TheRPGSite

After getting inspired by Swords & Wizardry and reading some 2e stuff, I've been tinkering with a ten level system that is fairly rules light.  And it is wonderful.  Instead of making up a bunch of unnecessary rules and worrying about how everything interacts and creating rules for unusual situations, I can lay down blanket rules and allow the DM to tinker with them as he sees fit.  For instance, in 3e, you had penalties for using weapons and armor that you're not proficient with (-4 nonproficiency penalty, you took your armor class as a penalty to attack rolls, and wizards had to worry about arcane spell failure).  In what I'm writing, you simply can't use them.  So if the wizard says, "I want to wear plate armor," the rules say no because wizards don't wear plate armor.

Part of me feels a little guilty because it feels lazy, but another part of me feels much freer to concentrate on the game itself because I'm not fretting about edge cases.

Now you're speaking my language.  My own D&D hack looks like this:

- 10 levels.
- 3 classes (warrior, rogue, spell-caster)
- only warriors get better at fighting as they level up, only rogues get better at "adventuring skills" as they level up (as per the Lamentations of the Flame Princess "Specialist" class), only spell-casters get more magic as they level up.
- any class can use any weapon or armor, but there might be penalties for this that I will come up with on the fly.  Trying to sneak around in plate armor isn't going to work very well
- no races besides human
- one saving throw value as per Swords & Wizardry

...and I don't feel lazy in the least about it!

To be fair, I should probably add that my idea of "rules light" is significantly crunchier than most other gamers' ideas.  I'm using a lot of 3e-isms in the game (such as attacks of opportunity, Fort/Ref/Will savings throws, and a slew of classes), but I'm drastically paring everything down to the bone (all saving throws and skill checks are DC 15, for instance, and races are classes).

Fair enough; as long as you're having fun, you're doing it right.

Rules light can be super nifty given the right group and attitude.

Personally, through playing various types of games/campaigns, I found that my own issues were more with certain rules not adding anything to play (or just not working) and sometimes entire systems being orthogonal to the stated playstyle in the text than with rules-heavy systems themselves.

Why is it that so many people's verions of rules light come down to "Because I said so!"

The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

Quote from: kryyst;485226Why is it that so many people's verions of rules light come down to "Because I said so!"

The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

Can you give an example of this?

For me, "rules-light" is Moldvay B/X.  Enough to get you started and have a scaffolding to fall back on, but then you are on your own.  If I ever get some of these rules ideas out of my head and onto paper (or pdf), I will be shooting for a 64pg book, at most.

Amusingly enough my rules light D20things has classes that are additive to their theme. A warrior gets better at fighting, a wizard at magic, a rogue at dodging (instead of soaking) attacks. A cleric gets divine abilities. You want a paladin? You build him from the right additions of classes.  Want a Ranger as you see him? Ditto. 1E Rangers are a combinations of all four, 2E with their more wilderness focus--rogues, fighters, and a touch of druid (which is already a touch of cleric and fighter.) want a modern day specialist op type sneaky ranger? Rogue and Warrior.

Rules lite? Yes. Simple? Yes. Magic is freeform and open.

Of course Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings exist with unique twists but still recognizable as D&D like. At the same time unique class combos exist for them--mostly flavor text. Like Runeknights, and Foehammers.

Quote from: kryyst;485226Why is it that so many people's verions of rules light come down to "Because I said so!"

The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

I'm not sure how this is any different from games with much heavier rules systems.  In 3e, why do you take cross-class skills at two-for-one ratio?  In 4e, why does my character need a high Constitution skill to learn to wear armor?  In GURPS, why do I have a shock penalty after being hit?  In nWoD, why does armor give a penalty on attack rolls rather than preventing damage?

You can give justifications for these things, but it ultimately boils down to: because I said so.  The main difference is that in rules light systems, the answer seems to be "because it's easier than the alternative."  (Why is there a single saving throw progression in Swords and Wizardry?  Because it's easier than tracking the five or so different saving throw categories.)

The thing about Basic D&D is it still contains a lot of stuff that could be streamlined. There is a lot of detail in some places, often in the form of ad-hoc rules and tables and huge gaps in other areas. Do We really need that many saves? Is there not a cleaner, more elegant way to do thief skills?

For me a really functional example of a rules light game is Barbarians of Lemuria. It's just at least rules light as Basic D&D but with the careers, boons and flaws it just seems to cover a lot more ground and produce better rounded characters. It's a marvel of design economy.

Of course it's not a fair comparison. There would not be a BoL without D&D.

I have never understood the resistance to the OD&D/AD&D etc. save system.

"it's too vague" isn't an argument point; I can make the case that saving versus fireball could and should fall under all three sort of handwavy generality saving categories of 3/3.5/4e

Nah, it's just too dissociated. ;)

Quote from: Peregrin;485249Nah, it's just too dissociated. ;)

:D

Win!


;)

Perhaps I should have clarified Non-D&D based rules light.   In D&D Rules light Mages can't wear armour - because I said so.  In more advanced versions of D&D mages can wear armour - at a penalty and can pick up a sword - at a penalty (be it numerical or a feat towards it).

In thinking it over my statement isn't towards rules light, like the title of the thread.  Just D&D.  D&D far to often comes down to because I said so - so fuck logic.

Quote from: Soylent Green;485239The thing about Basic D&D is it still contains a lot of stuff that could be streamlined. There is a lot of detail in some places, often in the form of ad-hoc rules and tables and huge gaps in other areas. Do We really need that many saves? Is there not a cleaner, more elegant way to do thief skills?

Wait, what?

Now you're just fucking with me, right?  ;)

I prefer systems that consist (almost) entirely of bonuses. D&D 3.x has always bugged me that it takes fighters as the norm, and then penalizes everyone else. If I had a time machine, I'd change the -4 non-weapon proficiency to a +4 weapon proficiency and then I'd time travel some positive feedback to Ben Franklin.

I don't mind rules light games in play, but I find rules light character creation aggravating. I love having a lot of character creation content.

Quote from: Cranewings;485280I don't mind rules light games in play, but I find rules light character creation aggravating. I love having a lot of character creation content.

I do, too, but for a lot of new players, the character creation experience can be overwhelming, particularly in 3e/Pathfinder.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;485246I have never understood the resistance to the OD&D/AD&D etc. save system.

We had this discussion awhile back. It basically falls into two problems:

The first problem is the question of what you do for effects that fall into multiple categories. (IIRC, AD&D largely fixed this by setting up a hierarchy which cleared up most of the problems.)

The far larger problem, however, are the plethora of effects which don't fall anywhere on that list. About the only thing you can do at that point is scratch you head and... I dunno... try to figure out what sort of effect the situation most closely resembles? Or should I just start creating new categories of saves for these new effects? Just default to an attribute check?

In other words, the OD&D/AD&D system is incomplete.

What makes the 3E saving throw system unified/complete is that the combination of Reflex, Fortitude, and Will neatly cover the entire spectrum of saving throws in a generic fashion. I can use those generic structures to make specific rulings with a large degree of confidence and consistency.

Physically avoiding something, physically toughing something out, or mentally withstanding something isn't the only possible breakdown that would serve as a comprehensive, unified mechanic for saving throws. But it works.  

The proof is in the pudding: In a decade of playing 3E, I've never run into a situation where (a) a character needs to make a roll to avoid an effect, but (b) I can't use the existing saving throws as written. But this happens all the time when I'm playing OD&D; and it happened back when I played BECMI and 2E years before 3E existed, too.

And this isn't something unique to me: A quick perusal of old TSR modules will reveal that "make a save vs. some arbitrary category that has nothing to do with what's happening... I dunno... dragon breath? sure, let's go with dragon breath" happened all the time. Even Gygax does it.

Quote from: kryystWhy is it that so many people's verions of rules light come down to "Because I said so!"

The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options. I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

Quote from: misterguignol;485227Can you give an example of this?

Sure, from the OP:

QuoteIn what I'm writing, you simply can't use them. So if the wizard says, "I want to wear plate armor," the rules say no because wizards don't wear plate armor.

Quote from: Soylent Green;485239The thing about Basic D&D is it still contains a lot of stuff that could be streamlined. There is a lot of detail in some places, often in the form of ad-hoc rules and tables and huge gaps in other areas. Do We really need that many saves? Is there not a cleaner, more elegant way to do thief skills?

Reverse Fantasy Heartbreaker time?

If you like rules light with lots of cool chargen options, check out a free RPG called Warrior Rogue & Mage...its got lots of cool free supplements too.

http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/

I am writing a rules-light fantasy, but I am trying to balance freedom with flavor. One thing is for sure though, my Sorcerers can wear plate armor!

Isn't it just.

Mind you, I'm not sure I've ever done rules light. More rules medium, maybe. But I'm no fan of rules heavy, as I understand the term.

And there's the thing - I never did get a straight answer out of Ma Google as to which games fit in which categories. :)

Quote from: B.T.;485218"Rules light is incredibly liiberating..

..In what I'm writing, you simply can't use X.  So if the wizard says, "I want to wear plate armor," the rules say no because wizards don't wear plate armor.

It may be liberating for you, the system author. But it seems extremely constraintive/limiting for the players. (there isnt anything wrong with it, though. If youre having fun, thats all that matters )

Thing is, why DON'T wizards wear armor? I mean, if I were a squishy sort of fellow who tended to find himself on battlefields a lot where my capability to throw fireballs around would make me a prime target for, say, bastard sniper-archers, I'd bloody well want some armor and a shield. Dead wizards cast no spells!

Quotewhy DON'T wizards wear armor?

Because they're not proficient with it.

(That's a joke.)

Quote from: misterguignol;485224Fair enough; as long as you're having fun, you're doing it right.

That's should be a quote.

Quote from: Axiomatic;485322Thing is, why DON'T wizards wear armor?

That much metal screws with their casting ability (for humans, anyway).  That's my reasoning IMC.  A little bit, like rings and jewelry?  Not so much.  Anything else though, buckles and whatnot interfere.  Even if it is "just" padded or cuir bolli.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;485327That much metal screws with their casting ability (for humans, anyway).  That's my reasoning IMC.  A little bit, like rings and jewelry?  Not so much.  Anything else though, buckles and whatnot interfere.  Even if it is "just" padded or cuir bolli.

But cuir bolli is leather, urine and water. There is no metal.

Quote from: Axiomatic;485322Thing is, why DON'T wizards wear armor?

They do wear armor in RuneQuest, Stormbringer, Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Hero and GURPS.

Quote from: Axiomatic;485322Dead wizards cast no spells!

Liches?

The purpose a mage could not wear armor in old D&Ds was more related to "gamey" reasons than setting ones, no? if so, I think trying to come up with explanations will only make things lamer.

Quote from: silva;485334The purpose a mage could not wear armor in old D&Ds was more related to "gamey" reasons than setting ones, no? if so, I think trying to come up with explanations will only make things lamer.

I dunno... I think it's equal parts gamey and image. Merlin, for example, was depicted in robes, not the plate armor of the knights of the round. Many conventional fantasy images of wizards seem more appropriate to a college setting than a combat setting. This sort of ignores the fact that D&D mages are combat mages and some armor would make sense. So why wouldn't a wizard wear armor becomes and immediate question.

Quote from: Spinachcat;485333They do wear armor in RuneQuest, Stormbringer, Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Hero and GURPS.

Yep, another of the many reasons that MY favorite flavor of rules-lite is based on BRP. Want your wizard to be a decent swordsman? Sure... but while he practices fencing he'll be neglecting his magical studies.
Want your barbarian warrior to learn some spells, OK, but his buddies might stop asking him to go out carousing with them... and forget to mention that raid they're planning for next Wednesday.
You can still have the niche-protection stuff if you want it... but it comes just as easily (and less annoyingly) from setting norms and customs and limitations on resources.

Quote from: Simlasa;485343Yep, another of the many reasons that MY favorite flavor of rules-lite is based on BRP. Want your wizard to be a decent swordsman? Sure... but while he practices fencing he'll be neglecting his magical studies.

Sure. And in Fantasy Craft, wizards can wear armor, but unless they spend feats picking up additional training in armor, they are going to suffer penalties. Sure, you could do it (and some do), but there's a tradeoff.

This seems to have wandered a little bit from the thread topic, but it illustrates to me the actuality about how liberating rules light really is. In reality, it's a trade off. You make rules to give a game form, but then you quickly begin to see places where some people want to try something different that aren't accommodated by the rules. And sure, the GM could house rule things, but some GMs want their rules to handle most such situations without having to hack it.

Here was my thinking with dealing with armor.

1. If you're not proficient with armor, you can't wear it period.
2. If you're not proficient with armor, you have to track penalties for wearing it (which guarantees that no one who isn't proficient will wear armor).
3. Everyone can wear any armor.

#2 produces a bunch of extra rules and #3 isn't how D&D works, so I figured #1 was the easier way to handle it.

I wouldn't have thought armour proficiency penalties were that complicated. If anything its just that 3.5 overcomplicates the idea immensely with its separate armour check penalty, % spell failure, then rules to modify the amount of the penalty for being masterwork etc.

If you were trying to do it simply:
1) Non-proficient characters take a penalty to all Dexterity-based rolls equal to their armour's AC bonus.
2) Wizards wearing armour must make a Concentration (or whatever) check, including their armour penalty.

If you want everyone to be able to use armor in D&D, here's a system I came up with in the late 1970s for OD&D and AD&D and posted to my blog in 2009. It should be easy to adapt to B/X, BECMI/RC and 2e. Probably not much harder to adapt to 3e (but it might make hash of some feats). A version of this is included in Microlite74 Companion 1: Optional Rules, so it really is fairly easy to adapt.

QuoteArmor for All Classes in OD&D (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2009/10/armor-for-all-classes-in-od.html)

One thing that really seems to sit wrong with some players in older versions of D&D are the armor and weapons limitations on classes. Some players really want their magic-users to wield swords and wear armor. While I've never felt this way, I did come up with a system back in the late 1970s that allows any character class to wear any type of armor while doing a fair job of maintaining the "balance" of each class.

Base Armor Class: Each class has a base armor class that is in effect anytime the character is conscious and not tied up to the point they can't move at all. This base armor class takes into account the character's combat training which allows him to dodge and parry blows.

Fighting Man -- Base AC of 5
Paladin/Ranger/Monk -- Base AC of 6
Cleric/Druid/Bard -- Base AC of 7
Thief/Assassin -- Base AC of 8
Magic-User/Illusionist -- Base AC of 9

Any character who is unconscious or heavily restrained has a Base AC of 9. Other classes should be slotted in on the level of the character that makes the most sense. ONLY the fighting man should get a Base AC of 5, however. Other fighter classes/subclasses should come in on the Paladin/Ranger/Monk line at best. The Monk is a special case, the AC by levels given in the monk class chart simply need to be replaced, starting with AC 6 instead of AC 9.

Armor: Armor adds to the character's Base AC when worn. Armor may have side effects for some classes. (Remember that a plus to AC in older versions of D&D reduced one's AC.)

Leather Armor: +1 to AC. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their highest level of spells known while wearing Leather Armor.

Chainmail Armor: +2 to AC. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their two highest levels of spells known while wearing Chainmail. Thief abilities are halved while wearing Chainmail.

Plate Armor: +3 to AC. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their three highest levels of spells known while wearing Plate Armor. Thief abilities are unusable while wearing Plate Armor.

Shield: +1 to AC, only when character is concious and mobile. Magic-Users and Illusionists cannot cast their highest level of spells known using a shield -- if they are using a shield and armor tthe shield adds 1 to the levels of spells they cannot use.

Examples: An unarmored OD&D fighting man is AC 5. The same fighting man in plate armor and using a shield would be AC 1.

An unarmored 10th level (OD&D) wizard would be AC 9 and could cast spells normally. If that tenth level wizard wears chainmail, she would be AC 7 but would not be able to cast any of her 4th or 5th level spells. A 1st through 4th level magic user wearing chainmail would not be able to cast any spells at all.

This system was playtested with OD&D and AD&D 1e rules (reduce base AC by 1 as the worst AC in AD&D is 10 instead of 9) in the late 1970s and worked well. I did not use this much back then and probably would not use it today, but a number of groups in South Texas were using these rules back in the day as they were published in a local gaming club newsletter.

Quote from: kryyst;485226The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

I think its fair to say that system lightness/simplicity is not always related to flexibility or free-formness.

Quote from: RandallS;485364If you want everyone to be able to use armor in D&D, here's a system I came up with in the late 1970s for OD&D and AD&D and posted to my blog in 2009. It should be easy to adapt to B/X, BECMI/RC and 2e. Probably not much harder to adapt to 3e (but it might make hash of some feats). A version of this is included in Microlite74 Companion 1: Optional Rules, so it really is fairly easy to adapt.

Randall, those are pretty nifty ideas...how do you feel about class lvl. bonuses to those starting #'s, maybe for the fighter/sub-types but none for the others (or maybe costing xp or something)?
:)

Quote from: B.T.;485223To be fair, I should probably add that my idea of "rules light" is significantly crunchier than most other gamers' ideas.  I'm using a lot of 3e-isms in the game (such as attacks of opportunity, Fort/Ref/Will savings throws, and a slew of classes), but I'm drastically paring everything down to the bone (all saving throws and skill checks are DC 15, for instance, and races are classes).

How does the DC 15 thing work out exactly in your hack? I had a similar idea (even right down to the DC 15) at while ago and noodled about it for a bit and would like some other ideas...

Quote from: Spinachcat;485333They do wear armor in RuneQuest, Stormbringer, Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Hero and GURPS.

In GURPS your encumbrance level subtracts off your spell rolls thus mages have good reasons not to wear armor. Particularly in GURPS 4e where it is your Health that grants fatigue not Strength.

Roll d20 + modifiers vs. DC 15.  15+ = success.  14 or less = failure.

Skill checks work similarly, though there are no skill ranks.  You are either trained in a skill or untrained.  If you are trained in a skill, you can use the skill and most of the time you don't have to worry about skill checks.  For instance, the thief and fighter don't have to make climb checks to scale a wall; they are assumed to be trained well enough that they can easily do so.  (In contrast, the wizard is considered incapable of scaling the wall without their assistance.)

When a situation comes up when there's a reasonable chance of failure, you make a skill check vs. DC 15.  For characters trained in a skill, your skill check is equal to 1d20 + your relevant stat modifier + 3 + half your level.  Characters untrained in a skill have the same formula but lose the +3 bonus.  (That makes it sound more complicated than it really is.)  Easy checks give you a +5 bonus, moderately difficult checks give you a +0 bonus, and hard checks give you a -5 penalty.

In some situations, the DM might allow an untrained skill check.  Going back to the earlier wall example, if the fighter and thief lower down a knotted rope to let the wizard climb up after them, so the DM lets the wizard attempt to climb it.  The wizard makes an untrained skill check (1d20 + his Strength modifier + half his level) against DC 15.  If he succeeds, he manages to pull himself up the rope.  If he fails, he can't climb the rope and will have to find another way over the wall.

I'm still doing a little tinkering with how this all works in regard to opposed checks (mostly hiding/sneaking and being noticed) but the basic system is in place.

Ah, if you get bonus or penalties to your roll then it's basically a hybrid of 4ed and C&C. What I was thinking of was the DC always being 15 (no situational penalties or bonuses), not bothering to roll for the easy stuff and then the DM rolls some dice to see if there is some nasty side-effect for nastier tests (ie you jump across the chasm and make the DC 15 check BUT you're holding on for dear life to the edge of the chasm on the other side). Just some random thinking, nothing more developed than that.

Quote from: estar;485394In GURPS your encumbrance level subtracts off your spell rolls thus mages have good reasons not to wear armor. Particularly in GURPS 4e where it is your Health that grants fatigue not Strength.

But then you can have a mage with good health/endurance that can wear armor and cast spells normally, right ?

Quote from: skofflox;485390Randall, those are pretty nifty ideas...how do you feel about class lvl. bonuses to those starting #'s, maybe for the fighter/sub-types but none for the others (or maybe costing xp or something)?
:)

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you mean giving a +level or +(some percentage of level) bonus to the base AC for fighters, it would likely make the AC too high for TSR era games, but might work in 3.x or 4e where large bonuses are fairly common.

Quote from: silva;485427But then you can have a mage with good health/endurance that can wear armor and cast spells normally, right ?

It possible but any armor worth a damn protection wise will inflict encumbrance on the normal range of human strength. A mage with liberal use of the lighten enchantment (25%) probably can get a suit of armor worth up to DR 3 (Hard leather DR 2 +1 for Fortify)

But if a mage is that concerned with armor protection then there are plenty of options in the spell list.

The design of GURPS Magic BtB makes no armor mages a logical consequence of the premises rather than just say mage's no armor.

To me, rules lite does not mean remove options from the players - it means the opposite.  It means having such a flexible system that the players can rely more on their own imagination as to what they want to do, rather than the rules, and the DM can use the rules to adjudicate those decisions rather than mandating what decisions are made.

Yeah, I think thats how the label "rules-light" got popularized, mainly through games like Over the Edge, Risus, Fate, etc. But we cant forget that do exists"rules-light" systems not flexible or free-form at all (I think 3:16 is like this).

Quote from: estar;485434It possible but any armor worth a damn protection wise will inflict encumbrance on the normal range of human strength. A mage with liberal use of the lighten enchantment (25%) probably can get a suit of armor worth up to DR 3 (Hard leather DR 2 +1 for Fortify)

But if a mage is that concerned with armor protection then there are plenty of options in the spell list.

The design of GURPS Magic BtB makes no armor mages a logical consequence of the premises rather than just say mage's no armor.

So would it like the rationale for archers/bowmen not wearing plate armor, as the armor´s weight and clunkness would hinder his ability to shoot ? But if we go in this direction, it should be plausible to see mages wearing chainmail or studded leather armor.

Quote from: RandallS;485430I'm not sure what you are asking. If you mean giving a +level or +(some percentage of level) bonus to the base AC for fighters, it would likely make the AC too high for TSR era games, but might work in 3.x or 4e where large bonuses are fairly common.

Sorry for the ambiguity...that is exactly what I was asking.
Thanks for the response!

Perhaps something like +1/3 lvls. for Fighters, +1/5 lvls. for sub-types might work.
I can see your point though it depends a bit on how much treasure is to be had (equipment) and/or social limitations on armor etc.
I can see this working in many settings come to think of it.

 might use this system soon...:)

Its a funny term, because when I think "rules light", I think Over the Edge, or Everway, or stuff like that, and not B/E D&D, which I would consider "rules normal".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;485569Its a funny term, because when I think "rules light", I think Over the Edge, or Everway, or stuff like that, and not B/E D&D, which I would consider "rules normal".

RPGPundit

Once upon a time it WAS rules normal. These days without a 300+ page book that details how a character wipes his ass per the RAW it is considered rules lite.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;485771Once upon a time it WAS rules normal. These days without a 300+ page book that details how a character wipes his ass per the RAW it is considered rules lite.

I hope the ass-wiping is per encounter as opposed to just a daily.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;485792I hope the ass-wiping is per encounter as opposed to just a daily.

Only if there is a warlord in the party to talk you through it.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;485275I prefer systems that consist (almost) entirely of bonuses. D&D 3.x has always bugged me that it takes fighters as the norm, and then penalizes everyone else. If I had a time machine, I'd change the -4 non-weapon proficiency to a +4 weapon proficiency and then I'd time travel some positive feedback to Ben Franklin.

That's actually a great idea, and it really helps to simplify things as well.

Reducing saves to just one based on the average (possibly with a bonus vs. death) makes only a subtle difference in my view, at least in OD&D. (In AD&D, high-level magic-users and thieves are notably vulnerable to poison.) Some people will find the additional twists of different saves (even without magic bonuses and such) worthwhile, and no doubt some others won't.

Quote from: Phillip;485873Reducing saves to just one based on the average (possibly with a bonus vs. death) makes only a subtle difference in my view, at least in OD&D. (In AD&D, high-level magic-users and thieves are notably vulnerable to poison.) Some people will find the additional twists of different saves (even without magic bonuses and such) worthwhile, and no doubt some others won't.

I think the really big problem, especially with AD&D, was the nonsensical overlap in the saves.  A general save vs magic spells, but a different one for paralysis?  I save against a fireball cast by a Magic-User differently than from a wand by that exact same Magic-User?

I know, there were guidelines and rules for which save took precedence in which situations, but still.  That would be one area that could definitely use some cleaning up, although three saves seems too few, and one is absolutely not enough, in my opinion.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;485792I hope the ass-wiping is per encounter as opposed to just a daily.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;485793Only if there is a warlord in the party to talk you through it.

I think you need a tool (TP) to do it without a penalty, and a masterwork tool will provide a bonus (not to be confused with a mastercraft tool).  Just remember that magical toilet paper is automatically also masterwork.

Quote from: Mistwell;485881I think you need a tool (TP) to do it without a penalty, and a masterwork tool will provide a bonus (not to be confused with a mastercraft tool).  Just remember that magical toilet paper is automatically also masterwork.

So Cardboard Tube is a valid implement for Wizards?  Can they make a Wand of Charmin, or is that just a ritual?  :)

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;485275I prefer systems that consist (almost) entirely of bonuses. D&D 3.x has always bugged me that it takes fighters as the norm, and then penalizes everyone else. If I had a time machine, I'd change the -4 non-weapon proficiency to a +4 weapon proficiency and then I'd time travel some positive feedback to Ben Franklin.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;485808That's actually a great idea, and it really helps to simplify things as well.

Hmm.
Well, 2e/3e did it with a penalty for non-proficiency because characters will normally be using weapons they're proficient with. Making proficiency a "plus" is adding one extra modifier to almost every attack roll.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;485889Hmm.
Well, 2e/3e did it with a penalty for non-proficiency because characters will normally be using weapons they're proficient with. Making proficiency a "plus" is adding one extra modifier to almost every attack roll.

This guy speaks truth.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;485771Once upon a time it WAS rules normal. These days without a 300+ page book that details how a character wipes his ass per the RAW it is considered rules lite.

How times change, I guess.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;485569Its a funny term, because when I think "rules light", I think Over the Edge, or Everway, or stuff like that, and not B/E D&D, which I would consider "rules normal".

RPGPundit

I don't think that rules-lite was actually a "thing" until the 2000's or so.

To my recollection, game designers in the 90's tried to make games as cumbersome and fiddly as they could because, ostensibly, this is what the gaming public wanted...I guess...maybe. I'm not really sure why these were popular, to tell the truth.

Some people wanted to get away from complicated rules sets, and that's when games started using rules-lite as a selling point. I think that a lot of these games were inspired by people's fond memories of OD&D/BECMI.

Compared to games like Shadowrun, HERO, Rolemaster, and even AD&D 2 through 4, B/E D&D could be considered pretty "lite".

I can find examples of "rules light" as a usage as early as the beginning of 1996: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.misc/msg/fbec58a73fdadd20?hl=en&dmode=source

QuoteIn fantasy gaming you can find a rules-light or rules-heavy a system as you
please. In SF gaming all the systems available are very rules intensive. Even
GURPS Space is very rules-y. (I like it a lot and use it for doing background
for Colonisation workshops we run at SF cons. But.) I think the reason for the
perceived need for mechanics heavy SF games is the technology - it needs to be
consistent - and the physics. I talked to a friend who said that he could not
be happy running a Chanur game without first working out exactly how the vanes
work on the ships. Traveller is *very* good for people like this - and in fact
he is a Traveller nut.

I wonder if there is a hole in the market for a wide-open rules light SF game.

There are probably earlier references, but Google search is becoming more and more crap these days, so I have to fight it to find what I'm looking for.

Other references from the same period tended to point to Everway, OtE, and Feng Shui as examples of what the person was talking about.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;486159Other references from the same period tended to point to Everway, OtE, and Feng Shui as examples of what the person was talking about.

And, notably, these early rules-light systems all featured simple, universal mechanics. They weren't achieving rules "lightness" by simply not including rules for things -- they were still trying to provide universal mechanical coverage for any action that might need to be resolved; they were just doing it in a different way than the "hyper-detailed mechanics for everything" systems of the '80s and early '90s.

Unlike OD&D, BECMI was fairly universal in its coverage. But it was also 300+ pages covering numerous sub-systems. (And that's not including Immortals.) I'd describe it as a middle-of-the-road system. Describing it as "rules light" is to rob the term of meaning, IMO.

Very nice differentiation over there, Justin.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;485889Hmm.
Well, 2e/3e did it with a penalty for non-proficiency because characters will normally be using weapons they're proficient with. Making proficiency a "plus" is adding one extra modifier to almost every attack roll.

Yes, and? You already have a modifier for every attack roll.  Several of them in fact.

Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 3e: no change in attack bonus.

Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 4e: change in attack bonus.

That's the main difference.

Quote from: Mistwell;486233Yes, and? You already have a modifier for every attack roll.  Several of them in fact.

It should be fairly obviously a bad idea to add extra steps, because  its easier and people forget all the modifiers involved less often.   If you can design a system that does something in 4 steps rather than 5 with no loss of function, do it in 4. If you can do it with 3 or 2 or 1 step, do it that way instead. Its not rocket science.

Anyway, while we were talking about prior editions/ in general, I have a suspicion you're in favour of additive proficiency bonuses just because its what 4E uses. If yes, I'd recommend trying to claim that the extra addition step in there for 4E does something useful that justifies the extra math, rather than defending pointless extra addition as being only neglibly worse.

Quote from: B.T.;486235Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 3e: no change in attack bonus.

Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 4e: change in attack bonus.

That's the main difference.

Nooooot....exactly.

Weapons in 4E each have an additive "proficiency" bonus, usually either +2 or +3.

The proficiency bonus for both the longsword and greatsword is +3, so switching from one to the other doesn't actually change the attack bonus unless you're specialized in one over the other...but this has been true in nearly all editions. Switching from a longsword, to a greataxe however, would change the modifier slightly.

You know what I meant.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;486157I don't think that rules-lite was actually a "thing" until the 2000's or so.

To my recollection, game designers in the 90's tried to make games as cumbersome and fiddly as they could because, ostensibly, this is what the gaming public wanted...I guess...maybe. I'm not really sure why these were popular, to tell the truth.

Some people wanted to get away from complicated rules sets, and that's when games started using rules-lite as a selling point. I think that a lot of these games were inspired by people's fond memories of OD&D/BECMI.

Compared to games like Shadowrun, HERO, Rolemaster, and even AD&D 2 through 4, B/E D&D could be considered pretty "lite".

I distinctly recall using the term "rules-lite" as early as the early 90s, and I was using it to refer to games like Amber or Over The Edge.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;486441I distinctly recall using the term "rules-lite" as early as the early 90s, and I was using it to refer to games like Amber or Over The Edge.

RPGPundit

I seem to remember hearing this around that time as well. I'm sure it was in use by regular gamers before it made its way into print or on the net. It is a pretty intuitive term. And even if the spectrum was different then, there was still a spectrum of heavy-light.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486249It should be fairly obviously a bad idea to add extra steps, because  its easier and people forget all the modifiers involved less often.   If you can design a system that does something in 4 steps rather than 5 with no loss of function, do it in 4. If you can do it with 3 or 2 or 1 step, do it that way instead. Its not rocket science.

Anyway, while we were talking about prior editions/ in general, I have a suspicion you're in favour of additive proficiency bonuses just because its what 4E uses. If yes, I'd recommend trying to claim that the extra addition step in there for 4E does something useful that justifies the extra math, rather than defending pointless extra addition as being only neglibly worse.

Unless it is a variable change (which 4e does too often IMO), it's one step.  Adding 4 to your attack bonus is no harder or easier than adding 6, as long as the number is fixed every time.  I really don't see this as an onerous task.

Now, it gets much more difficult when the rule is "Add +2 when flanking", because that's a variable bonus that does require an extra step.  And 4e absolutely has more variable bonuses than 3e, and that can be annoying.

So no, my reaction is not in defense of 4e, as I think 4e lacks in areas related to this (variable bonuses).  I just don't think it's a good argument that a bonus that happens every single time you attack is a meaningful step.  You do it once, when calculating the total fixed bonus, and you don't need to touch it again.  In a game that involves this many variables, that's not a meaningful issue.

Quote from: Mistwell;486493I just don't think it's a good argument that a bonus that happens every single time you attack is a meaningful step.  You do it once, when calculating the total fixed bonus, and you don't need to touch it again.  In a game that involves this many variables, that's not a meaningful issue.

The system is still objectively worse - even if not by much.

Precalculating does save on screwups, but even then there will periodically be shifts that will probably cause recalculation to be required (switching to a ranged weapon/different key ability modifier)...and the more modifiers involved the more likely it is that one of them is going to be forgotten.

Note that you're coming at this from a player perspective, as well. For the GM, its a different set of NPCs or monsters every fight and so a new batch of calculations.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;486159I can find examples of "rules light" as a usage as early as the beginning of 1996: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.misc/msg/fbec58a73fdadd20?hl=en&dmode=source

I can back it up to at least 1994 (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.misc/msg/c32c9fa67d04e04b?dmode=source).

In a thread about how miniatures are evil and people talk about how the current edition of D&D totally uses them unlike all those other games out there. Ah me. How the wheel turns.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486498Note that you're coming at this from a player perspective, as well. For the GM, its a different set of NPCs or monsters every fight and so a new batch of calculations.

There's a reason that you set the assumed baseline of the game for the most common/expected scenario and then modify from that assumed baseline: Because it lowers the number of modifiers typically in play.

Other things that wouldn't be good ideas:

- Giving everyone a -4 penalty to AC when they're not behind cover.
- Giving everyone a -2 penalty to attacks when they're not flanking.
- Giving everyone a +4 bonus to AC when they're not helpless.
- Giving everyone a +4 bonus to attacks when they're standing up.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;486500I can back it up to at least 1994 (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.misc/msg/c32c9fa67d04e04b?dmode=source).

In a thread about how miniatures are evil and people talk about how the current edition of D&D totally uses them unlike all those other games out there. Ah me. How the wheel turns.

Except that isn't at all what they are talking about.  "D&D" shows up three times in the entire thread, and two of those are in a single post:

"1) The Wargamer:  He to whom combat is the main focus.  Rules-lawyers are the archetype of this.  The rules are most important often, not what makes sense (the D&D rules say you can't aim for his head so it's not possible).  He moved from wargames to roleplaying or started as a hack n'slash D&D'er & never graduated past it."

Neither of those instances are in regards to miniatures.

"Dungeon" doesn't make an appearance at all, so there certainly isn't any instances of "Dungeons and Dragons", let alone "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons".

In other words, your premise utterly fails because they aren't talking about D&D at all, let alone miniature use thereof.  Where they do talk about miniatures specifically, the thread is split around 50/50 positive/negative on their use.

The wheel only turns back to your argument still being completely wrong.  The half (or so) that argue in favour of them posit their use for easier battlefield representation:

"Sometimes the physical setting matters.  Even a great deal.  In that
 case, a sketch can come in darned handy.  And once you have a sketch,
 why not plop down some representational icons for the actors?  And why
 not make them colorful, and readily identifiable, even (gasp)
 individualized?"

No one there is even remotely suggesting miniatures are required for play, or that they feel the rules lock them into using miniatures.  In fact, since they don't appear to be talking about D&D at all, there is certainly no mention of how those rules are designed for use with miniatures.

I don't even know why you felt the need to bring this up again, other than your ego is so wounded, you are psychologically incapable of letting this go and admit your initial mistake.

Quote from: StormBringer;486505In other words, your premise

Dude. I think you might be taking an ironic comment about the second post in the linked thread a wee bit too seriously.

QuoteNo one there is even remotely suggesting miniatures are required for play, or that they feel the rules lock them into using miniatures.

Never said they did. You're a crazy dude, Stormbringer.

QuoteI don't even know why you felt the need to bring this up again, other than your ego is so wounded, you are psychologically incapable of letting this go and admit your initial mistake.

Ah. You think this is all about you.

That's because you're an idiot.

But, please, regale us again with your tale of how the published rulebooks for OD&D don't require Chainmail because you can totally just rewrite those rulebooks so that they don't. It will be no less amusing than the last time you decided to go full retard on this one.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;486507Dude. I think you might be taking an ironic comment about the second post in the linked thread a wee bit too seriously.

In order for 'irony' to be present, there has to be some mention of the thing one is being 'ironic' about.  Since there is no mention of what you say there is, what do you think is the ironic part?

QuoteNever said they did. You're a crazy dude, Stormbringer.

"In a thread about how miniatures are evil and people talk about how the  current edition of D&D totally uses them unlike all those other  games out there."
Irony isn't making up something and then pretending to defeat that statement.  That is a 'strawman'.  You excel at those, but it isn't irony.

QuoteAh. You think this is all about you.

That's because you're an idiot.

But, please, regale us again with your tale of how the published rulebooks for OD&D don't require Chainmail because you can totally just rewrite those rulebooks so that they don't. It will be no less amusing than the last time you decided to go full retard on this one.

No, it's clearly all about your bruised little ego, or you would have simply posted "I have an instance in 1994", then proceeded to post in the other thread with this 'new' information.

Except for the fact that you are now fully aware that your argument is completely daft, wholly incorrect, and impossible to support.  You just refuse to admit it, instead dragging the point to an unrelated thread in the hopes of finding some support over here.

My advice:  Stick to your blog where people don't have the temerity to talk back.  And stick to 3.x, you seem woefully uneducated with anything prior to that.

And with that, I am done.  :)

I maintain that 'rules light' can get a bit too light recently.  At some point, it simply moves away from 'game' and becomes 'round robin story creation'.  Which is a fine hobby, just not one particularly aligned with RPGs, in my opinion.

There is a certain level of rules that are necessary, and not just rules for interacting with other players.  As there is no quantifiable measurement for 'rules', it is clearly a matter of taste.  I find B/X D&D at about the lower end of useful rules light.  OD&D is even a bit sparse, really.  It is good for what it does, which is a very, very basic toolset for making your own game.  It's just not enough of a scaffold for me to deal with, having limited time and all.

I would have to dig through my collection to find other examples.  The core of CyberPunk 2020 (essentially Fuzion, if I recall) would make for a pretty good frame on which to build something pretty rules light-ish.  Task resolution, combat tables, character generation...  Nothing specifically for 'quirks', as in, metaphysical stuff;  spells, psionics and the like.  Still, add them in as skills and you at least have a working system for future tinkering.

Arguing back and forth over poorly worded guidelines for some of the really rules light games seems to be not much more than pixelbitching a trap or secret door in the worst TSR modules to me.

Quote from: StormBringer;486564The core of CyberPunk 2020 (essentially Fuzion, if I recall) would make for a pretty good frame on which to build something pretty rules light-ish. Task resolution, combat tables, character generation... Nothing specifically for 'quirks', as in, metaphysical stuff; spells, psionics and the like. Still, add them in as skills and you at least have a working system for future tinkering.
 

Fuzion was fairly similar to the Interlock system (e.g. Cyberpunk 2020), though it was technically an amalgamation of that and HERO. Fuzion does have more detail on the metaphysical stuff and whatnot, though I guess it'd put it as rules-medium (?). IIRC, I think it sometimes uses +3d6 (the Hero method) rather than +1d10 for task resolution but stat purchase etc. is similar to CP2020.
 
There's a page here with details of the exact design process - I found it interesting since the design process itself (of trying to find common ground between two completely different systems) was sort of weird.
http://knol.google.com/k/fuzion-rpg-design#

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486615Fuzion was fairly similar to the Interlock system (e.g. Cyberpunk 2020), though it was technically an amalgamation of that and HERO. Fuzion does have more detail on the metaphysical stuff and whatnot, though I guess it'd put it as rules-medium (?). IIRC, I think it sometimes uses +3d6 (the Hero method) rather than +1d10 for task resolution but stat purchase etc. is similar to CP2020.
 
There's a page here with details of the exact design process - I found it interesting since the design process itself (of trying to find common ground between two completely different systems) was sort of weird.
http://knol.google.com/k/fuzion-rpg-design#

It was Interlock I was thinking of.  I don't know why Fuzion keeps getting stuck in my head with CP2020.  Didn't the horrible v3 use Fuzion, the one with the Barbie dolls for interior art?

EDIT:  Interesting article.  I want to do something similar to stat grouping and treat them almost like skills.

Quote from: StormBringer;486561

Quote

QuoteNo one there is even remotely suggesting miniatures are required for play, or that they feel the rules lock them into using miniatures.

Never said they did. You're a crazy dude, Stormbringer.

"In a thread about how miniatures are evil and people talk about how the  current edition of D&D totally uses them unlike all those other  games out there."

See, that I did say. You notice how it's not what you claimed I said?

I love it when you try that one.

QuoteExcept for the fact that you are now fully aware that your argument is completely daft, wholly incorrect, and impossible to support.

I can't wait for the Stormbringer to show up who claims that "inches" terminology was used because that was the convention for miniature play. I hope you two start arguing with each other again!

You're a crazy dude, Stormbringer.

Quote from: StormBringer;486626It was Interlock I was thinking of. I don't know why Fuzion keeps getting stuck in my head with CP2020. Didn't the horrible v3 use Fuzion, the one with the Barbie dolls for interior art?
 
EDIT: Interesting article. I want to do something similar to stat grouping and treat them almost like skills.

I haven't seen that product, but after searching the rpggeek review says yes it was Fuzion-based (and yeah had the dolls).
 
Great the article was of interest, anyway, though I don't know that stat grouping was one of Fuzion's greatest ideas.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;486681See, that I did say. You notice how it's not what you claimed I said?

I love it when you try that one.

I can't wait for the Stormbringer to show up who claims that "inches" terminology was used because that was the convention for miniature play. I hope you two start arguing with each other again!

You're a crazy dude, Stormbringer.

Even your responses are incoherent now.  The circle is complete.

EDIT:  Semantics is the last gasp of a poor argument.  If your claim is that scale inches are in the rules because of miniatures usage, and further that almost all the spells and magic items use scale inches, then your claim implies that one cannot play properly without miniatures.  Hence, miniatures are required for play.  Your attempt to weasel out by claiming you only said 'it uses' instead of 'it requires' is laughably pathetic.

Which is irrelevant, because there is no evidence that anyone in that thread you posted was talking about D&D in the first place, let alone that there was extensive use of miniatures in D&D.  The rest of your feeble thrashing is immaterial, because there are three mentions of D&D in that thread, and two of them are in reference to hack 'n' slash, not miniatures.  Hence, you saw "D&D" in the thread and wanted to re-hash an argument you had already failed to provide any reasonable level of evidence for, and were presented with more than ample evidence that countered your claim.  But here you are, ready to pretend you were right all along from a misreading of a thread you found.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486686I haven't seen that product, but after searching the rpggeek review says yes it was Fuzion-based (and yeah had the dolls).

I picked it up and read a few pages some years back.  It isn't very good.  And the layout is all shades of green.
 

QuoteGreat the article was of interest, anyway, though I don't know that stat grouping was one of Fuzion's greatest ideas.

Like most things, the kernel of a good idea is buried under the poor implementation.  My perennial favourite example is the AD&D 2nd edition Monstrous Compendiums.  Fantastic idea, horrible execution.

Will you two shut the fuck up about your dumbass feud?  Nobody else cares.

Quote from: StormBringer;486709EDIT:  Semantics is the last gasp of a poor argument.  If your claim is that scale inches are in the rules because of miniatures usage, and further that almost all the spells and magic items use scale inches, then your claim implies that one cannot play properly without miniatures.  Hence, miniatures are required for play.  Your attempt to weasel out by claiming you only said 'it uses' instead of 'it requires' is laughably pathetic.

You realize that you're the one using semantics, right? You're trying to "prove" that I said something that I explicitly didn't say by re-interpreting my words.

Which, I suppose, is better than when you were just rewriting what I said so that you could vigorously hump the strawmen you created. Wait...

QuoteBut here you are, ready to pretend you were right all along from a misreading of a thread you found.

Apparently you're still doing that, too.

You're a crazy dude, Stormbringer. (And kind of an egomaniac. Your assumption that the world revolves around is kind of funny in its paranoia.)

Quote from: B.T.;486734Will you two shut the fuck up about your dumbass feud?  Nobody else cares.

More polite, but still agreeing - Take it to PMs or something. The rest of us have an OP to discuss.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486686Great the article was of interest, anyway, though I don't know that stat grouping was one of Fuzion's greatest ideas.

More specifically, all systems have attribute grouping, they just aren't all as obvious about it.  White Wolf games clearly delineate stat groupings, as well as the skill that fall under those stats.  As with any tool, how it is presented and designed are a major factor in how well it works.

But the grouping is more likely due to reality being the way it is.  We have physical attributes, mental attributes, and then another category, something like 'metaphysical' attributes.  The first two are self-explanatory, but the 'metaphysical' ones vary wildly.  Some games use a purely abstract notion like 'luck' or 'karma', while others use stats that are not entirely physical, or not entirely mental, or usually a little of both; charisma, education, health, and so on.

I just think it would be a bit easier to tinker with the rules if the designers made that part of the process a bit more transparent.
Physical:  Strength, Dexterity
Mental: Intelligence, Wisdom
Meta: Constitution, Charisma

As a player or GM, you don't necessarily have to agree with the groupings, but within the game, they would have to make sense.  Constitution has a physiological basis, but some of that is just not catching a virulent strain of some illness or disease.  Charisma is something about how you look, but something about how you present yourself also.

I'd probably just have described Con as a physical attribute? (and Cha probably a mix).

I could see having a clear idea of an attribute as either physical or mental being useful when designing a system inasmuch as that someone who imagines Cha as being an "attractiveness" stat will design different mechanics to someone who sees it as a purely mental stat.

However, I do think grouping attributes can be taken too far, and can lead to other design problems. Ignore me if you have some particularly awesome idea of course, but I raved about this a bit in the d10/0 thread in Design and Development awhile back - the guy there had a system where there were 10 attributes (in a 2 x 5 pattern).  Other examples of it would be DC Heroes (3x3 pattern), Fuzion (3x3,+1) and another guy I knew at uni years ago built something called Brightblade that had 12 attributes (a 4x3) pattern. Or White Wolf is (3x3). So usually it ends up with more attributes than I'm normally comfortable with, though of course tastes vary.

Complex groupings can also lead to attributes being added just to maintain the symmetry of the system (i.e. there's a physical/active stat so you need a social/active, or spiritual/active as well). These often end up as extra stats that aren't as important as the main ones.

Conversely, there's usually something important that somehow doesn't fit in and gets pushed off somewhere else (Willpower in Storyteller), or which just uses an attribute that's really weird because there's nothing that really fits (e.g. Perception checks in DC Heroes are INT to spot something, then WILL determines how well).

tl;dr version: I find groupings lead to too much trouble, since it puts constraints on a game's design for what are normally aesthetic reasons, rather than practical ones.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486789I'd probably just have described Con as a physical attribute? (and Cha probably a mix).

And that would certainly be a valid categorization.  I happen to like a more or less even distribution of scores, but that is a matter of personal taste rather than strict design principles.

For example, 4th edition essentially currently gives combat bonuses for whatever your 'prime requisite' is.  So, Fighters use Strength, Rogues use Dexterity and so on.  Of course, different powers have different bonuses; this is just a highly simplified example.  So, if you consider weapon use as a de facto 'skill', then you have options for the characters most likely to be using them.  A Rogue would be at something of a disadvantage having to use Strength exclusively for combat bonuses, even though they could be considered a 'martial' class if you will.  To preserve the niche for Fighters, you could have bonuses to hit and damage for high Strength, but only bonuses to hit for high Dexterity.  Or perhaps a choice of to hit or damage for high Dex, chosen at character creation.  Naturally, everyone else would also benefit from those high scores, but presumably, few other characters would have a high enough score to intrude on the Fighter's or Rogue's niche on a regular basis, especially with other limiting factors like hit points and armour/weapon restrictions.

But then you get into some goofy stuff where Intelligence or Wisdom affect chances to hit, and even goofier stuff where Charisma would affect your chances to hit.  I am not aware this is is present in any current powers, but with all the splats out there, I am sure they are running out of combinations for powers.  ;)  (Paladins have a few 'Charisma vs...' powers, but I think that is a misinterpretation of why the original 1st edition Paladins had a high Charisma as a requirement)

So, that is where I see stat groupings as being most useful.  They should give an idea of what skills use those stats, and make it easier to add new skills while providing some built in options for the classes that are expected to use those attributes.  As well, creating a new class should be somewhat easier as well, as you would only need to decide what category of stats would represent them best.  For example: Bards=metaphysical (Charisma), and you know what kind of skills they would be generally needing.

QuoteI could see having a clear idea of an attribute as either physical or mental being useful when designing a system inasmuch as that someone who imagines Cha as being an "attractiveness" stat will design different mechanics to someone who sees it as a purely mental stat.

Sure, definitely a benefit.  I assume your unspoken caveat is "...but it isn't a clear benefit to the players."  With which I would mostly agree.  I am not sure there is a decidedly obvious benefit for people who don't tinker with the system that much, other than it could make things a bit easier and more clear-cut for the GM when they have to make a judgment call.

QuoteHowever, I do think grouping attributes can be taken too far, and can lead to other design problems. Ignore me if you have some particularly awesome idea of course, but I raved about this a bit in the d10/0 thread in Design and Development awhile back - the guy there had a system where there were 10 attributes (in a 2 x 5 pattern).  Other examples of it would be DC Heroes (3x3 pattern), Fuzion (3x3,+1) and another guy I knew at uni years ago built something called Brightblade that had 12 attributes (a 4x3) pattern. Or White Wolf is (3x3). So usually it ends up with more attributes than I'm normally comfortable with, though of course tastes vary.

Complex groupings can also lead to attributes being added just to  maintain the symmetry of the system (i.e. there's a physical/active stat  so you need a social/active, or spiritual/active as well). These often  end up as extra stats that aren't as important as the main ones.

Absolutely agree.  I am in favour of no more than six attributes, not only because of a background in AD&D.  Seven is an odd number, hence, impossible to divvy up well, and eight doesn't divide up well either.  So the next 'viable' amount is nine, and as you mention, that is starting to push the limits for ease of use.

Let's look at White Wolf.  Under the Mental category we have Perception.  Couldn't that just be a standard roll, modified for clan and/or skill?  And they fall into the classic trap of adding an Appearance stat, like the Comeliness stat in Unearthed Arcana.  Does it really matter?  And if it does, can't this also be listed under something else, similar to a skill, and just used to modify Charisma or Manipulation?  Speaking of, don't most games present 'Manipulation' as a skill?  Is there really something inherent about people that it should be an attribute?

So, we have the confluence of two problems:  too many stats, and several of them are unnecessary, overlapping, or poorly implemented.  They could have certainly made nine stats work well, but the more stats you have, the more you have to make sure they aren't a muddled jumble of conflicting or useless numbers.  And especially make sure they aren't better used as skills.

QuoteConversely, there's usually something important that somehow doesn't fit in and gets pushed off somewhere else (Willpower in Storyteller), or which just uses an attribute that's really weird because there's nothing that really fits (e.g. Perception checks in DC Heroes are INT to spot something, then WILL determines how well).

tl;dr version: I find groupings lead to too much trouble, since it puts constraints on a game's design for what are normally aesthetic reasons, rather than practical ones.

Certainly.  And like D&D, the groupings don't necessarily have to be spelled out or delineated in the rules.  As long as they are fairly easy to spot and utilize.  One of the issues I have with whatever version of skill challenges 4e is on this week is that you can use any skill to do pretty much anything you want.  There is a certain element of play that is still a game, and if you don't have the 'proper' resources, you need to acquire them, or find a different way around the obstacle.

So, wow, we were talking about rules light, weren't we?  :)

I think the opposite would be true of rules-light:  six is probably the maximum number of attributes that should be included, and something like four as a minimum for a "serious" game.  I recall TWERPS used just the one, but that was a parody of games in general.  GURPS' four attributes is OK-ish, but they kind of do double duty.  And there is the 'dex conquers all' problem that many games suffer from.

I am still turning a few ideas over in my head, though, so these opinions are subject to change.  :)

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;485275I prefer systems that consist (almost) entirely of bonuses. D&D 3.x has always bugged me that it takes fighters as the norm, and then penalizes everyone else. If I had a time machine, I'd change the -4 non-weapon proficiency to a +4 weapon proficiency and then I'd time travel some positive feedback to Ben Franklin.

Negatives are a bit depressing, too - and are often forgotten. When playtesting my son-of-CT system GAMERS, I found that if you have -2 with no skill, and +1 as your first level of skill, when players wanted their characters to do things, they tended to forget the -2 was coming up - and people tended to go for +1 in several different skills, if they had any choice.

So I changed it to 0 and +3. Mechanically it's absolutely the same, but it feels different. Actually having a skill feels like something significant, they tend to get picked more carefully, and other players respect the character who has that particular skill.

Quote from: Declan MacManusTo my recollection, game designers in the 90's tried to make games as cumbersome and fiddly as they could because, ostensibly, this is what the gaming public wanted...I guess...maybe. I'm not really sure why these were popular, to tell the truth.

Detail looks like precision, and precision is often mistaken for accuracy.

For those without some science background...

Precision is how many decimal points to your measurement. "65.32% of respondents said they agreed with the assertion," is more precise than "about two-thirds."

Accuracy is whether the figure is correct or not, "Kyle is about 1.78m tall" is accurate, "he's 1.90m tall" is not.

People mistake precision for accuracy. "Kyle is 1.95216m tall" will seem more believable to people than "Kyle is around 1.80m tall." The first is precise and inaccurate, the second is imprecise and accurate.

Excruciating detail is read as precision, which is mistaken for accuracy.

Stormbringer: sorry about my delayed response, busy day yesterday.
But all of what you've said above looks reasonable.
 
With 4E's Cha-based paladins you can sort of trace the idea back to 3E, where Smite and Divine Might give bonuses to damage off Charisma. If its supernatural I'm not too bothered by it, though its odd that they don't get any Str bonus with a weapon when they smite (without using another power, also called Divine Might I think).
There is another feat "Melee Training" that lets characters add any ability modifier to their basic melee attacks, including Cha -post Essentials it gives full modifier to hit, half modifier for damage.
 
What I think what you were getting at is that groupings prevent that sort of weirdness by letting a skill get a modifier from say physical only, or mental only? (so you could e.g. have a Climbing skills thats based off Str or Dex , but not Con since that's a "meta" attribute rather than physical; or where Knowledges could be Int or Wis based, but not Cha). Sounds OK.
The metaphysical group (Cha and Con) could get a bit weird for interchanging skill modifiers (e.g. Con-based Diplomacy!) unless you want to make physical appearance part of the Con stat. There are a couple of places in 3E where the two sometimes change around, though (creatures without Con use Cha for some things instead)...perhaps the idea helps makes sense of that.
 
Don't know if that helps any, but interesting stuff.

Quote from: StormBringer;486783But the grouping is more likely due to reality being the way it is.  We have physical attributes, mental attributes, and then another category, something like 'metaphysical' attributes.

This is an artifact of Western dualism -- our perceived separation of mind and body. Eastern cultures don't buy so heavily into that dualism. (One of the nifty things about Legend of the 5 Rings is that it specifically eschewed the mental/physical dualism that 99.99% of all RPGs follow.)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486949Stormbringer: sorry about my delayed response, busy day yesterday.
But all of what you've said above looks reasonable.

Don't worry about that, it took me a while to respond in the first place for that exact reason.  And I was just spitballing, but it is good to hear I wasn't completely out in left-field.  :)
 

QuoteWith 4E's Cha-based paladins you can sort of trace the idea back to 3E, where Smite and Divine Might give bonuses to damage off Charisma. If its supernatural I'm not too bothered by it, though its odd that they don't get any Str bonus with a weapon when they smite (without using another power, also called Divine Might I think).

I am glad you expanded on that, because I really didn't want to.  :)

And you do highlight part of the weirdness when you start using stats that aren't really designed to be used for something else.  A high Charisma was just a 'gateway' to keep everyone from playing Paladins, just like Rangers had some pretty stringent restrictions.  Prior to 3.x, you couldn't really do anything with Charisma, but you weren't really supposed to either.  2nd edition has some skills that are Charisma based (and probably a metric shit-tonne more in the splats), but as I recall, they were mostly skills that you would expect Charisma to influence.  Diplomacy; I think there was one for Oration or something; stuff like that.  If you make your Paladins require a 17+ in some other stat, like Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution, you end up with just as few of them, but they are now waaaay better than regular Fighters just to qualify for the class.  Requiring a high Wisdom makes a little bit of sense, but a high Intelligence makes no sense at all.  Having a high Wisdom would make them into quasi-limited spell selection Clerics who could use swords, but since they get the same spell bonus for high Wisdom as Clerics, they are now better than Fighters and Clerics, just by having the minimum qualifying score.

QuoteThere is another feat "Melee Training" that lets characters add any ability modifier to their basic melee attacks, including Cha -post Essentials it gives full modifier to hit, half modifier for damage.

Ok, I'm sorry, but that is just plain stupid.  :)
 

QuoteWhat I think what you were getting at is that groupings prevent that sort of weirdness by letting a skill get a modifier from say physical only, or mental only? (so you could e.g. have a Climbing skills thats based off Str or Dex , but not Con since that's a "meta" attribute rather than physical; or where Knowledges could be Int or Wis based, but not Cha). Sounds OK.
The metaphysical group (Cha and Con) could get a bit weird for interchanging skill modifiers (e.g. Con-based Diplomacy!) unless you want to make physical appearance part of the Con stat. There are a couple of places in 3E where the two sometimes change around, though (creatures without Con use Cha for some things instead)...perhaps the idea helps makes sense of that.

Yeah, there is still some strangeness lurking around.  I am not sure making the skills strictly interchangeable is a good idea, although I suspect it is possible.  It would just end up sounding far, far too contrived to really be playable.  I mean, you could certainly make an Oratory skill that worked with both Charisma and Constitution, but then you have the Constitution guy essentially wearing the listener down with their oratorical stamina rather than actually performing a well-crafted speech to change the hearts and minds.  In my view, that is just as goofy as giving combat bonuses for Charisma or Intelligence.
 

QuoteDon't know if that helps any, but interesting stuff.

Thanks!  Like I said, I was king of throwing ideas around, but your responses make a good sounding board, so not only was it very helpful, I also greatly appreciate your responses!

EDIT:  I just caught this reading BSJ's reply below.  I meant to type "I was kind of throwing ideas around...", not "king of".  That makes me sound like even more of an arrogant jackass than normal.  :)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;487002This is an artifact of Western dualism -- our perceived separation of mind and body. Eastern cultures don't buy so heavily into that dualism. (One of the nifty things about Legend of the 5 Rings is that it specifically eschewed the mental/physical dualism that 99.99% of all RPGs follow.)

A good point.  I think any particular game system would be rather hard pressed to address both of those points of view seamlessly.  It might be easier if the grouping is used, while designing some built in cross-over for certain skills.  So, a Bushi would get the standard combat bonuses from Strength, but a Wu-Jen might have a skill providing similar bonuses derived from intelligence that utilized some kind of spirit summoning or favours.

Naturally, this is kind of the solution 4e uses, as I understand it (especially in regards to skill challenges), but I think it is a solution for a more specific problem, rather than a general problem (that doesn't exactly exist anyway).

Quote from: StormBringer;487151And you do highlight part of the weirdness when you start using stats that aren't really designed to be used for something else. A high Charisma was just a 'gateway' to keep everyone from playing Paladins, just like Rangers had some pretty stringent restrictions. Prior to 3.x, you couldn't really do anything with Charisma, but you weren't really supposed to either. 2nd edition has some skills that are Charisma based (and probably a metric shit-tonne more in the splats), but as I recall, they were mostly skills that you would expect Charisma to influence. Diplomacy; I think there was one for Oration or something; stuff like that. If you make your Paladins require a 17+ in some other stat, like Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution, you end up with just as few of them, but they are now waaaay better than regular Fighters just to qualify for the class. Requiring a high Wisdom makes a little bit of sense, but a high Intelligence makes no sense at all. Having a high Wisdom would make them into quasi-limited spell selection Clerics who could use swords, but since they get the same spell bonus for high Wisdom as Clerics, they are now better than Fighters and Clerics, just by having the minimum qualifying score.

Wandering off topic again, Charisma seems to have gone on a strange journey from being useful for hireling loyalty and # henchmen, to being used mainly for ability checks (and NWP checks), and finally for giving magic powerz. Perhaps the increasing focus on game balance with each edition led to its uses getting more and more strange. The only supernatural effect I can think of for Charisma prior to 3E is the slight bonus it gives on 1E psionics rolls.
 

QuoteThanks! Like I said, I was king of throwing ideas around, but your responses make a good sounding board, so not only was it very helpful, I also greatly appreciate your responses!

Glad to be of service!

Quote from: Axiomatic;485322Thing is, why DON'T wizards wear armor?

Well, if the setting is anything like the European Middle Ages, it might simply be illegal and impossible to purchase it for anyone who isn't a career soldier or part of the right social class.

Magic hates iron; bronze is too heavy and copper is to laugh.

Yep for me I don't get an more rules heavy than BRP these days and even that is because I know it intimately for decades.

Favourite current system Barbarians of Lemuria which I pretty much use variations of for every action oriented game I run these days from fantasy to cyberpunk.