Quote from: Larsdangly;747428I'm totally with you on this point. The level of rules that I think best suits D&D is along the lines of, everything fits on 1-2 pages, but the content of those pages is thoughtfully planned out, so you don't feel like you are on your own to dream up mechanics half the time. Mechanics are intrinsically un fun; I like spending as little time as possible thinking about them!

First edition gamma world is an interesting example. The entire game is in one very short book, but it is quite complete.

Quote from: Bill;747388I agree up to a point.

Speaking for myself, I find the more detailed the rules are for jumping, diplomacy, whatever, the more intrusive and distracting they become.

Conan leaps the chasm, either landing easily on the other side, or perhaps he falls short and has to pull himself up. I like it to be quick and immerse.

What I don't care for, is a five minute rules discussion about exactly how far Conan can leap based on a chart of modifiers.

Like I said
Jump = mv rate +1d6 feet with a running start else half it.
For wilderness movement a PC can cover 1/4 of their mv rate in miles each hour. DM can impose modifiers for terrain.

That is all the level of detail you need its not exactly War and Peace.

Quote from: jibbajibba;747178Not denying they didn't do it merely saying they could have done it and in fact should have done it.

Horseshit.  It's a fucking game, not a treatise on mountaineering.  Further, way to increase production cost by a factor of ten, because of course EVERYTHING needs to be researched extensively.

Quote from: Benoist;747217Thanks for reminding me of this. :banghead:

Many words to say "I was a dumb kid who played with my head up my ass and died a lot, and now I'm going to fix the rules so my 14 year old self doesn't get killed."

This is what happens when people who don't understand Frei Kriegspiel get put in charge of a game based on Frei Kriegspiel principles.

Quote from: jibbajibba;747750Like I said
Jump = mv rate +1d6 feet with a running start else half it.
For wilderness movement a PC can cover 1/4 of their mv rate in miles each hour. DM can impose modifiers for terrain.

That is all the level of detail you need its not exactly War and Peace.

Don't be silly, that's space wasted when it could be used to print "use common sense" or "wing it" for the umpteenth time.  

Quote from: Bill;747388I agree up to a point.

Speaking for myself, I find the more detailed the rules are for jumping, diplomacy, whatever, the more intrusive and distracting they become.

Conan leaps the chasm, either landing easily on the other side, or perhaps he falls short and has to pull himself up. I like it to be quick and immersive.

What I don't care for, is a five minute rules discussion about exactly how far Conan can leap based on a chart of modifiers.

Oh, sweet Crom's hairy nutsack smudged with Ishtar's lipstick, yes.

You want to jump a chasm?  Roll 2d6 and get high.  In a marginal case I'll take things like level and dex into account.

I've managed to convert at least one 3.5 E player to OD&D for that very reason.  "If I want to sneak up behind somebody and knock them out, I say that, you have me roll dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."

Quote from: Old Geezer;747762"If I want to sneak up behind somebody and knock them out, I say that, you have me roll dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."

See, here's my problem with overly detailed "skill systems" to handle this kind of thing.  When a player says something like this to me (e.g., "I want to sneak up on him..."), I immediately have some idea of what his chances should be.  I might think, "yeah, this PC in these circumstances has about an 80% chance of success..."  If I'm running a game with a detailed skill system, I usually would need to translate my instant analysis of his chances into whatever numbers and modifiers the skill system uses: "Okay, to give him that chance of success he needs a difficulty number of THIS and a modifier of THAT..."

Fuck that shit.

I don't want to "back into" the number.  It's much easier for me to say "He should have such-and-such chance of success, so 'Player, roll this...'".  It's a lot less work for the same result.

This isn't hypothetical, either.  I found myself doing this running 3E and C&C.  I found myself trying to back into the probability that I thought appropriate, kind of "reverse engineering" the system to fit what I wanted it to do.  What a waste of time.

It just wasn't worth it, for me.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;748024I don't want to "back into" the number.  It's much easier for me to say "He should have such-and-such chance of success, so 'Player, roll this...'".  It's a lot less work for the same result.

I honestly don't understand this criticism, because as far as I understand skill mechanics (And I'd like to think I'm pretty familiar with them by now):

"yeah, this PC : This is on the character sheet, the GM doesn't need to worry about it.
in these circumstances : This relates to the game world, this is what the GM needs to adjudicate into situational modifiers, target number, whatever (Varies by system).
has about an 80% chance of success..." : The rule system returns a probability chance of success.

It sounds to me that you like to make the entire call when you GM, rather than just provide another variable to the mechanics - would that be it, or am I entirely misreading you?

Quote from: Ladybird;748049I honestly don't understand this criticism, because as far as I understand skill mechanics (And I'd like to think I'm pretty familiar with them by now):

"yeah, this PC : This is on the character sheet, the GM doesn't need to worry about it.
in these circumstances : This relates to the game world, this is what the GM needs to adjudicate into situational modifiers, target number, whatever (Varies by system).
has about an 80% chance of success..." : The rule system returns a probability chance of success.

It sounds to me that you like to make the entire call when you GM, rather than just provide another variable to the mechanics - would that be it, or am I entirely misreading you?

Speaking for myself, it's more a matter of "one roll to resolve them all," instead of "okay, what's your per segment movement rate, what's your SNEAK skill rating, what's the guard's alertness rating, how many alertness rolls does he get while you approach, what kind of armor does he have, what's his base defense when flat footed," etc, etc, etc.

As opposed to, "Roll 2d6.  11?  Okay, you knocked him out.  5?  Okay, he spotted you.  In between?  Give me ten seconds."


As Dave Arneson said the last time I saw him, about 2 weeks before his passing, "Modern games have too many rules.

Quote from: Ladybird;748049It sounds to me that you like to make the entire call when you GM, rather than just provide another variable to the mechanics - would that be it, or am I entirely misreading you?

Ultimately, the GM always makes the call.  The GM assigns the difficulty chance or target number.  The GM applies whatever modifiers are deemed appropriate, and adjusts to fit the circumstances as he sees them (which might be different from similar examples listed in the rule book).  

I find that just assigning a reasonable chance and calling for a roll works better in my games.  Even if you have a skill system that supplies huge lists of example target numbers and modifiers to cover an enormous variety of circumstances, I find that a quick evaluation of the chances in my head works better.  I'm not a computer: I'm slow at accessing a big database of recorded target numbers and modifiers and applying them through a specific formula.  But I can do the same kind of mental evaluation in my head, processing all sorts of qualitative info about the situation, and come up with a chance very quickly.

Also, I've found that, counter to what some might think, doing it "my way" seems to produce results that are just as "reasonable" or "realistic" as applying a more quantitative formula.  YMMV, of course, but I haven't had any players complain.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;748207Ultimately, the GM always makes the call.  The GM assigns the difficulty chance or target number.  The GM applies whatever modifiers are deemed appropriate, and adjusts to fit the circumstances as he sees them (which might be different from similar examples listed in the rule book).  

I find that just assigning a reasonable chance and calling for a roll works better in my games.  Even if you have a skill system that supplies huge lists of example target numbers and modifiers to cover an enormous variety of circumstances, I find that a quick evaluation of the chances in my head works better.  I'm not a computer: I'm slow at accessing a big database of recorded target numbers and modifiers and applying them through a specific formula.  But I can do the same kind of mental evaluation in my head, processing all sorts of qualitative info about the situation, and come up with a chance very quickly.

Also, I've found that, counter to what some might think, doing it "my way" seems to produce results that are just as "reasonable" or "realistic" as applying a more quantitative formula.  YMMV, of course, but I haven't had any players complain.

But take combat.

If I swing a sword at you and you are defending the chance of me hitting you is say 20%.  If I hit you with a sword the chance you dying is say 50%.
These are the basic rules of most war games.

Why do you need to add more to combat rules than existed in the base war game rules?
Why do PCs gain HPs as they get experience why did they add rules for different weapons etc
Because they were moving from the very abstract to a more detailed system that tried to simulate more stuff with a degree of accuracy.
If you do that for combat then why not do it for exploration and other aspects of play.

My main issue with the output of the simple rules model is that it has quite complex rules for combat and fuck all rules for any thing else. If you add D&D magic then you have complex magic rules, fairly complex combat rules (very complex if you add weapon vs armour table) and fuck all rules for anything else.
This isn't a rule lite system its a rule system where the rules are skewed to a single area of play.

the sneak example.... If D&D had had the idea of opposed rolls. You sneak 2d6 +dex bonus they observe on 2d6+perception bonus (how can they not have a stat for perception ) highest wins. DM adds appropriate modifiers.

that is another rule that takes a single line to explain something that happens  all the time. Its not like there are a lot of these its like a dozen and once the idea of the opposed roll is there it can be used to make rulings on an infinite number of things.

Quote from: jibbajibba;748254Why do you need to add more to combat rules than existed in the base war game rules...Because they were moving from the very abstract to a more detailed system that tried to simulate more stuff with a degree of accuracy...If you do that for combat then why not do it for exploration and other aspects of play.

There's not a right and wrong; it's more about where you want to be on a continuum, and where you want more or less rules focus.  One of the reasons I like the versions of D&D that I play is that they have the right amount of detail and focus in the right areas for how I like to play the game.  I like the level of crunch in OD&D or AD&D combat, and the reliance on class/level as an abstraction without bringing in the full weight of a skill system.  It works well for me.

I've tried D&D + heavier/detailed skill systems.  It *doesn't* work as well for me.  It's really that simple.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;748255There's not a right and wrong; it's more about where you want to be on a continuum, and where you want more or less rules focus.  One of the reasons I like the versions of D&D that I play is that they have the right amount of detail and focus in the right areas for how I like to play the game.  I like the level of crunch in OD&D or AD&D combat, and the reliance on class/level as an abstraction without bringing in the full weight of a skill system.  It works well for me.

I've tried D&D + heavier/detailed skill systems.  It *doesn't* work as well for me.  It's really that simple.

I still play OD&D, so I **DO** play with a combat system that's as abstract as everything else.

Quote from: Old Geezer;748366I still play OD&D, so I **DO** play with a combat system that's as abstract as everything else.

So do I.  I agree combat is abstract, but I don't think it's quite as abstract as some other areas in the game.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;748369So do I.  I agree combat is abstract, but I don't think it's quite as abstract as some other areas in the game.

Yep.  I LIKE the skirmish miniatures game aspect of OD&D combat.