Quote from: Sacrosanct;663919That phrase is really meant to represent the fact that you have very little in the way of managaing stats and data, not literally how small can you write.  For example, it's often used in the context of OD&D or B/X, where all you had for your character was name, class, level, hit points, AC, abilities, saving throws, and equipment.  You didn't have a full page of skills, a page full of powers, four different AC's depending on scenarios, a dozen blocks of info just for each weapon, etc.

Somehow, the lack of a booklet of crap as your character sheet got equated with being denied meaningful choice in the game.

Actual meaningful choices being available or not is DM/campaign rather than a rules issue. The amount of crap you have to track has jack shit to do with that. I have played in B/X games with an abundance of meaningful choices available and in 4E games with very little. Sure there was quite a menu of shit to sift through each combat turn but personally I find the decision to engage in combat in the first place more meaningful than which widget I'll be beating a monster over the head with this round.

The reverse can be true too. It isn't like railroad campaigns were unheard of prior to WOTC versions of D&D.

Quite a few people who enjoy old school gaming simply have a better time playing without managing  reams of pages of info. It isn't due to nostalgia, its because they happen to find that more fun right now.

When a game includes simpler mechanics they may be there for the same reason more "advanced" mechanics are in other games- because they do what they are supposed to do to produce the kind of game the designers want.

A good mechanic is one that works within the vision the creator has for the game whether simple or complex. Nostalgia is flung around as an excuse by people who desire more complexity for its own sake.

This thread is s bunch of fun.

To contribute more meaningfully: I agree with Sacro's original post.

Quote from: The Ent;664075This thread is s bunch of fun.

.

Yeah, it sort of turned into a bunch of monkeys throwing shit pretty quickly.

Quote from: gleichman;663936If you game in the past, expect the past to find you.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next.  There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.

The ONLY people who say that, I've found, are people butthurt that 4e failed and is going away. Do you really want to talk to those people or care about their opinions anyways?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;664004Actual meaningful choices being available or not is DM/campaign rather than a rules issue. The amount of crap you have to track has jack shit to do with that. I have played in B/X games with an abundance of meaningful choices available and in 4E games with very little. Sure there was quite a menu of shit to sift through each combat turn but personally I find the decision to engage in combat in the first place more meaningful than which widget I'll be beating a monster over the head with this round.

Bingo.

It's also why I enjoy short and sweet combats. Because by the time we roll initiative the most interesting part is already over. The second most interesting part happens at the end when you find out how that first decision played out.

Why you would want to wait 1-4 hours between those two points is beyond me.

Quote from: LordVreeg;663988Dude.
You KNOW I still have the callouses from dragging Seanchai and Mr. Wonderwoman over the coals of logic for thousands of posts.

don't even bring that thing up.

That thread was a clusterfuck for the ages, I tell you.

Quote from: Piestrio;664082Bingo.

It's also why I enjoy short and sweet combats. Because by the time we roll initiative the most interesting part is already over. The second most interesting part happens at the end when you find out how that first decision played out.

Why you would want to wait 1-4 hours between those two points is beyond me.

with the right game system/GM combats can be fun entertaining rewarding and full of roleplay opportunities.

I have no issue with 2 hour combats provided they are 2 hours of fun for all the players.

What's typically described as good game design by people obsessed with the concept is stuff I tend to find orthogonal to my fun at best. So, don't really give a shit?

Quote from: jibbajibba;664132with the right game system/GM combats can be fun entertaining rewarding and full of roleplay opportunities.

I have no issue with 2 hour combats provided they are 2 hours of fun for all the players.

I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.

2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.

2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS

2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.

That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.

Quote from: Piestrio;664135I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.

2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.

2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS

2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.

That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.

See if I run an extended combat chances are there will be changes in the environment, roleplay elements a whole heap of stuff

This is true of a recent games where the PCs Strontium Dog Pack attacked a land train full of 'terrorists'. They had to plan how to stop the train how to get onbaord, where to attack, use skills, powers and tech to try and isolate terrorist groups to complete their plan. In character planning and gettign equipment etc probably took an hour and the fight itself maybe 60 - 80 minutes but the whole lot was great fun. I got to role play some of the cool terrorist leaders the PCs got to do cool shit like swing onto a moving landtrain, blow up sections with D-grenades , all sorts....

Historically some of our classic gaming moments were combats. Hansel and Grettle versus Archer, Sir Elidor vs the Seven Dwarves, Quinn and his assasins vs Kull, Sir Elidor, Billy Quong vs the Amazons. Things happen in RPG combats that don't happen in baord games. The free format, player imagination run riot stuff is just as true in combat as out and in fact the GM needs to be much sharper and on their toes to adapt the system, keep the NPCs roleplaying consistently, extralopate from the rules and all that shenanigins

Quote from: Piestrio;664135I suppose in theory that's true but IME I've never had a long combat in an RPG provide more fun than a short one and as importantly I've never had a long RPG combat provide more fun than a similar length board or minis game.

2 hours of pathfinder combat is no where near as fun as two hours of battletech.

2 hours of 4e combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of FASA Star Trek: TCS

2 hours of HERO combat is nowhere near as fun as two hours of Warmachine.

That kind of fun, rules driven "challenges", is much better provided by any number of war/board games.

So where so you stand on Savage Worlds (or OD&D for that matter); which just took a wargame rule-set and said - roleplay with this.

Quote from: jadrax;664151So where so you stand on Savage Worlds (or OD&D for that matter); which just took a wargame rule-set and said - roleplay with this.

I don't mind using a wargame rules set and "roleplaying with it" so long as the handling time of the rules is pretty minimal. Like I said, the actual mechanical parts of the game are, to me, one of the least interesting part of an RPG so I want them out of the way more often than not.

Basically if I want to play a wargame I'll play a wargame. If I want to play a role-playing game I'll play a role-playing game.

OD&D has pretty minimal handling time as does SW. So that's fine.

Quote from: vytzka;664133What's typically described as good game design by people obsessed with the concept is stuff I tend to find orthogonal to my fun at best. So, don't really give a shit?

Often true. What's touted as good game design to me usually isn't relevant to what I most enjoy in RPGs. Or at worst becomes an intricate yet laborious chore.

Short form, what's touted as good game design lately has, in my experience, often been not. Unnecessary or tedious is not a compelling reason to bother with such design arguments.

Quote from: Benoist;664129That thread was a clusterfuck for the ages, I tell you.

It could be nothing else, no common ground- no common language. It's why I refused to take part.