Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 16:41

For me, the sweet spot is toward rules light, but with ample guidance on ways the LM/GM can use what's there to create new rules that aren't covered by previously cited rules. To do this, you have to be able to make meaningful changes. ToR 2e is a little lacking here, both in showing us how to expand what's there, and giving tools to do it with.
As an example, the favored/ill favored system is a good start, but for me the -2 to +2d modifiers are a bit coarse to account for situations. Using the framework for councils that has been described in the last couple of posts sounds good, except that I want a few more levers to alter the situation, though I will say that the consequences of failure section might be the hidden savior for this particular example, and perhaps I need to internalize it a bit more for others.
That's really the crux of my point here: "with ample guidance on ways the LM/GM can use what's there to create new rules that aren't covered by previously cited rules. To do this, you have to be able to make meaningful changes. ToR 2e is a little lacking here, both in showing us how to expand what's there, and giving tools to do it with." I don't mind TOR 2e taking a more streamlined approach, but they aren't giving the players or LM's any of those tools or guidance to run the game well.
 
Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 16:44

When I do things like Councils - I've done this is other RPGs - I always use fictional positioning to affect the difficult of the roll and the consequences of failure. And every roll affects the situation.

So, imagine the meeting with Beorn in the Hobbit. Perhaps you start off with Enhearten, because that's your highest social skill. It fails, and Beorn see right through your exhortations of comradery, and asks what you want. If you use Courtesy now, that seems like it would be OK, but you don't have a great score. But Awe would get you a penalty, and probably Failure With Woe. Perhaps Riddle? So you try that, and he is amused by your wit and repartee. But he sits back and looks at you levelly, waiting for you to finally get to the point. Right then, perhaps only Persuade will work. But you fail the roll, and he tells you to get out of his halls (note, him telling you to get out doesn't mean the end of the Council. It's just one part of the conversation). So, you wildly grasp at using Lore, using your Shadow-Lore distinctive trait, to tell him about the dangers that beset even him, and how even a powerful being like him isn't enough to stop The Shadow from destroying his home, sooner or later...

I think the are two aspects to Councils that I think FN would focus on, and should have been reiterated in the rules. Firstly, that you should always describe the situation, and that every action, e.g. Skill Roll, should change the situation. Secondly, that a roll has TWO important things to worry about - its difficulty, but also the consequences of failure, as described in that section of the rules.
I agree in principal with all of that, except I think you are more willing than I am to accept the interpretation/implementation being left to the LM. E.g., when you say that “every action should change the situation” I agree, but my question is, “How?” If the book said that, and then just left it to the LM to interpret, I would see that as a gaping hole. It would be as if the book said, “Different types of weapons will have different strengths and weaknesses” and then…stopped there, without specifying. In fact, I’d prefer the game just present the simple Council rules it has, rather than to add such vague advice without following through. That would just piss me off.

I mean, I certainly intend to run councils the way you are describing, but I feel…shortchanged…that the book doesn’t have a cool/simple/flexible/awesome (you know…all that stuff Francesco is so good at) mechanism for managing it, and that I’m going to have to fill that in. As a player I feel shortchanged, too: I want to know how the game works; I don’t want the LM improvising something that I think should be part of the mechanics.
Yes! This right here (I agree in principal with all of that, except I think you are more willing than I am to accept the interpretation/implementation being left to the LM. E.g., when you say that “every action should change the situation” I agree, but my question is, “How?” If the book said that, and then just left it to the LM to interpret, I would see that as a gaping hole. It would be as if the book said, “Different types of weapons will have different strengths and weaknesses” and then…stopped there, without specifying. In fact, I’d prefer the game just present the simple Council rules it has, rather than to add such vague advice without following through. That would just piss me off. ) this is my point. I don't think this book is giving me value for money.
 
Inculta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2021, 00:47

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Sun 17 Oct 2021, 03:58

Running a game right now myself. No 1e experience, and while I'm very satisfied with 2e so far, I have noticed there's a few things that get a little too light for my tastes. Homebrew fixes it, but still, it takes getting used to. 1e had weapon ranges, 2e doesn't, so I'm kinda just winging whatever sounds like it makes sense for how far a ranged weapon can actually fire, for example. I might just swipe the ranges from 1e instead.
 
Niallism
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Mon 18 Oct 2021, 02:55

This isn't about simulationism. It's about crunch. You want more crunch. Pathfinder isn't simulationist. It's crunchy and has complex rules.

That's fine in theory - you like what you like, and I imagine you might enjoy Pathfinder or Shadowrun. Or GURPS. TOR might not be for you. And it isn't 'aiming at D&D land' - it is itself.

Anyway, if an RPG is going to be about concepts that are difficult to express through numbers - kindness, bravery, self-sacrifice, moral degradation etc - it's (a) very hard to model those through probabilistic systems focused on optimization, and (b) that changes the mental focus of players. It's easiest to model words with... words. Meaningful choices are key to games - but those meaningful choices can be semantic, not just mathematical.

There is a good reason why narrative-focused systems have lighter rule sets, and it's not because we're all hippies who can't do maths. It's because cognitive load and the focus of the RPG conversation (the core gameplay of RPGs is conversation, unlike boardgames) mean you can't have everything and do everything. Something has to be minimized so that something else can be maximized.

For example, much more complex rules about spending Hope. They could be limited by environmental factors such as 'It's a thunderstorm, you can't spend Hope', or character relationships 'You can't support them on their skill roll because your relationship is only at 5. You need it to be 8 or better - or 6 if you're a Messenger - to support.'

I don't think those imaged systems are dumb. I didn't make absurd ones just to win internet points. They are fine. But if you're focusing on them, you're not focusing on something else, e.g. roleplaying.

This is the core issue which I think every RPG designer accepts, and many players don't - the more complex the subsystem, the more time and attention it will take up at the table. So if, as with D&D 4E (which I enjoyed a lot, btw) you have complex combat rules and simple every other rule, for almost all groups the majority of their time and focus will be combat. Too many players want to believe that nerdfallacy that their mighty brains have no limit, but I'm a trainer (and trainer of trainers) for, currently, adults, and how to help others manage attention, time, and cognitive load are a core part of my work.

So more crunch has a cost. Francesco Nepitello has made more crunchy games than this - he understands that. But what do you wish to give up when you add more crunch? You have to lose something to make up for it.
 
gull2112
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2021, 19:11

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Mon 18 Oct 2021, 04:31

I will admit to desiring some rules to help one slip into the world as seamlessly as possible.
I like the Shadow points. That whole idea meshes with Tolkien.
I find the combat system tolerable, which means its about as slimmed down as it can be. I get the piercing blow to wound step because, while frustrating when you deal one, it a great cushion when a PH is receiving one.
I like the way they narratively handle wealth and possessions. I've always wanted to see something like that.
The Virtues and Rewards mechanics are great.
I REALLY LIKE the reasonable endings. It is great that there is a mechanic for world weary characters to retire. Now that I am older, I appreciate that folks get old and are happy to let the next generation take up the standard.
I like the way time is handled and portioned out. It always seemed a bit much that characters were campaigning day after day, all the way to 20th level! Time shoyuld feel different in a pre-industrial world.

Having once thought it was the height of realism, I now view the Rolemaster combat system with a different table for each weapon, and critical hit charts as well, as anything but realistic. The more detailed you make a system, the less it relates to reality, IMHO. A satisfying system for me gets the generals right (as I mentioned above in my list of likes), and leaves the details to the imagination.
 
gull2112
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2021, 19:11

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Mon 18 Oct 2021, 04:34

P.S. I'm enjoying this back and forth. I like reading the different opinions and agreeing with some things, while disagreeing with others. It is far easier to see why than why not, when confronting your own biases.
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Mon 18 Oct 2021, 08:08

Apologies for sounding too dim here.
I don't feel I understand the use of simulationism here. The thread title implies to me that "rules- intense" games would be simulationism. And that a "rules - lite" system isn't?

Simulating something is akin to modelling or imitating it, I thought. And so, in fantasy/magical settings, any simulation is trying to apply the experience of real life to the game setting, to make it more immersive for the players? (Always remembering that it's fantastic things we can be simulating!)

If that is (broadly) so, then I can't see why the density of the rules should be any real problem. It's the quality of the rules that matter. Personally I would rather have a load of rules to act as a focus or starting point for the narrative, and agree that any rule is optional. The Eye of Mordor rules being one such example in both TOR 1e and 2e.

The benefit of having plenty of rules AVAILABLE in the core book is that then it can inform the narrative - if it is a good rule that is! After the game, people can throw out bits they do not enjoy or even design House Rules. ( I find debating about mechanics to be quite immersion breaking; and a poor rule set - light or heavy - leads to more such debate.)

(In the 1980s, a monstrous but marvellous WW2 board game, Squad Leader from Avalon Hill, had loads and loads of rules and details - but it was brilliant. The rules-lite game Kingmaker was tedious. )
 
Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Mon 18 Oct 2021, 20:15

Apologies for sounding too dim here.
I don't feel I understand the use of simulationism here. The thread title implies to me that "rules- intense" games would be simulationism. And that a "rules - lite" system isn't?

Simulating something is akin to modelling or imitating it, I thought. And so, in fantasy/magical settings, any simulation is trying to apply the experience of real life to the game setting, to make it more immersive for the players? (Always remembering that it's fantastic things we can be simulating!)

If that is (broadly) so, then I can't see why the density of the rules should be any real problem. It's the quality of the rules that matter. Personally I would rather have a load of rules to act as a focus or starting point for the narrative, and agree that any rule is optional. The Eye of Mordor rules being one such example in both TOR 1e and 2e.

The benefit of having plenty of rules AVAILABLE in the core book is that then it can inform the narrative - if it is a good rule that is! After the game, people can throw out bits they do not enjoy or even design House Rules. ( I find debating about mechanics to be quite immersion breaking; and a poor rule set - light or heavy - leads to more such debate.)

(In the 1980s, a monstrous but marvellous WW2 board game, Squad Leader from Avalon Hill, had loads and loads of rules and details - but it was brilliant. The rules-lite game Kingmaker was tedious. )
I will agree that I made a poor choice of words with simulationist. As another poster said, I'm asking for more crunch, more depth and complexity to the rules and a broader set of rules and systems to choose from. As you say, "The benefit of having plenty of rules AVAILABLE in the core book is that then it can inform the narrative - if it is a good rule that is! After the game, people can throw out bits they do not enjoy or even design House Rules. " I'm not asking for more rules that absolutely, no questions asked, HAVE to be in the game. I want more rules that are there for people to use if they like them and find they add to the story.
 
Mythicos
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue 16 Jun 2020, 03:46

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Mon 18 Oct 2021, 21:58


I'm not asking for more rules that absolutely, no questions asked, HAVE to be in the game. I want more rules that are there for people to use if they like them and find they add to the story.
One might argue that, in a RPG line like TOR, it's the job of supplements to add rules that can optionally be added to the game. It's the model that was followed for 1st edition, especially with books like Adventurers Companions.

I think IMO that it's important to not overload the Core rulebook with optional rules, because you have to keep in mind that:

1) It takes time for players, and especially new players, to parse a book like the Core rulebook. The more optional rules you add, the longer it takes; furthermore, it might end up costing book space for things like lore (remember, not everyone is a Tolkien Ph.D.) and more details/examples for the rules already there.

2) You might argue that optional rules are optional, and that players are free to use them or not... But to make the decision to use or not use an optional rule, you have to read it, understand it, realize how it interacts with other rules and gameplay, and probably test it at least a little before making a decision. Now imagine adding 10 optional rules. Can you imagine what a load it can be for many players to make a decision about whether or not to use it?

All this to say that I think there's definitely a place for more crunch and optional rules in TOR. I just think it should come later in the game's life, and I think FL and Francesco were wise to do as they did.
 
Sebastian
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu 01 Oct 2020, 04:58

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Tue 19 Oct 2021, 06:59

The simplest answer for the question, why aren’t there more optional rules is: Because the designers (and most of the TOR-fans) didn’t want or need more. The adventure companion provided some, but that shouldn’t be part of the Core Rules in my opinion.

Yesterday I took a look at Against the Darkmaster. 600 pages, tons of options. It’s a great game, but nothing I would recommend new gamers. And Free League has to keep an eye on those, since Middle-earth draws a lot of attention with the TV-Show coming.

Its one approach to design a rules-light systems, that’s easily hackable (which is TOR) and another to create a rules-heavy system with a lot of options. To combine both doesn’t make it better in most cases. Better to stick to your roots.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests