gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 01:15

Look, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm only stating my opinions for my group and our playstyle as its developed over 20+ years. You play your way, and I'll play mine. What I was attempting to say is that there are lots of options and one size does not and never has fit all. If a book has a table that is supposed to contain every possible permutation of a situation, that is a restriction, not an aide, because it's going to lack something. It always does, because no one can think of ev sswery possibility.

For example, in D&D 4th, a person I know was playing a rogue, and they were fighting some type of giant lizard creature. He wanted to jump on the creature and start stabbing it, but the gm didn't let him. See, there were no rules for that in the book. Or maybe they had to have a certain feat. I don't know, I wasn't there. Regardless, that to me is anathema to a fun time. Others may find the lists give them inspiration to do things they would not have thought of. As long as you're having fun, it's all good.

I have no idea who you are replying to. I don't think anybody has been asking for lots of rules to cover every situation. I think it's possible that one of us is...or both of us are...misunderstanding what somebody else is saying.

So maybe try not to police others fun, yea? If lots of rules and examples are what you need for fun, don't let me stop you. I'm certain you can add house rules to inject that into the rules.

Whoah. I also don't see anybody trying to police anybody's fun. Or (again) asking for lots of rules and examples.
 
User avatar
eternalsage
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue 31 Aug 2021, 19:41
Location: Bree

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 02:18

@gryovague I'm replying to the original poster, who said to me, and I quote "at that point I'd almost question why you are buying the RPG in the first place." And later went on to say that maybe I shouldn't buy RPGs in the first place because I disagree with him. That is why I quoted his post to reply to, and replyed to yours separately.
“It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it will heal nothing.” - Frodo Baggins, Return of the King
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 02:50

@gryovague I'm replying to the original poster, who said to me, and I quote "at that point I'd almost question why you are buying the RPG in the first place." And later went on to say that maybe I shouldn't buy RPGs in the first place because I disagree with him. That is why I quoted his post to reply to, and replyed to yours separately.
Ah, on my screen you didn’t quote anybody with that response.

I still don’t think you are characterizing their preferences correctly, but I will agree that it’s rude and dismissive in these discussions to tell somebody that they should find a different game. Even if it’s disguised as a gentle suggestion.
 
Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 03:56

personally, I think calling 1ed out for having "too many rules" is a stretch. ;) 1ed is still a comparably light system - having instances of clunky rules doesn't necessarily equate to "too many".
Although in 2ed, in many instances resolving some of the clunckyness seem to have been resolved by removing the instance and replace it by "let's do it narratively", because that in the end can fill any holes. :)

for my own taste a tad too light in the end.

My general position on light vs complex rules systems.
- both can work well if they are done well (which means understandable and consistent for the most part)
- the rest is a matter of taste
- I find it easier to find houserulings in a more complex system - i.e. reducing the complexity on the spot. Generally because it is easier to find a fitting or average choice if you already have a reference that fit into the system. Also they tend to provide more mechanics for out of place uses as a reference for mechanical behavior with some idea of balancing.
Light systems on the other hand give you more freedom to fill the holes because there is less framework around it, but that generally takes more time to make it consistent (unless that isn't important to you). For example it is generally easier to reduce the complexity of an economy system to make less of an overhead than to reintroduce actual money at all in any usable way. ...

Simply as a book product and for someone who generally enjoys seeing how authors find innovative rules to evoke a theme, in particular for well known IPs, I prefer more complexity because for that purpose more is simply more - in a kind of way. :)
Ya I definitely agree on that last point. If I'm going to pay for a gaming book, I want to get value for money. I don't need an RPG book for more info on LOTR.
 
Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 04:07

Look, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm only stating my opinions for my group and our playstyle as its developed over 20+ years. You play your way, and I'll play mine. What I was attempting to say is that there are lots of options and one size does not and never has fit all. If a book has a table that is supposed to contain every possible permutation of a situation, that is a restriction, not an aide, because it's going to lack something. It always does, because no one can think of ev sswery possibility.

For example, in D&D 4th, a person I know was playing a rogue, and they were fighting some type of giant lizard creature. He wanted to jump on the creature and start stabbing it, but the gm didn't let him. See, there were no rules for that in the book. Or maybe they had to have a certain feat. I don't know, I wasn't there. Regardless, that to me is anathema to a fun time. Others may find the lists give them inspiration to do things they would not have thought of. As long as you're having fun, it's all good.

So maybe try not to police others fun, yea? If lots of rules and examples are what you need for fun, don't let me stop you. I'm certain you can add house rules to inject that into the rules.
So the example you give is not a failing of D&D 4th ed, it’s a failure of the GM. D&D from at least 3rd edition has definitely given license to the GM to create new rules on the fly for ideas like this that players have. That’s why the game is open about the construction of an ability check or skill roll. So that player could do that in D&D, most definitely.

What I’m talking about when I’m saying things like narrative permission is abilities like the virtue elves could get in 1e that specifically gave them the ability to see and interact with undead and spirits. That’s a ribbon ability, a permission, that lets the character attempt a range of actions normally not allowed. Things like combat proficiencies can be like that too, in other systems. So I want to clarify that I’m not trying to police someone’s fun when I use words like permission. It’s a way of describing game design.

My critique of 2e is that it’s too light. There’s not enough in the book to warrant a purchase. The setting information is available elsewhere and the systems of the game are just really bare bones. There needs to be more options, more tools for the GM, more ideas about character progression can look like. More ideas for virtues and rewards would be good too. I just need more.

I would actually prefer the systems about treasure to be removed entirely. The wondrous items are ok, but the treasure points and all that aren’t necessary. There’s not really a system for buying and selling things, so wealth just sits on your character and is used for either increasing your standard of living or setting up your heir. That’s really it, as far as I can see. And the idea of hoarding wealth is actively a way to get Shadow points so it really calls the whole thing into question. I’d much rather have that system removed and that space given to other things.

But with all this, let me please reiterate that this is just my own take on it. Everyone is absolutely free to do what they want, I support it all. I just voice my critique in an effort to make the game better.
 
Niallism
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 04:25

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.
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 04:43

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.
 
Themadviolinist
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2021, 16:01

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 05:33

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.
 
Sebastian
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu 01 Oct 2020, 04:58

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 09:01

This edition of TOR seems to be going towards the rules-lite side, the area where PBTA and Blades in the Dark and other narrative focused games hang out. There are many elements of 2e TOR that are left for the individual LM to decide and house-rule and there are lots of areas where the RAW text is just lacking. The descriptions for journey events are vague at best and councils are really anemic. To me, this is an issue of presentation. Games like PBTA and Blades know that they are narrative focused and so present themselves that way. Dice-rolling is secondary to roleplay and the tools for players and GM focus on narrative permission and control. Things like flashbacks and the push-pull of the moves system really assist the 'yes and' approach to RPGs.

Interesting points, let me just add here, that I don't think TOR is a rules-light system. It never was and never wanted to be. It has some elements, traditional-simulationists LMs and Players can live with. Other things are just annoying for them. But honestly, I find TOR 2 more simulationistic than TOR 1. Attributes are now way more important than before. Hope is a resource and can't be spend upfornt any more.

To me, TOR 2 is a medium-crunch system. It has some elements of rules-light, more storytelling systems like Fate and PbtA. But it also has some traditional elements like D&D. What elements you find interesting is highly subjectiv. Where you think there should be a rule and where to roll too. Personally I like it, that a lot of things are left to the LM and the groups choice, because I would ignore most of the rules anyways, if they tell me to do this and that. Most of the GMs running rules-heavy systems like D&D did exactly that, because following every rule would have stopped the game. TOR is just saying, okay, here are some basic rules for travel and councils, but the important part is roleplaying. So if there is no rule for what Skill is most effective in a Council, then I the LM just ask the players to roleplay. Well and if they think that it is a good idea to insult the Elven King with Awe, then they get a straight -2d on their roll.

But in the end, this is all just a matter of taste. There are a ot of other systems out there. I for example would love to run a Fate of Middle-earth campaign using, well Fate or even Fate Accelerated. That would be an extremely rules-light attempt. But I also would like to take a look at Against the Darkmaster, which is a 600 pages long beast and combines modern approaches with traditional-simulationist heavy-rules, leaning to MERP and D&D.
 
Themadviolinist
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2021, 16:01

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Fri 15 Oct 2021, 14:32

I'm working on a port of ToR to Cortext Prime, to see if it translates.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests