Oh, look! An actual post from JB that isn't just dredging Reddit for click bait...
I'm sure I've tangentially referred to this subject in the past, and my apologies if there's already some long-winded post floating around my archives somewhere...I've been writing this blog for a bit now, and it's hard to keep track of all my various rants. However, James M's blog re-post post today hipped me to something that I've been reminded of before but never (so far as I can recall) in a moment of my free time when I had a laptop close at hand.
So you get this today.
These days the "OSR" is well-known for its plethora of "light" (as in "rules light" or even "rules lite") role-playing games. O So Many of them. From the retro-clones based on primordial (OD&D) or introductory (Basic D&D) game systems, to even cheaper, lighter knock-offs of those games. You know who I'm talking about: the Cairns, the Knaves, the ShadowDarks, etc. Everything to make the rules LIGHTER and EASIER so that it doesn't shackle the imagination, right? Just trying to increase accessibility, yeah?
And, of course, this sentiment...a sentiment of making games EASIER, LIGHTER, MORE ACCESSIBLE isn't limited to JUST the OSR. Despite the 700-800 pages of instruction found in 5E's "core" game books, there are precious little hard and fast rules. How difficult is it to understand a target number? How complicated is it to grasp "advantage/disadvantage?" 5E is, in many ways, fairly similar to other "light" versions of D&D...it just provides MORE OPTIONS. More character classes. More spells. More magic items and monsters. But ease of instructional game play? Check, check, checkity, check.
[not that 5E is "easy enough" for a lot of its players/DMs (as evidenced by Reddit posts). *ahem*]
Heck, I'd argue that this predominance of "ease" isn't even restricted to D&D and D&D-adjacent games. The days of GURPS and MektonZeta and Vampire: the Masquerade and Deadlands are a waaaays behind us. Every RPG I pick up and look at these days seems built around A) a really simple system, wrapped around with B) a bunch of options with regard to color and flavor. Which might be why I haven't purchased any new RPGs in a while.
When was the last installment of Champions/HERO System? Are they out of business yet? Or have they issued a version of "HERO Lite?" Kids these days, you know? They can't even be bothered to READ, let alone do math.
[man O man, the state of this country]
But let's not dwell on those "other guys." I want to keep my focus squarely on the so-called "Old School" community. Because the "Old School" community is bigger than it ever was...and is YOUNGER than it ever was, filled with people born long after the original "hay day" of the D&D game. And there is a major disconnect with their understanding of what "Old School Gaming" is all about, specifically with regard to the "heaviness" (or "crunchy-ness") of rule systems.
I want to explain that.
And, in addition, I want to APOLOGIZE for that disconnect, because it was ME (and people like me...bloggers from the early 2000s) who did a poor job of explaining stuff to people, back when we were championing systems like "B/X" (basic) D&D. This post (despite the catchy, click-bait title) is meant to rectify something that should have been rectified a long, long time ago...
See, Back In The Day (that's the 1980s for me but, presumably, the late 70s also) Dungeons & Dragons was a game for NERDS. Not just any kind of nerd, but a particular brand of intelligent, imaginative nerds that were into things like fantasy and science fiction and mythology, MOST OF WHICH was found in BOOKS (which, being nerds, we tended to read a lot of). Most of us being somewhat challenged athletically, too (being bookworms), we still wanted to have FUN and so playing games substituted for the types of group activity that might otherwise be filled up with Rec basketball or Little League in the summer time. At least if we were playing D&D with our friends (especially if we were biking miles to our friends' houses to play) our parents were less likely to yell at us to stop reading trash novels and go outside and get fresh air and sunshine.
SO...Dungeons & Dragons was totally our jam. Here was a game that appealed to our interest in all the fantasy literature we enjoyed reading (quality fantasy film and television being extremely hard to come by, back in those days) AND required a high degree of intelligence to parse and make sense of (as the designers, while erudite, imaginative nerds themselves, had rather stumbled into their profession and had, perhaps, NOT the best technical writing chops for communicating what the D&D experience was all about).
And O how it gripped our imaginations! How it occupied our all our waking moments! How we discussed it, in and out of school, weekdays and weekends, on Boy Scout retreats, and while sitting on the bench during our soccer games! It was fortunate that the game forced us to stretch our minds, do math, look up words in the dictionary (and terms in the encyclopedia) which made all our homework a snap...because otherwise, we probably would have fallen far behind for the amount of effort we put into school work. I know that would have been the case for me...as it was, I still managed straight As (big nerd over here) with about as little effort as I could manage.
But here's the thing, Youngsters: "light rules" was ZERO part of the appeal of these games. We WANTED our rules "crunchy." The more crunch, the better!
This is why Dragon Magazine sold so well to members of our community: Dragon offered NEW RULES and new ideas that we could incorporate into our games...making our games heavier, and filled with MORE rules. Articles like the (previously cited) Gamma World article that ADDED to character creation. Or (for D&D) new rules for training, or weapon proficiencies, or building libraries, or specific "thieves tools," or random pick pocketing tables, or urban adventure rules, or animal training rules, or...whatever! Never mind the new "NPC" classes (which tended to become "PC" classes) or the new monsters or the new magic items (which were also incorporated)...I'm talking about whole SYSTEMS. When the Unearthed Arcana was published in 1985 (with the Gygax name on the cover), we adopted the entire thing, sight unseen: social classes, spell books, Comeliness, read illusionist magic, demi-human deities, simplified unarmed combat rules...we took in every single bit of it, stupid or not.
Rules. Instruction. These provide more than "limits" to game play, more than structure. Rules provide ANSWERS...answers to all those questions that arise during play, questions that lead to arguments and discussions and that (in the end) lead to game play stopping. We did NOT want game play to stop...we wanted it to continue and continue and continue. Having answers from (presumably) neutral third-party authorities (whether in a rule book or a magazine) provided an official "stamp" or reliability, respectability, and authority...something that allowed us to say: "See, there's the answer, in black-and-white. Now let's move on and get back to playing."
Because it's all well and good to say 'The Dungeon Master is the final arbiter of the game.' But what if the Dungeon Master is a 13 or 14 year old peer who doesn't have their shit together in other areas of their life? How do you trust THAT guy (or gal) to do the right thing, to be impartial and fair, to remember the correct rule/system at the right time, every time? How do you expect a hormonal 16 or 17 year old to exercise prudence and good judgment? Are you f'ing kidding me?
RULES. We wanted rules...the more rules the better. No one played BECMI in those days (though it was purchased and mined for ideas), because it was TOO simple, TOO basic. If you told someone you wanted to play a (B/X) dwarf, you'd have been laughed out of the room. "A dwarven what?" we would have asked.
No, "rules lite" was definitely NOT on the agenda. When we took breaks from D&D (which we did) it was to play other games of similar crunch that we'd have to learn. Sure Marvel Superheroes was fun, but as soon as Advanced Marvel Superheroes was published, we junked all out MSH stuff for the new version (check out the falling rules! And the whole chapter on different inventions and kit-bashing!). We'd play Chaosium's Stormbringer whose chargen system could take half a session by itself (for a character who would be gutted by the end of the session on a critical impalement). We'd spend hours using the Top Secret rules (and the various Dragon Mag article supplements) crafting our own awesome handguns. Point-buy game systems...like James Bond, GURPS, Mekton...could provide hours of mind-numbing entertainment by themselves even before getting to actual game play.
We were young people with strong minds and no internet or smart phones to to distract and dull our brain power. We wanted stimulation and EXERCISE for our think-boxes.
So What Happened? What happened that led to blogs like "B/X Blackrazor" (and many, many others) promoting a style of play that was streamlined and easy and neither advanced, nor "crunchy?" Why O Why, for so long, did people like ME actively disparage more complex games, even as others were trying to either preserve the fire and evolve/develop the complexity?
Eh. I don't have a great answer to that question. It was 2008. I was busy: wife, job, life. I'd just gotten out of 3E...probably the "crunchiest" edition of D&D ever designed; so crunchy that I'd deem it soulless, a mechanical monstrosity, "twisted and evil" (yes, like Darth Vader). Going back to B/X, rediscovering and reexamining it through wiser, adult eyes was a way to reclaim the energy, exuberance, and passion of my youthful self for the D&D game. FOR ME: I needed to go back to the beginning to start over. And the simplicity of the system was about all I could fit into the routine of my adult life and adult responsibilities...and even that faded in significance with the birth of my children in 2011 and 2014. Dungeons & Dragons (of ANY edition) wasn't even on my list of priorities when I was dealing with children that young!
I promoted B/X and the Labyrinth Lord retroclone (which allowed one to play the...at the time...out-of-print B/X), because it was a lovely little game that could be easily customized for a smart person who wanted to do extra work, and would serve the purpose of providing a D&D game experience without the need to teach one's players a bunch of "advanced" rule mechanics. It was certainly more accessible than other editions and...for me, as a Dungeon Master...was far less of a headache than 3E ever had been. And it was still D&D (IMO) unlike, say, 4E.
But, as I've detailed before (more than once) there is a LIMIT to how far a game designed as a basic, introductory system can take you. And since all the ways needed to transform B/X into a robust, long-lasting game system would (in essence) simply amount to "re-writing AD&D," I eventually decided to cut the middle man and just jump back into The King of Games.
And what I found is that it's really not any harder to teach players 1E than it was to teach them B/X...as with B/X it's really only a matter of ME (the Dungeon Master) knowing and understanding the game, while having a firm grasp of table dynamics. The latter bit comes from being an experienced game master, and can't really be taught, but the former? Yeah, any nerd can do that, if they're willing to read the instructions manual.
But while I was on my own (personal) role-playing journey, the rest of the "Old School" movement took on a life entirely its own. Chalk that up to the commercialization of the OSR: once some people started making serious money (i.e. more than you need to buy a six-pack or two), there became a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And the status quo was light, OD&D or Basic-based retro-clones (sorry OSRIC) and derivative Rules Light systems: Mork Borg, Into the Odd, Troika!, etc. Systems that worked fine (perhaps) for a pick-up game, but that ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THE GAMES PLAYED OR DESIRED 30+ YEARS AGO. There is nothing "old school" about these games...NOTHING. Original D&D...the three Little Brown Books that started the whole "role-playing craze"...are the most streamlined, "light" version of the D&D game system ever published. And, at that time, might have been the most complex tabletop game ever to be sold on the open market, requiring not just itself to be played, but also CHAINMAIL and the OUTDOOR SURVIVAL board game to play (and fill in knowledge gaps). It was neither written, nor designed to be "simple and streamlined" and was almost immediately followed by Supplement I ("Greyhawk") increasing the game complexity radically (introducing multi-class characters, different hit dice and damage dice, weapon vs. AC adjustments, new advancement systems, etc.). And OD&D only continued to evolve (that is gain MORE complexity, MORE rules) from there...all per the desire of both the designers and the people purchasing/playing the game.
"Old School" does not mean "dumbing down" or "making things simpler." Anyone who thinks this or who promote "rulings over rules" are operating under a misapprehension, a false premise. The true "old school" was all about the rules. More Rules...not less.
NOW, let me say there are plenty of Old Geezers like myself that played D&D back in the 70s and/or 80s who still play today using Rules Light systems...just as there are plenty of Old Geezers that play 5E or Pathfinder or WHATever. Yes, I know there are a NUMBER of experienced, AD&D veterans, who long ago moved on from AD&D and have never looked back, and they have their reasons (good reasons!) for this. And, yes, some of those reasons might include wanting to play a simpler, more streamlined game because the priorities of their life makes a "full 1E game" non-viable. Similar to MY state of mind when I was busy with my new parental duties. I don't fault Old Geezers who know the 1E system from making a different choice for themselves...those guys (and gals) are operating from a place of KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING.
But the rest of you?
There's a part of me...a big part of me...that wants to yell, YOU'RE WASTING TIME. Not just your own time, but the time of your players (yes, my admonition only applies to Dungeon Masters, as players get very little say in what game is run at the table). You are short-changing yourself of the game you COULD be running, of the experience you could be having, of the world you could be developing, the benefits you could be reaping, if you were bold enough, and patient enough, and diligent enough to put your nose to the proverbial grindstone and step into the shoes of an Advanced DM.
Yeah, I want to yell that. But the truth is: we all come to the mountain at our own pace. When I was a kid...i.e. back before I turned 35...people gave me all sorts of advice that I failed to follow. Don't wait too long to have kids, for example (I almost did), or invest more money in the stock market, rather than booze and smokes (yeah, right). Heck, even the importance of a "spiritual practice;" it took me a lot of years before I fully appreciated the practical value of church-going in my life. Yes, a lot of us are slow to heed the wisdom of our elders...that "know-it-all teenager" attitude gets carried around for a lot longer than our teen years. Of course, it doesn't help when the elders giving the advice seem hopelessly clueless themselves (man, I had to set-up my parents' VCR for them back in the day...and I was 12 at the time! Jeez!...).
Anyway.
The title of this post promises a reason (or list of reasons) that I've yet to provide. Let's see if I can make this succinct:
- They confuse minimalism with "elegance." The result is bland, undifferentiated, and tactically shallow. Without a structure to push against (and a system to master), there is no depth of play.
- They prioritize "flow" over meaningful decision-making. By eliminating friction and meaningful constraints, they eliminate the tension that makes exploration and combat interesting. A meaningful game requires pressure; if everything is smooth, nothing is earned.
- They forgo substance for style. I don't think I need to say more about ArtPunk.
- They exist in a culture that fears complexity. The players coming to this game are actively afraid of mechanical systems, leading to design by subtraction...they don't want rules to get in the way of their improv theater. But it is complexity that gives a game its richness and provides a more robust experience. We shouldn't fear complexity; we should fear emptiness dressed up as accessibility.
- They forget that D&D was always a game first. Instead, these "light games" end up being toolboxes for vibe-heavy improvisation. What D&D originally had...and what these "light" systems often lack...is a world that runs independently of the players.
And just to unpack that last point: AD&D (and the confused, constantly evolving jumble that was OD&D) had an internal logic to it, with rules for running consequential ecosystems. The DM's role is to simulate a dynamic, responsive world that the players are exploring...NOT a variety of scenes and narrative beats adapted to create "dramatic moments" or "emotional catharsis." This living simulation that is the AD&D campaign creates a powerful sense of immersion, consequence, and discovery for the players...not to mention a feeling or real achievement for the progress they make within the game world. That just isn't present in these "lighter" versions of the world's greatest game.
All right. I've said my piece for the day. Happy Tuesday, folks.
Hm. I think that the "zero-point" origin of the idea is rules-light. "We're going to have players in the town of Braunstein/exploring under Castle Blackmoor/Greyhawk, and they will have goals. The players will decide what they do and the referee(s) will adjudicate what happens. It'll be like Kriegspiel, but each player will have one unit, representing one person." BUT, from that zero-point, there are some initial rulings the referees make in anticipation of things the players might try. "There's going to be fighting, so how we'll handle that will be to use the rules from Chainmail, modified like this to handle the one-on-one situations, or the hero dueling rules, or the hero vs. monster rules, as necessary." Then, as the game goes on and unusual situations occur, the referees start to make rulings and those become precedents and so rules. By the time the game has been played a couple times, there are a bunch of rules and an increasingly complex game. Then D&D gets published.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, I think I should go back to my original OSR experiment, occasioned by Jeff Rients, and start from a set of wargames rules and go from there, using my current understanding of what that means and how it would work. Except, there's still a bit to do: define characters, make a magic system, define creatures (if I use WRG, they'd maybe need to be more than "as angry bears", "as elephants", etc. as the WRG rules treat them in its fantasy supplement), and of course I'd need a scenario. The nice thing is that we have some 50 years or so of previous precedents to consider. And yeah, I agree that you need rules structures to push at and which push back because those are the levers for players to manipulate, and which encourage creative and interesting responses. The magic system needs to have something for the magician to manipulate because that helps the player get into the magician's mindset. The combat system needs tactical depth for the fighter to explore. And so on.
But chances are that I'm just going to start this 1E game I've been laying out. It's almost close enough to ready. I'm getting older and running out of time, so the big projects are less attractive lately.
Exactly. And (apologies for being morbid), the fact is, we are ALL "getting older and running out of time." Even those of us in our 20s and 30s. 'Getting older' and 'running out of time' are both part of the human condition.
DeleteOh, certainly. It's just become more urgent to my mind after suffering a stroke at the beginning of the year.
DeleteUgh...sorry to hear that. Best wishes for a solid recovery.
DeleteThanks. It's been slowly happening, though I don't think I'll ever get back full function. I doubt I'll ever play guitar again, for example. Really, I just need a place to run a game, but that's something I didn't have before either. Pretty sure I'm just going to go to online gaming on Roll20 or whatever.
DeleteLet's see if I can make this even more succinct: some people like different things than you, and you just can't stand it.
ReplyDeleteNope...you appear to have missed the point of my post. Apologies for being unclear.
DeleteI'm with Emarsk, I like a simpler rules lite game these days myself. I'm happier ruling on stuff on the fly or just 'You want to try that? Sure!'. Roll whatever's approriate. Rather than wading through rules for every situation. People like different things.
DeleteAnd come on. You loved all the rules back in the day? Really? You used weapon speed factors and the weapon attack modifier vs armour class(that even EGG admitted he never used himself) and faithfully tracked every material component. And I don't just mean pearls for identify or diamonds for resurrection. Did you really track how many pinches of bat guano they had left for fireball spells?
I did not track pinches of bat guano magic-users were simply assumed to have sufficient "non-costly" spell components to cast the spells in their repertoire. Similar to the way encumbrance is not tracked for spell components.
DeleteBut, yes, I used speed factors and weapon attack versus armor class (when called for) and tracked helmet use. And I still do.
As far as "people liking different things:" that's fine. Like what you like. Just understand that you're not really "old school" (whether or not that means anything to you) and that it's unlikely you'll experience all that the game can offer if you restrict yourself to "light" versions.
I have a (partial) disagreement with you about rulings over rules. I think the strength of 1e is that it has "just enough" rules, and that players can add or subtract what they want or need. Some things (like non-weapon proficiencies) were IMHO awful and unnecessary, and the DM could rule on cases as needed. 3/3.5 became so crunchy that players were unable to do anything without a rule for it -- which of course became the impetus for WOTC to sell more books.
ReplyDeleteI use only the PHB, DMG, and three MMs for my game, although the UA is a handy reference for things like "how much x.p. do you award for a +1 dagger."
DeleteHowever, I do not make use of OA, the DSG, or WSG so I don't have the burden of non-weapon proficiencies...which were a blight in the 1980s just as much as they are a blight now.
RE: rulings over rules
This is the perhaps the most misunderstood and mis-cited "truism" circulating the on-line OSR "community." Finch's primer discussed the difference between OD&D and modern (3E at the time) D20-based systems. OD&D was a game that was largely incomplete and ever-evolving and "rulings" on which rules to use (which supplements, which combat system, etc.) are necessary just to make the game function.
AD&D is a complete, codified, and play-tested game that FOR THE MOST PART does not require "rulings." Because the rules function as written and support long-term game play.
[I do not begrudge any veteran DM from adding or subtracting from the rule set based on their preference and experience. However, it's not necessary with AD&D]
Mechanics/rules-wise, the main difference between 1E and 3E is that the latter is a closed (and finely tuned) system, easily broken. AD&D is open and additional rules can be added as necessary without throwing the game out of alignment.
I could be wrong but I always thought Rulings over Rule was a rejection of the skill systems that appeared at some point. You don't need a investigate roll, or an intimidation roll you explain how your character investigates or how they intimidate and the DM goes with that.
DeleteThat would be "player skill vs character skill", not "rulings over rules"
DeleteYou are probably right but I think they sort of go together because they now have rules for intimidation checks and investigation while before they didn't.
DeleteI guess when I think of "rulings over rules", I'm thinking of things like what Ruprecht brought up, but also things like ruling a domain.
DeleteI get what you are saying, not sure ii agree with all of it, but it appreciated when D&D was more, I dont know esoteric. I also remember when to run a computer game you had to "know" computers to get it to work and it made it more exclusive.
ReplyDeleteHaving played alot of 5e and alot of 1e. I would say that in my opinion 1e is more rules lite than 5e.
Second to last, I think one of the big pushes for systems like Shadowdark versus 5e is a move towards more random characters. Modern D&D (post to mid 2e) has a huge focus on builds and a lot of the push back to simpler is to remove the charachter Build portion.
Last, Go Hawks!!!!!!!!! Let's keep the momentum going into Thursday Night.
I'm glad they were able to rest some of their starters given the short week.
DeleteHaving read the 5E rules, I don't think I'd agree that 1E is more "rules lite." The basic 5E system is pretty darn easy to grasp: roll a D20 (or two) add a modifier and compare with target number. Sure there are a lot of conditions that can occur, but they're all laid out. Different characters have different class abilities but they're not asymmetrical in the same way as 1E. Just because it has a higher page count doesn't it make it denser or more challenging to parse.
But, regardless: so? I mean...hey, I hear what you're saying, but what it SOUNDS LIKE (to me) is that the push for games like Shadowdark is an issue of LAZINESS. As in: man, rules are too hard...we need something with less rules. As in: man, thinking up character's is too hard...we just need a random way to generate characters quick and easy.
LAZY. I have no patience for lazy gaming. I have too much to do to partake in a lazy pastime. AI and random number generators are TOOLS...they're not THE GAME. They're certainly not a game I see as worth my (finite) time on this planet. Nah.
If you consider leveling up and all the little things each class gets vs AD&D where you get nothing until followers (well HP and spells and better to hit but 5E has all those as well) 5E gets pretty complicated, especially when you get to mid levels.
DeleteI suppose. But I don't need to memorize (for example) all the specifics of every 4th level magic-user spell...only the spells that are known/used by the players or my own NPCs. I feel the same way about 5E class abilities.
DeleteNot spells, AD&D the same spell issues, but in 5E all classes gets abilities at every level which adds up to a lot of stuff to track. Fighters for example get (1st level) Fighting Style, Second Wind, (2nd Level) Action Surge (one use), (3rd level) Martial Archetype... It goes on and on through the levels.
DeleteA comprehensive rule system that emphasizes the importance of the world, the rules, timekeeping and simulationism?
ReplyDeleteIf what you're saying is what you want, I would seriously look into ACKSII.
Rules for arbitrage trading, resolution systems for every kind of campaign-level activity, four chapters on raising and using armies, and all this within just the main book!
There is literally too much to mention here!
I have looked at ACKS; I have a hard copy of it sitting on my shelf. For that matter, I have a complete set of BECMI (and the Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals set), which gives me a comprehensive rule system that goes from level 1 to 36 to godhood...if I wanted that.
DeleteTo me, ACKS is simply another Basic retroclone that has endeavored to make itself "beefier" (i.e. extending game-playability) without actually expanding the scope of play. AD&D may have fewer systems in place (for example, it does not have "four chapters on raising and using armies") but it focuses squarely on the type of game it wants played at the table (i.e. heroic fantasy literature inspired). AD&D is not about simulating a world...certainly not a clock-work one like ACKS.
That said, I realize that ACKS appeals to a certain gaming demographic, and for that demographic it is wonderful. For me, I like a bit more of the weird and supernatural when it comes to challenging my high level PCs (think D3 and Q1) not just kingdoms and trade wars.
I think your idea of a "complete" game is very different from mine. If I were to switch to adnd this week (for my online group) very little would change because I would have to keep all the house rules I already use, because adnd doesn't account for the situations my rules cover or what I want out of a game any more than becmi or 3e or 5e. All editions of DND are incomplete games in my book, and need significant patches to facilitate the long term campaign play that you espouse now and that I've been doing since I was a child.
ReplyDeleteAlso concerning acks, it never really impressed me that much, it's basically becmi with a bx flavor and some extra bells and whistles, which I might borrow from, but not use as the core of my game
ReplyDeleteAmen to that, Lance.
Delete"World simulation" and "based of 80s wargame rules" are likely intrinsically opposed concepts. Certainly, the ideals of the former may well be hampered by the latter.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the question of whether one should simulate the world-as-it-is (with appropriate adjustments for magic, dragons etc) or the world-as-people-think-it-is. Attacks of opportunity in 3e D&D are an obvious example - they seem logical, but it's actually really easy to just back out of a fight. Being flanked, otoh, is vastly more lethal than most systems suggest.
That I think highlights a problem in your post - the concept of system mastery. System mastery is not a bad thing, but it emphasizes the game elements vs the world simulation. The more system mastery you need in order to play a game, the more likely it is that the game is not simulating the world well. Otherwise a player's intuitive ideas for what to do would probably be correct. Or, at least, would be wrong in realistic ways.
It is notable that OSR D&D doesn't include significant rules for adjudicating noise or light levels, despite both of those being critical to both exploration and combat. Nor are the world simulation tools usually that well-suited to world simulation - but they are well-suited to it being a wargame. This makes sense given how it originated, but plenty of people don't want to play a wargame and the game as played even a few years after it originated was not played as one. It is also notable that D&D's combat rules are not terribly well-suited to uneven contests or a non-random concept of morale or dirty tricks or other such things - every edition has struggled in various ways.
3e is damned by many, and while it was hugely flawed, where it greatly outshone editions before it was in actually providing rules for adjudicating large chunks of the game outside combat (still limited or no environmental rules, annoyingly). Oh, and getting rid of THAC0. System mastery extended beyond combat (and, to a lesser extent, spell nitpicking). And yet that is the edition you say burnt you out most. But it was hugely popular, and remains significant, and one of the reasons for that is that the rules gave people a solid framework for how to do things beyond combat.
Rules light games certainly falter in their ability to provide tools for world simulation. They very much do NOT falter in that because they lack D&D's involved combat rules and opportunities for system mastery. That is a feature in an RPG, not a bug. Where they fail is by not replacing it with something useful instead.
Mm. "System mastery" was not a consideration in any way, shape, or form to my original post. Like...not at all.
DeleteThe only mastery of system that really concerns me (at all) is my own ability to master the game such that I can RUN the game. I can run 3E...I mastered its system. The issue with 3E is the amount of work it requires of the DM the more advanced the campaign becomes...precisely because of its insistence on modeling such "large chunks of the game outside combat."
From my perspective, this is nonsense. It is filler. It is the non-weapon proficiencies writ large and codified. It is unnecessary to the play of the game. Do players need a "fire-making" NWP to light a torch? Do 3E (or Pathfinder) PCs need a "jump" skill to leap over a crevasse? Do they? Can't I just (as the DM) say: it's too big to safely leap over without magic boots of springing (or the use of a "jump" spell)? Can't I just say, if you want to to try, I'm only going to give you a 1-in-6 chance of making it because your character is a fighter in chainmail, not an acrobat from Cirque de Soleil?
Gygax rather famously said (in the DMG) that his game wasn't trying to 'simulate' anything. Neither am I. I want a more robust game. Rules light games don't provide that in and of themselves. That's why they suck.
(well, that and they waste time you could be spending on a better, deeper game experience)
Maybe it's not obvious to you, but the odor of being saved and now trying to tell the world they too need to be saved is a bit much.
ReplyDeleteI am all up for soap boxing one's approach but this is getting patronizing and frankly dull.
Apologies for holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my proselytizing.
DeleteHaha. It's OK. I don't leave the cinema because I don't like a particular scene either. Or even quit an otherwise good series because I dislike a certain running gag.
DeleteNonetheless, this is the internet and shots are fired and shall be fired in return.
Yep.
Delete; )
I agree with what you are saying about crunchy rules "back in the day" for the most part, though it's worth noting that there were limits. Games like Chivalry & Sorcery, Rolemaster, and Twilight 2000 did get a lot of shade for being too complex. If you needed to calculate a square root to make your character, that was laughably too complex, and we certainly did laugh about such things.
ReplyDeleteYour post got me thinking though that perhaps the reason for this proliferation of lighter and lighter games in the OSR movement is because the people who create and play these games are just getting old. When I was young, my brain was a seemingly endless sponge that had no problem soaking up all those rules. I made fun of my parents for their inability to grasp something so simple as programming a VCR but now that I've hit my mid-fifties, I totally get it. My brain definitely no longer works like it used to.
Learning new systems now, especially crunchy systems, seems to take just too much effort. When I ran my last GURPS campaign, a few years ago, I just couldn't keep all the rules in my head. I created a bunch of cheat sheets for myself just to keep track of everything and even that proved to be too much. I kept saying to myself, I don't remember this being so difficult, because it wasn't. GURPS in my teens and twenties was no problem, in my fifties, fuhgeddaboudit. I struggle even with 5E. The only way I can run that game is to let my players handle the rules for their characters and abilities/powers while I run the engine and NPCs. Even then, who the heck can keep track of all these different attacks and special attacks and legendary actions, etc. So, yeah, I get it.
One still wants to play characters and create stories but how do you do that when things that were once so easy are now so difficult? You create and play simpler games, games where there just aren't so many things to keep track of and so many rules for our less plastic brains to learn. I suspect that is a significant factor driving this movement.
Maybe. There's definitely a happy medium between too much crunch and too little (and what each person's "happy medium" is varies, of course). What you're bringing up, I think, is what I already addressed in the body of my post:
Delete"I don't fault Old Geezers who know the 1E system from making a different choice for themselves..."
Twenty or thirty years from now, I might feel the same way...that I need a lighter, easier system to aid with my diminished processing power. But, at least I'll know what I'm trading the one choice for. There are a lot of new DMs these days unwilling to give AD&D a go "just because."
Great post!
ReplyDeleteThanks.
DeleteI don't know dude, I like OD&D a lot, and it's pretty "lite" on rules.
ReplyDeleteThe key is to develop rules off of the chassis provided as they are needed for one's setting and table. The failure of lighter systems for me is similar to the failure of complex systems ... when the rules are totalizing and try to cover everything, either through having too many fiddly bits and pieces or through having universal rules that fill in every gap. A light system with eccentric rules and voids is great though, because you only have to fill the voids you need and have a wider array of sample mechanics to do so.
People like what they like though. I quite enjoyed rules heavy things like Warhammer Fantasy, Palladium, and AD&D back in the 80's and 90's for example.
I'd say OD&D is pretty "incomplete" on rules, more than "lite."
DeleteBut, sure, I agree that people like what they like. And (again as said in my original post and in response to other comments) if a person has run AD&D (or another robust game system) and still prefers something "light" for [reasons]...great, no skin off my nose. But there are folks out there who don't know anything BUT "light" games...and they're missing out.