and show up at the appointed place and time.

It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

Is that still "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition?"  Is that still within your criteria for a "game."  If the GM were a "bad" GM, would the answers to those questions still be the same?  If the game were billed as "Experience freeform adventure in the homebrew world of Ixion!" would the answer change, or would you not even attend?

Excluded middle.

Not to mention, I personally would talk to anyone who proposes a game I'm interested in and ask questions about it. Then I'd have a good idea whether I want to play the game, or not. Also, as a DM, I have a session zero for new games, discuss some things like the campaign's nature, the setting, what characters' people want to play, etc, before the game starts.

Communication. What a beautiful thing.

Quote from: Gabriel2;749398This has certainly ventured into some highly spherical cow territory.

However, I do have one question for all the honest participants.  Let's say you were looking at a game list at the LGS.  An advertisement for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition" game catches your eye.  You make up a character and show up at the appointed place and time.

It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

Is that still "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition?"  Is that still within your criteria for a "game."  If the GM were a "bad" GM, would the answers to those questions still be the same?  If the game were billed as "Experience freeform adventure in the homebrew world of Ixion!" would the answer change, or would you not even attend?

No one is advocating doing this, it is a false example... whereas the examples of the more overburdened portions of current rules sets are based quotes from those rules.

No one advocating "rules light" here has said they would go so far as to negate a character sheet.

You might as well say... "if you make a character, then show up to the game, and the DM beats you round the head with a pipe... are you still playing D&D? How do you enjoy you're rules light now!"

It's an inconsequential arguement.

Overly verbose rules for "jumping" is 3.5 if a reference-able example... on the other hand.

Quote from: Gabriel2;749398It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

So he's not using the in-world stuff on the sheet, like the armour I'm wearing or the spells in my head?

I guess for it to be AD&D I'd expect him to use the above in-world stuff, plus hit points as a measure of attrition. If I have STR DEX etc on my sheet I'd expect that to have some influence on the GM's description.

I guess I'm ok with it being diceless, but if I have a character sheet with stuff on it like stats, spells, equipment, hit points, I expect that to be used. Doesn't have to be used RAW, though. But I expect to get to play the character on the sheet, not a completely different character.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749196Again, as a DM, I would like to think that I have better things to do with my time at the table than make adjudications and "rulings" (because apparently somehow on-the-fly decisions are different from statements in the book in terms of mechanical impact).

It's my world.  Nobody but me knows how it works.  I jot down notes on certain things I think are important enough to recur, or use rules other people have written if they are close enough to something I like.

The rules are merely supports for me to adjudicate everything that happens on my world.  The players who appeal to authority must appeal to me, not some set of words on paper.

Oddly, in 42 years I've never failed to have more prospective players than I can accommodate.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;749235Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.

You can listen to Mister Pecker, or you can listen to me.