TheRPGSite

One of the things I loved about D&D and AD&D was the straightforward simplicity of combat.

1. Roll for initiative.
2. Attack.
3. Determine Damage.
4. Repeat.

Maybe it's just me but I am growing tired of rules (particularly combat rules) that are needlessly complex.

So, what are your thoughts on combat rules?

Simple to learn.  Complex to master.

But yes, generally, simpler combat rules are much better.

I much prefer D&D and AD&D* to D&D 3.x

* The way most people played it...

I find these days, that I am increasingly tired of games that value "simplicity" over actually being interesting as a game.  

If I wanna play glorified improv theatre, I'll just drop the mechanics altogether, or go back to rock-paper-scissors like how my LARP played MET.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeOne of the things I loved about D&D and AD&D was the straightforward simplicity of combat.

1. Roll for initiative.
2. Attack.
3. Determine Damage.
4. Repeat.

Maybe it's just me but I am growing tired of rules (particularly combat rules) that are needlessly complex.

So, what are your thoughts on combat rules?

I want to move over and attack a different opponent.  I want to knock a weapon out of their hands.  I want to trip them.  I want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  I want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.  I want push them off of a cliff.  I want my character to grab them and hold them.  I want my character to wrestle them to the ground.  I want my character to run away.  I want my character to focus on defending themselves instead of attacking their opponent.  I want to rush past the line of warriors to attack the wizard behind them.

How do I handle any or all of those things with your simple system?

By losing intiative and getting killed before you can act.

Quote from: AosBy losing intiative and getting killed before you can act.

That sounds satisfying.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeOne of the things I loved about D&D and AD&D was the straightforward simplicity of combat.

1. Roll for initiative.
2. Attack.
3. Determine Damage.
4. Repeat.

Maybe it's just me but I am growing tired of rules (particularly combat rules) that are needlessly complex.

So, what are your thoughts on combat rules?

That's always the way we've played our D&D, and I was fine with it up until our last campaign running Basic D&D. I found the combat boring, and it went on forever, with nothing else happening besides rolling, missing, rolling, missing, rolling, hit for 3 Hp damage, rolling missing.

In my effort to spice up our D&D game, if we ever start again (everyone has multiple kids under 4 years old), I'm considering beefing up the combat options a bit. Not so far as using 5-foot movement squares, attacks of opportunity, or flanking, but maybe jazzing up the damage system to have effects other than: GOOD. GOOD. GOOD. GOOD. GOOD. DEAD. And I also plan to introduce feats from True20.

While I'll never be a fan of highly detailed tactical combat with miniatures and a mat (I play wargames to get my fix of that stuff), I am leaning towards a bit more colour and options that Basic D&D features.

Quote from: John MorrowThat sounds satisfying.  :rolleyes:

You've convinced me; I should be a game designer!

Quote from: AosYou've convinced me; I should be a game designer!

It's definitely a step up from, "Tell me if your character defeats his opponent or not and how it happens."

AD&D combat, simple?

I beg to differ.

http://knights-n-knaves.com/dmprata/ADDICT.pdf

Quote from: J ArcaneIf I wanna play glorified improv theatre, I'll just drop the mechanics altogether, or go back to rock-paper-scissors like how my LARP played MET.

Who's talking about glorified improv theatre? Basic D&D is so far removed from that, it's ridiculous.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to move over and attack a different opponent.  I want to knock a weapon out of their hands.  I want to trip them.  I want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  I want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.  I want push them off of a cliff.  I want my character to grab them and hold them.  I want my character to wrestle them to the ground.  I want my character to run away.  I want my character to focus on defending themselves instead of attacking their opponent.  I want to rush past the line of warriors to attack the wizard behind them.

How do I handle any or all of those things with your simple system?

It's not my simple system, John; it was TSR's. As for all the stuff you are talking about, what system does that? Look at the rules. Are they needlessly complex? Do they have a different rule for each and everyone of those actions you are talking about? Or is the mechanic designed so one resolution method can do most of it? That's what I am talking about when I talk about simplicity of design. I don't want to learn sixty-five different rules to resolve combat or any character action for that matter.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAD&D combat, simple?

I beg to differ.

The way most people played it? Yes, simple.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeIt's not my simple system, John; it was TSR's.

To a degree, yes, but you seemed to be advocating that level of simplicity.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeAs for all the stuff you are talking about, what system does that? Look at the rules. Are they needlessly complex? Do they have a different rule for each and everyone of those actions you are talking about? Or is the mechanic designed so one resolution method can do most of it? That's what I am talking about when I talk about simplicity of design. I don't want to learn sixty-five different rules to resolve combat or any character action for that matter.

What drives complexity in rules is that players want to do something that's complicated and they don't like the way simple rules handle it.  And even if you have one resolution method to determine all of those details, the rule text will either need to explain how to apply that resolution method to each of those problems or leave the GM to figure it out or make it up as they go.  A great deal can be replaced with subjective judgment calls by the GM but that has it's own problems.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeIt's not my simple system, John; it was TSR's. As for all the stuff you are talking about, what system does that? Look at the rules. Are they needlessly complex? Do they have a different rule for each and everyone of those actions you are talking about? Or is the mechanic designed so one resolution method can do most of it? That's what I am talking about when I talk about simplicity of design. I don't want to learn sixty-five different rules to resolve combat or any character action for that matter.

Well, I have the same feeling about it as you do.  I have a modularized approach to resolution that uses a simplified system that I've used since 1978 to good effect.   It's very simple.   I've never had a player complain about it once - they all think its clear, fast and fun.   It's a simple no-nonsense system.   And yes, with it you could do any of the actions mentioned in the prior post to this one and it would work just as well.   I have only about three decades of play testing but it seems pretty useable and solid to me and my players.   But of course, people who don't like it can play something else, now can't they?

Quote from: HaffrungThe way most people played it? Yes, simple.

I'm most people, too, fellow poster. 1E wasn't Rolemaster, but then it wasn't Basic either.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to move over and attack a different opponent.  I want to knock a weapon out of their hands.  I want to trip them.  I want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  I want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.  I want push them off of a cliff.  I want my character to grab them and hold them.  I want my character to wrestle them to the ground.  I want my character to run away.  I want my character to focus on defending themselves instead of attacking their opponent.  I want to rush past the line of warriors to attack the wizard behind them.

How do I handle any or all of those things with your simple system?

Introduce C&C's SIEGE mechanic?

That's what I'd do if I wanted to broaden the options without introducing 1001 new rules.

Quote from: VBWyrdeWell, I have the same feeling about it as you do.  I have a modularized approach to resolution that uses a simplified system that I've used since 1978 to good effect.   It's very simple.   I've never had a player complain about it once - they all think its clear, fast and fun.   It's a simple no-nonsense system.   And yes, with it you could do any of the actions mentioned in the prior post to this one and it would work just as well.   I have only about three decades of play testing but it seems pretty useable and solid to me and my players.

Can you give a few examples of how this system would handle the actions mentioned in my prior post?

(By the way, I'm a fan of fast and simple systems and my preferred system is a Fudge variant.)

Quote from: John MorrowI want to move over and attack a different opponent.

Okay, this round you get no attack.  Next round you attack a new opponent.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to knock a weapon out of their hands.

Roll to hit.  If you hit and your strength is higher you succeed.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to trip them.

Roll to hit.  If you do they have to roll their DEX or under or they trip.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  

Okay, for every -1 you accept to your defense I'll give you a +1 to attack up to a +6.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.

Okay, we'll use the same rules THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE FUCKING BOOK for subduing dragons.


Et god damn fucking cetera.


We were wargamers, and we were all wargame REFEREES.  Referees make calls about things not in the rules all the time.

Anybody who can't come up with decent rulings ad hoc is so fucking pathetic they have no business playing games anyway.

I am sick to death of people wanting EVERY FUCKING CONTINGENCY SPOON FED.

Learn to think.

Congratulations Geezer, you just added four new rules to the game, and admitted the existence of a 5th.  You're on the road to recovery already.

QuoteThat's always the way we've played our D&D, and I was fine with it up until our last campaign running Basic D&D. I found the combat boring, and it went on forever, with nothing else happening besides rolling, missing, rolling, missing, rolling, hit for 3 Hp damage, rolling missing.

See, this is what I'm talking about.  That's fucking dull.  At that point, you're not even really doing something that could be described as a game except in the broadest terms, because it's not even really interactive anymroe if you're just doing the same things and rolling the same dice over and over again.  The only guy who still gets to make any decisions is the spellcaster, but he gets squat for spells per day, so half the time, he's not even got that to play with.

And yet by and large, that is the model for the vast majority of RPG systems, especially the so called "lite" or "simple" ones.

Quote from: J ArcaneCongratulations Geezer, you just added four new rules to the game, and admitted the existence of a 5th.  You're on the road to recovery already.

D&D was always designed to be houseruled.

The last page of Vol 3 even says "No set of rules can be complete, so decide how you want things to be and do that."

I do not, have not, and never will agree that houseruling is bad.

Quote from: Old GeezerD&D was always designed to be houseruled.

The last page of Vol 3 even says "No set of rules can be complete, so decide how you want things to be and do that."

I do not, have not, and never will agree that houseruling is bad.

Ah, but see, by adding additional special rules to cover such things, it's no longer the Platonic paragon of simplicity claimed in the OP, now is it?

It doesn't matter whether their your rules or the game's rules, they're there now, and they weren't before.  And now you've opened the can of worms that is "going beyond boring die rolling excercises".

Quote from: J ArcaneAh, but see, by adding additional special rules to cover such things, it's no longer the Platonic paragon of simplicity claimed in the OP, now is it?

It doesn't matter whether their your rules or the game's rules, they're there now, and they weren't before.  And now you've opened the can of worms that is "going beyond boring die rolling excercises".

There's a difference between a rule and a ruling.

Quote from: HaffrungThere's a difference between a rule and a ruling.

So you're just going to forget that ruling completely?  Toss it out the window and make up an entirely new one every time another similar situation comes up?

Seems to me that would lead to a rather frustratingly inconsistent game environment.

Quote from: J ArcaneAh, but see, by adding additional special rules to cover such things, it's no longer the Platonic paragon of simplicity claimed in the OP, now is it?

It doesn't matter whether their your rules or the game's rules, they're there now, and they weren't before.  And now you've opened the can of worms that is "going beyond boring die rolling excercises".

My point (and I do have one) is that since it is * impossible * for a set of rules to cover every contingency, give me a lean, sparse ruleset and let me cover what's not there myself.

Or have special case modifiers around a core, simple system.

3e and suitably house ruled OD&D are actually not nearly as far apart in this respect as internet warz would have us believe, FWIW. It's more a question of 'how much' than a fundamental difference in approach. I can see where people start to get a little queasy with say the grappling and ranged touch attack subsystems that get piled on, but it's not such a huge deal.

With respect to Morrow's point, I think most players in my experience want their characters to be able to do anything they can think of, with some mechanical effects or other based on what they try. Rules or rulings can accomplish this, with different pros and cons for each approach.

Quote3e and suitably house ruled OD&D are actually not nearly as far apart in this respect as internet warz would have us believe, FWIW.

Bingo.  Once you start tacking on house rules, the game in play because not really any different, and it becomes blatantly obvious that the constant blather about how "easy" BD&D is has more to do with fanboyism and nostalgia than an honest assessment of the way the games are played.

That's one way of putting it, J Arcane. You could just as easily say something like "we could do more or less all that stuff in the old game without bothering to have pages and pages of special cases and unnecessarily cumbersome/wonky subsystems like the grappling and grenadelike weapon rules".

But yeah, I think the wars over this particular issue are mostly a giant waste of time. I think if there's any truth to them it's that the anal-retentive player can make more spelled-out rules a problem and the lazy DM can make ruling-dependent, framework-type rules a problem. But that's not actually a huge difference in how things play out at the table for say 75+% of groups.

Quote from: CalithenaWith respect to Morrow's point, I think most players in my experience want their characters to be able to do anything they can think of, with some mechanical effects or other based on what they try. Rules or rulings can accomplish this, with different pros and cons for each approach.

One big difference is that in OD&D, a melee round was ONE MINUTE.  The die roll represented the net effect of trying to "put the pointed end in the other man" for sixty seconds.

Now some people seem to prefer a lot more granularity.  Good for them, but I prefer a longer turn.  A lot of tiny details ("I try to feint") simply come out in the wash when a turn represents an entire minute of frantically swording* away.









*The "W" is pronounced in "swording".

Quote from: CalithenaThat's one way of putting it, J Arcane. You could just as easily say something like "we could do more or less all that stuff in the old game without bothering to have pages and pages of special cases and unnecessarily cumbersome/wonky subsystems like the grappling and grenadelike weapon rules".

But yeah, I think the wars over this particular issue are mostly a giant waste of time. I think if there's any truth to them it's that the anal-retentive player can make more spelled-out rules a problem and the lazy DM can make ruling-dependent, framework-type rules a problem. But that's not actually a huge difference in how things play out at the table for say 75+% of groups.

Well see, here's the thing though.  IME, just as the BD&D players are making house rules and spot rules to tack on things they want, there's plety of 3.x players who manage to play and generally ignore large numbers of the more arcane special rules.

It's funny however, that doing such a thing as skipping rules you don't want to use is always the first line of defense for AD&D fanboys, but when it comes to 3.x, suddenly the same people pretend like you have to follow every last goddamn rule to the letter.

That abstraction does help with some things, Geezer. But then, my point on this thread is not to disagree, but to suggest that the disagreement itself is less than it might seem.

Which, often gets you killed by both sides, but there it is.

Arcane, I agree with you that that rhetorical shift can be dishonest. If someone wants to say "I don't like the grappling rules" or (looks in mirror) "I don't like the skill system", they can house rule it to taste, and once they know the system as written it's not even that hard, though it is slightly harder than it was in earlier versions because D&D3 is a tighter design. I think if there is any truth to the criticism you're talking about it might just come from that slightly increased tightness of design; it was trivial to add or subtract from OD&D/1e because the framework was more skeletal, whereas there are a few things you actually have to understand to do it tolerably in 3e. But, it's just not that big a deal.

Quote from: DrewIntroduce C&C's SIEGE mechanic?

I downloaded the fast play rules.  What did I find?

• Rules for movement (full move, normal, jog, run)
• A rule for charging
• Conditional combat modifiers
• Concealment modifiers
• A rule for dodging
• A rule for disengaging from combat
• A rule for disarming
• A rule for rear attacks
• Rules for unarmed combat (pummeling, overbearing, grappling)

Quote from: CalithenaWith respect to Morrow's point, I think most players in my experience want their characters to be able to do anything they can think of, with some mechanical effects or other based on what they try. Rules or rulings can accomplish this, with different pros and cons for each approach.

Correct.  But neither leave you with the simplicity described in the original post.

Quote from: Old GeezerNow some people seem to prefer a lot more granularity.  Good for them, but I prefer a longer turn.  A lot of tiny details ("I try to feint") simply come out in the wash when a turn represents an entire minute of frantically swording* away.

A agree that a lot of detail like feinting should be assumed.  That said, the main problem with 60 second combat rounds isn't that it allows a combat roll to represent a series of maneuvers leading up to some damage.  The problem comes from combining combat and movement side-by-side.  A person can run a long way in 60 seconds.

Quote from: Old GeezerMy point (and I do have one) is that since it is * impossible * for a set of rules to cover every contingency, give me a lean, sparse ruleset and let me cover what's not there myself.

Amen.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But neither leave you with the simplicity described in the original post.

This seems like a pedantic reading of said post, but whatever. This is why I hate the internet.

Quote from: John MorrowI downloaded the fast play rules.  What did I find?

• Rules for movement (full move, normal, jog, run)
• A rule for charging
• Conditional combat modifiers
• Concealment modifiers
• A rule for dodging
• A rule for disengaging from combat
• A rule for disarming
• A rule for rear attacks
• Rules for unarmed combat (pummeling, overbearing, grappling)

And? The existence of said rules doesn't preclude using the SIEGE engine in their place.

Besides, I'm not talking about porting over the whole kit and kaboodle, just the part that's flexible enough to handle the situations that have been mentioned so far.

I'll give it a try next time I run BD&D, and see what the results are. :)

Quote from: John MorrowCan you give a few examples of how this system would handle the actions mentioned in my prior post?

(By the way, I'm a fan of fast and simple systems and my preferred system is a Fudge variant.)

I could but I'd have to post my rules system and charts.   I'm not quite up to doing that at the moment but I will be publishing my rules soon so I'll post back when I do.   The ultra simple explanation is that every task gets assigned a difficulty rating by the GM when it comes up.  So in this case lets say a Shield Bash.   The GM will take whatever relevant factors into account necessary, such as terrain, the opponent, and the basher's attack level.  A special move is always to some degree more difficult than a well practiced one, so the attack level for the move will be lower by some degree, perhaps a point or two, or more if its very difficult.   Then the roll is done per normal and the result is described in relation to the bashing attack.   "Zorok takes an enourmous step forward and bashes Thaknar to the ground!"  

In fact no special rules are required at all, and yet this method allows for special moves.  It's virtue is in its simplicity and relative clarity.   Each of the cases you mentioned above would fit easily, with only the attack level modifier changing slightly per move depending on it's essential difficulty.  The key for the Player, and what makes it fun, is that they must decide if the move is worth the loss of attack level, however much it may be, to get the particular effect.

Quote from: J ArcaneBingo. Once you start tacking on house rules, the game in play because not really any different, and it becomes blatantly obvious that the constant blather about how "easy" BD&D is has more to do with fanboyism and nostalgia than an honest assessment of the way the games are played.

I don't agree with that.  I tend to think that the added rules and revisions of later editions really do nothing more than provide mechanical color.  To me it's more of a matter of imagining what the mechanics are illustrating.  I've always thought that all of the the things feats, AoO, crits, weapon speed, etc... were describing in combat were things I imagined were happening in Basic combat in the first place.  You can describe all of the examples above in Basic by hitting, rolling damage, and having the GM or player narrate the success of the outcome.  No houserules needed.  

So it's not fanboyism and nostalgia but a failure on their part to describe how the game can be played.

Quote from: GunslingerI've always thought that all of the the things feats, AoO, crits, weapon speed, etc... were describing in combat were things I imagined were happening in Basic combat in the first place.

Ding!  Winner.

I get it now!  So we all just pretend the game is more interesting than it actually is!  That's what I've been doing wrong all this time!

I wonder what other sorts of games I could suddenly magically enjoy this way?  Maybe I could finally get through all those Final Fantasy games, I'll just pretend I'm having fun, instead of actually having it.

Quote from: J ArcaneI get it now!  So we all just pretend the game is more interesting than it actually is!  That's what I've been doing wrong all this time!

I wonder what other sorts of games I could suddenly magically enjoy this way?  Maybe I could finally get through all those Final Fantasy games, I'll just pretend I'm having fun, instead of actually having it.

Or maybe, you know, different people have fun in different ways.

Nahhh.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI could but I'd have to post my rules system and charts.   I'm not quite up to doing that at the moment but I will be publishing my rules soon so I'll post back when I do.   The ultra simple explanation is that every task gets assigned a difficulty rating by the GM when it comes up.  So in this case lets say a Shield Bash.   The GM will take whatever relevant factors into account necessary, such as terrain, the opponent, and the basher's attack level.  A special move is always to some degree more difficult than a well practiced one, so the attack level for the move will be lower by some degree, perhaps a point or two, or more if its very difficult.   Then the roll is done per normal and the result is described in relation to the bashing attack.   "Zorok takes an enourmous step forward and bashes Thaknar to the ground!"  

In fact no special rules are required at all, and yet this method allows for special moves.  It's virtue is in its simplicity and relative clarity.   Each of the cases you mentioned above would fit easily, with only the attack level modifier changing slightly per move depending on it's essential difficulty.  The key for the Player, and what makes it fun, is that they must decide if the move is worth the loss of attack level, however much it may be, to get the particular effect.

To borrow a phrase, ding! That's it for me.  My approach just evoloved out of doing what Old Geezer described in handling such situations in D&D over many years.  I just one day wrote them all down to be conistent.
 
For me "non-standard" actions get simply a modifier to the base attack / defense chance.  A bit of mechanical effect so you can determine if the move is worth it.  No need for a sui generis approach (i.e. feats) for every conceivable non-standard action.

Personally I find too many printed "spot rules" get in the way of my creative :keke: thinking to the point that I start looking for the rule to do something instead of just trying something cool and crazy. That and you get into situations where people can't do something like write a novel until 8th level writer or swing from a chandelier until 6th level musketeer...:deflated:

But then I prefer Holmes Basic D&D + Meepo's Holmes Companion PDF (http://meepodm.googlepages.com/holmes.pdf) as my "go-to" D&D. :pundit:
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g253/Lord_Sepulchrave/RPG_Net/HolmesMotivationalPoster.jpg)

(P.S. lizards ftw!)

Quote from: J ArcaneI get it now!  So we all just pretend the game is more interesting than it actually is!  That's what I've been doing wrong all this time!

I wonder what other sorts of games I could suddenly magically enjoy this way?  Maybe I could finally get through all those Final Fantasy games, I'll just pretend I'm having fun, instead of actually having it.

Whatever happens in combat boils down to net loss of HP to interpret what happens in D&D.  You enjoy the rules, options, and mechanics that detail how that's illustrated.  

After your AoO, crit, applicable feats, and strength mod from your double headed orc doo hickey by your 2nd level half-orc fighter/barbarian you do 12 points of damage.  After Old Geezers roll for damage plus strength mod from his two handed sword his 2nd level fighter he does 12 points of damage.  Either way your imagining the net affect of 12 points of damage or more to the point the percentage of loss from total of your opponents HP.  

Some people prefer the simpler approach because it allows them to move faster to other aspects of roleplaying they enjoy.

Quote from: CalithenaThis seems like a pedantic reading of said post, but whatever. This is why I hate the internet.

I agreed with you.  I was trying to bring it back around to the original message of this thread and not trying to engage in a pedantic reading of your message.

Quote from: DrewAnd? The existence of said rules doesn't preclude using the SIEGE engine in their place.

Sure.  But the authors of C&C felt the need to include those rules rather than simply telling people to wing it with the SIEGE engine.

Quote from: John MorrowSure.  But the authors of C&C felt the need to include those rules rather than simply telling people to wing it with the SIEGE engine.

Indeed. That still doesn't preclude me porting over the SIEGE engine to BD&D as a way of addressing various situational modifiers. To my mind SIEGE was written as an "everything else" mechanic-- a form of structured fiat intended to cover situations that the core rules do not. In C&C this would include combat actions that fall outside the examples you listed. In BD&D it would cover a whole lot more, because BD&D as written is a simpler game.

Hmmmm, personally I don't much like either the old school or the 3.5ed approach. If you just make up ruling for which rules apply on the spot, you've either got to remember all of your rulings or have inconsistent ones, which can cause problems. Also there's the prossibility that if you rule a certain way one way (for example rule how tripping works in a way that makes tripping powerful) you can end up throwing the game out of wack by making a certain tactic too powerful. Also a lot of the ruling for old school D&D that I see done by basing most things off of attribute checks, which I find a bit wierd since that means that the characters are getting MASSIVELY better at some things but not getting better at all at some other things.

Meanwhile the D&D 3.5ed approach just gives me headaches (see grapple rules) and restrains creativity by giving you a couple options and then not providing much of anything in the way of rules for other creative options.

I prefer things more along the lines of Fate since that doesn't have much of anything in the way of specific uses of skills but instead a rules framework (maneuvers) that you can use to figure out how to incorporate specific non-standard actions into the game.

Basically you want rules that are as simple and flexibile as possible. Old school D&D rules aren't very flexible and newere D&D rules aren't very simple.

Quote from: DazturOld school D&D rules aren't very flexible

Could you explain that?  As somebody who still uses original Brown Box D&D, this assertion honestly makes no sense to me.

Hmmm, was mulling over old school D&D in my head recently and I think that in a lot of ways old school D&D requires less GM input than a lot of other games, in a good way. For example in a lot of other games the GM has to pull some kind of difficulty rating for a skill check or whatever out of their ass, while in old school D&D (which would be Rules Cylopedia for me mostly) things are more cut and dried.

However, for things that the rules don't cover there's pretty much nothing there. Most other games have some kind of framework that the GM can make a ruling within (usually something like made a guestimate about how hard whatever the PC is trying to do is and then figure out what stat/skill/whatever the PC should roll), but for old school D&D the GM just has to come up with something off the top of his head for even some pretty basic stuff.

Okay.  What do you mean by "less flexible"?

I'm not trying to be a git, I just don't comprehend.  To me, "flexible" means 'malleable', 'shapeable', 'bendable'.

Quote from: Old GeezerOkay.  What do you mean by "less flexible"?

I'm not trying to be a git, I just don't comprehend.  To me, "flexible" means 'malleable', 'shapeable', 'bendable'.

Simple example:

Old School D&D:

PC: That's monster's scary, I want my fighter to hide from it behind that rock. What do I roll?
GM: Dunno. I'll make something up.
PC: OK.

Vaguely Fudge-ish Game:

PC: That's monster's scary, I want my character to hide from it behind that rock. What do I roll?
GM: Do you have the stealth skill?
PC: Nope.
GM: OK if you have no skill that counts as zero, just like always. Roll the Fudge dice and add or subtract what you get from zero. I'll roll the monster's perception skill and see if he does better than you.
PC: What about the rock I'm hiding behind? Do I get a bonus for that?
GM: OK, I'll give you +1, now roll.

In the first example the GM has to make up new mechanics whole cloth, in the second example the GM applies existing mechanics (that can be applied to basically everything) and makes up some details.

I find the later to be more flexible, but the old school D&D has its benefits as well since when the rules DO apply there's generally less need for the GM to make up the details.

That might be the most ignorant post about how BD&D is run that I've ever seen.  And that's giving it the benefit of the doubt that it is ignorance and not maliciousness that would lead to such an example.

I thought you might bring up the philosophy that if it isn't specifically enumerated (or enumerated under a different class) you can't do it, or the inflexibility that some read into magic-users not using swords, not even at a large penalty, the thing just apparently flies from their hands.

On your example, there is a couple of "Fudge-ish" ways that D&D could handle it.

Simple examples:

PC: That's monster's scary, I want my fighter to hide from it behind that rock. What do I roll?
GM: The rock is big enouh if you crouch down and remain still and quite.  You don't have any class stealth or hiding ability but we'll take the 1st level thief hide in shadows as a base.  Since it is a fairly large rock we'll not reduce the chance since a rock is easier to hid behind than just in shadows.
PC: You know I'm really dextrous can that help me stay still?
GM:  I'll give you a +5% for a Dex of 16 for that.
PC: OK


OR

GM:  OK you hide behind the rock.  For the monster to notice you it's like detecting a secret door.  I'll roll a D6 for that.  It's got some good senses, soa a 3 in 6 chance.
PC: You know I'm really dextrous can that help me stay still?
GM:  Roll under your Dex on 3D6 to get a bonus.  
GM:  Success.  I'll give the monster a 2 in 6 chance then.
PC: OK

That's pretty flexible to me.

Thank you, Xanther.  Sanity restored.

And those are just a couple of ways I could see it being done (though I might have to stretch to think of others, I'm sure they exist).

Quote from: James J SkachThank you, Xanther.  Sanity restored.

And those are just a couple of ways I could see it being done (though I might have to stretch to think of others, I'm sure they exist).

Um, and you're disagreeing with me how? I said that in OD&D there are a lot of things that the original rules don't cover (such as hiding behind a rock) so that if a player wants to hide behind a rock the GM needs to make up mechanics whole cloth.

Apparently this is ignorant/malicious.

Then Xanther gives some examples about how mechanics for hiding behind a rock could be made up whole cloth (exactly what I was talking about) and this restores sanity.

In OD&D when someone does something like hide behind a rock the rules aren't flexible to cover it so the GM has to decide to use 1st level thief mechanics, an attribute check, rolling on a d6 or whatever. As a new player walking into an OD&D game I have no idea whatsoever how the GM will adjucate my player hiding behind a rock. There are a lot of things that I DO like about OD&D, but this is not one of them.

Because your example was seems set up to show some kind of deficiency (see how short it is compared to the other example?) and completely misses the mark if you're trying to impart its decreased flexibility (as Old Geezer points out).

Now this is either laziness, ignorance, or maliciousness.

I'll be happy to take either of the first two as an excuse.

Quote from: James J SkachBecause your example was seems set up to show some kind of deficiency (see how short it is compared to the other example?) and completely misses the mark if you're trying to impart its decreased flexibility (as Old Geezer points out).

Now this is either laziness, ignorance, or maliciousness.

I'll be happy to take either of the first two as an excuse.

I still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all.

OK lets say my OD&D fighter wants to go and fly, say, a biplane. Obviously there are no OD&D rules to cover flying biplanes. So maybe the GM makes a ruling that I have to roll my intelligence or lower on a d20 to figure out the controls (with a -4 penalty, since its hard) and then make a dex check to pilot the plane passably.

Now obviously it would be silly to say that OD&D rules are flexible enough handle flying biplanes. Its a fantasy game, its not SUPPOSED to cover flying biplanes. Of course the GM could make something up if the players somehow come across a biplane but there's nothing in the RAW in the way of rules for people to fly biplanes, so the GM has to make up entirely new mechanics in the very unlikely event that a player wants to fly a biplane, right?

Quote from: DazturOK lets say my OD&D fighter wants to go and fly, say, a biplane. Obviously there are no OD&D rules to cover flying biplanes. So maybe the GM makes a ruling that I have to roll my intelligence or lower on a d20 to figure out the controls (with a -4 penalty, since its hard) and then make a dex check to pilot the plane passably.

Now obviously it would be silly to say that OD&D rules are flexible enough handle flying biplanes. Its a fantasy game, its not SUPPOSED to cover flying biplanes. Of course the GM could make something up if the players somehow come across a biplane but there's nothing in the RAW in the way of rules for people to fly biplanes, so the GM has to make up entirely new mechanics in the very unlikely event that a player wants to fly a biplane, right?

A bi plane?  You're going to a bi plane for your example?

You're being silly, now.

OK, it is indeed silly to expect OD&D rules to include mechanics for my fighter to fly a biplane. That would be silly but of course it would be possible for the GM to make up new rules for biplane flying on the fly.

However, the rules handle my fighter flying a biplane and hiding behind a rock in exactly the same way, there's no specific rules for it so the GM has to make something up. There are a number of different ways to make something up but the mechanics for doing so would vary wildly from GM to GM.

I don't see why what I'm saying upsets you, I thought this was what people liked about OD&D, simple rules that are specific enough to handle the sort of things that OD&D characters typically do without much in the way of GM input (for example compare old school and 3.5 stealth mechanics, much less GM input needed for the old school ones) and leaves the GM free to make up new mechanics whenever they're called for.

This is all good stuff, but the trade off is that there's a whole bunch of stuff that the rules don't cover at all.

Quote from: Dazturthere's a whole bunch of stuff that the rules don't cover at all.

I think this will be the case for all RPGs...

Quote from: StuartI think this will be the case for all RPGs...

Right, but there's a spectrum.
Some games focus more on specific mechanics, some focus more on generic mechanics.

Some games have simple mechanics, some game have complex mechanics.

So:
specific, simple would be OD&D
specific, complex would be 3.5ed
generic, simple would be FUDGE
generic, complex would be, I don't know, GURPS with a big stack of books or something?

The point I was trying to make is that there's a big difference between OD&D simplicity and the simplicity of something like FUDGE, in general I personally prefer more generic simplicity for most styles of campaigns because I like the way it handles things like fighters hiding behind rocks better (ie I find it to be more flexible).

Quote from: DazturI still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all.

OK lets say my OD&D fighter wants to go and fly, say, a biplane. Obviously there are no OD&D rules to cover flying biplanes. So maybe the GM makes a ruling that I have to roll my intelligence or lower on a d20 to figure out the controls (with a -4 penalty, since its hard) and then make a dex check to pilot the plane passably.

Now obviously it would be silly to say that OD&D rules are flexible enough handle flying biplanes. Its a fantasy game, its not SUPPOSED to cover flying biplanes. Of course the GM could make something up if the players somehow come across a biplane but there's nothing in the RAW in the way of rules for people to fly biplanes, so the GM has to make up entirely new mechanics in the very unlikely event that a player wants to fly a biplane, right?

That's just plain damn silly.

To quote Jane Austen -- "If you cannot improve the silence, pray do not break it."

Quote from: Dazturand leaves the GM free to make up new mechanics whenever they're called for.

This is all good stuff, but the trade off is that there's a whole bunch of stuff that the rules don't cover at all.

Explain how this is "inflexible".  Show all assumptions and each step of your syllogism.

Or just plain shut the fuck up.  You're spouting nonsense.

It's the 'I'll make up any argument to support the game of my choice" argument.  In this case, the attempt is to show how Fudge is better.

But damn, OG, nicely done, sir. Nicely done.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's the 'I'll make up any argument to support the game of my choice" argument.  In this case, the attempt is to show how Fudge is better.

But damn, OG, nicely done, sir. Nicely done.

If he can prove his assertion, starting with clearly stated assumptions and going through logical steps, I'll listen.  If his logic is sound I'll even admit he's correct.

But saying "D&D is inflexible because the GM has room to make up anything to cover unforseen circumstances" is just plain illogical.

"Support your proposition or withdraw it".  Old rule of debate.

Dudes, quit being kneejerk arseholes and pay attention to what the fuck he's saying instead of just freaking out because you think he's knocking your favorite game.  

THe guy has a point, I figured out what he was on about before he even explained it even.  It's a simple description of the advantages of unified die mechanics, one that any one of you should be well aware of.  He's even been quite polite about it, despite the both of you responding with nothing but pointless abuse and personal attack.

This is RPGnet level dogpiling douchebaggery.  Chill the hell out.  You know better.

Quote from: John MorrowI downloaded the fast play rules.  What did I find?

• Rules for movement (full move, normal, jog, run)
• A rule for charging
• Conditional combat modifiers
• Concealment modifiers
• A rule for dodging
• A rule for disengaging from combat
• A rule for disarming
• A rule for rear attacks
• Rules for unarmed combat (pummeling, overbearing, grappling)

Yeah, it's a bit too much. Here's a simpler solution (also applicable to a light d20 system, Basic Fantasy, etc.):

QuoteRoll opposed attack rolls. If you beat your opponent by +5, your maneauver succeeded. If your opponent beats you by +5, you opened yourself up for some counter-maneauver. In between, the result is a simple miss.

...and that took care of all my problems. Granted, people may have different preferences WRT crunchiness, and the guideline requires a fair amount of DM judgement - e.g. deciding what counts as a maneauver, can such a move both do something special and inflict damage, etc.

I'm sort of surprised that no one's mentioned the Tunnels and Trolls combat system yet:

Basically, everyone fighting hand-to-hand generates a number of points, based on their weapon and their fighting ability. The side with the lower total takes damage equal to the difference between the totals.

Missile weapons work more like D&D ie for each individual attempt to hit someone you roll to see if you hit or not.

Special combat techniques are supposed to be resolved by 'saving rolls', and it's implied that the result of this should be that either the character generates no points (if they fail), or their victim doesn't generate any (if the character succeeds).

Quote from: J ArcaneDudes, quit being kneejerk arseholes and pay attention to what the fuck he's saying instead of just freaking out because you think he's knocking your favorite game.

BD&D is not my favorite game.
I have been paying attention.

Quote from: J ArcaneTHe guy has a point, I figured out what he was on about before he even explained it even.  It's a simple description of the advantages of unified die mechanics, one that any one of you should be well aware of.  He's even been quite polite about it, despite the both of you responding with nothing but pointless abuse and personal attack.

He has a point - about what I have no idea.

OK, I'm just paraphrasing Rodney Dangerfield, but he needs to be more clear.  I'm glad for you that you got it, but really - he seems to be using words that have different meanings than those with which I am familiar.  As OG, points out, "flexible." Or how he says the GM has less input, but uses an example that, to me, shows a GM with more input.

Your explanation that perhaps he's talking about unified mechanics is something I never put him on, quite frankly.  While it makes some sense, it still does not address the latter issue of GM input which seems reversed.  In other words, explain how a unified mechanic allows for more GM input. Or the "specific rules" business.

So, despite the fact that you pulled unified mechanics out of this as his point (kudos to you, I never saw that - I must have been too tired), I'm still at a loss as to the conclusion he extrapolates from that....

Hmmmm OK, in OD&D "the GM has room to make up anything to cover unforseen circumstances." But the same applies to just about every RPG in existance. Also virtually every RPG in existance (except maybe Synnibar?) stresses that the GM can alter the rules at will if doing so will result in a better play experience (ie Rule 0).

Therefor saying that a game in which  a GM gets to make up stuff to cover unforseen circumstances and tweak the rules is about as relevant as saying that a movie is cinematic because it is shown in a cinema. That's what RPGs (a few bizarre/crappy exceptions aside) DO.

So, in order for one RPG to be flexible (in relation to other RPGs) something else is needed. My personal opinion is that the better the existing rules are at being able to handle "unforseen circumstances" without making it necessary to invent new rules the more flexible a game is.

Let me give an example:

Game A:

Wizards get a magic rating of 1-10, if they want to cast a spell they have to roll under their magic rating on a d10.

Fighters get a kill rating of 1-10, if they want to kill something with a weapon they have to roll under their kill rating on a d10.

Game B:

All characters get a "how good you are at doing stuff" rating of 1-10, if they want to do stuff they have to roll under their how good you are at doing stuff rating.

Now obviously both Game A and Game B are far too simple to be actually playable (Game A probably comes closer to being playable). HOWEVER, Game B is far more flexible than Game A (its flexible to the point of being stupid) since in Game B there ARE no  "unforseen circumstances" that the rules don't cover, so the GM would never have to make up new rules or mechanics in order to play Game B. In Game A, if the players want to do anything except for cast spells or kill something with a weapon, the GM would have to make up new rules to adjudicate those actions. See the difference?

I'm not saying that being flexible (like FUDGE) is necessarily superior to being specific (like OD&D), just that my personal preferences are more on the flexible end of the spectrum than OD&D allows. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to play a campaign of OD&D, I might give GMing one a shot next year since I've become very frustrated with 3.5ed and I don't like some of what I've been hearing recently about 4ed.

Sheesh people, a little civility would be nice.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a simple description of the advantages of unified die mechanics, one that any one of you should be well aware of.

If you got that, good for you.  I didn't.  And when I asked for an explanation, I got some shit about biplanes.

Quote from: DazturSo, in order for one RPG to be flexible (in relation to other RPGs) something else is needed. My personal opinion is that the better the existing rules are at being able to handle "unforseen circumstances" without making it necessary to invent new rules the more flexible a game is.

Let me give an example:

Game A:

Wizards get a magic rating of 1-10, if they want to cast a spell they have to roll under their magic rating on a d10.

Fighters get a kill rating of 1-10, if they want to kill something with a weapon they have to roll under their kill rating on a d10.

Game B:

All characters get a "how good you are at doing stuff" rating of 1-10, if they want to do stuff they have to roll under their how good you are at doing stuff rating.

Now obviously both Game A and Game B are far too simple to be actually playable (Game A probably comes closer to being playable). HOWEVER, Game B is far more flexible than Game A (its flexible to the point of being stupid) since in Game B there ARE no  "unforseen circumstances" that the rules don't cover, so the GM would never have to make up new rules or mechanics in order to play Game B. In Game A, if the players want to do anything except for cast spells or kill something with a weapon, the GM would have to make up new rules to adjudicate those actions. See the difference?

I'm not saying that being flexible (like FUDGE) is necessarily superior to being specific (like OD&D), just that my personal preferences are more on the flexible end of the spectrum than OD&D allows. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to play a campaign of OD&D, I might give GMing one a shot next year since I've become very frustrated with 3.5ed and I don't like some of what I've been hearing recently about 4ed.

Okay, that I understood.

Now I can say "I disagree."  I think "unified die mechanics" are highly overrated.

YMMSomething.

Quote from: DazturSheesh people, a little civility would be nice.

So would answering the question.

I asked for an explanation and got some horseshit about biplanes that even you admitted was 'being silly'.  So, I asked for an explanation and you decided to 'be silly'.

And you're surprised you got told to go fuck yourself?

QuoteSo would answering the question.

He did, multiple times.  You were just too busy attacking him to actually excercise some reading comprehension.

Quote from: DazturHmmmm OK, in OD&D "the GM has room to make up anything to cover unforseen circumstances." But the same applies to just about every RPG in existance. Also virtually every RPG in existance (except maybe Synnibar?) stresses that the GM can alter the rules at will if doing so will result in a better play experience (ie Rule 0).

Therefor saying that a game in which  a GM gets to make up stuff to cover unforseen circumstances and tweak the rules is about as relevant as saying that a movie is cinematic because it is shown in a cinema. That's what RPGs (a few bizarre/crappy exceptions aside) DO.

Great - a tautology. At least we can agree on it, I suppose. (Mind that later, this blunts your attempt at insight).

Quote from: DazturSo, in order for one RPG to be flexible (in relation to other RPGs) something else is needed.

OK, here's where your point is blunted. If you take your first point, above, it is impossible to say that one RPG is more flexible in relation to another.  They all have Rule 0 (according to your premise), so they will all be equally flexible.

Quote from: DazturMy personal opinion is that the better the existing rules are at being able to handle "unforseen circumstances" without making it necessary to invent new rules the more flexible a game is.

You had me up until "the more flexible a game is."  What you really mean to say is that you prefer a game that doesn't require the invention of new rules to implement it's version of flexibility.

Which is fine. Here's the amazing part - so do I!

Quote from: DazturLet me give an example:

Game A:

Wizards get a magic rating of 1-10, if they want to cast a spell they have to roll under their magic rating on a d10.

Fighters get a kill rating of 1-10, if they want to kill something with a weapon they have to roll under their kill rating on a d10.

Rule 0 - the GM can make up any rule to account for unforeseen occurrences.

Game B:

All characters get a "how good you are at doing stuff" rating of 1-10, if they want to do stuff they have to roll under their how good you are at doing stuff rating.

Rule 0 - the GM can make up any rule to account for unforeseen occurrences.

I fixed your example for you, according to your own premise. When it's implemented like this, you can see how neither game is inherently more flexible than the other. They differ merely in the method.

Quote from: DazturHOWEVER, Game B is far more flexible than Game A (its flexible to the point of being stupid) since in Game B there ARE no  "unforseen circumstances" that the rules don't cover, so the GM would never have to make up new rules or mechanics in order to play Game B. In Game A, if the players want to do anything except for cast spells or kill something with a weapon, the GM would have to make up new rules to adjudicate those actions. See the difference?

However, since you can, due to rule 0 and according to your premise, make up whatever rules you need to, Game A is just as flexible as Game B.

Now do you see why I'm having such a problem with your point? It's not reading comprehension, it's your approach. It's flawed because you're trying to take something subjective - your desire to not have to make up rules to address things not specifically covered - and spin it as some objective measure of flexibility.

QuoteHowever, since you can, due to rule 0 and according to your premise, make up whatever rules you need to, Game A is just as flexible as Game B.

No, this is a tautology.  ANY game becomes "more flexible" if you just start grafting on house rules.  That's not the fucking point being made.

If you don't care to bother with house rules, however, then a game with an established framework for generic task resolution is going to be more flexible than one that doesn't in terms of what you can do within the game rules as written.  

That's it.  It really is that simple, and I remain baffled as to why this is so hard to grasp.  It's a very basic concept, one that we have even discussed here in the past, even specifically as regards the case of older D&D editions.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo, this is a tautology.  ANY game becomes "more flexible" if you just start grafting on house rules.  That's not the fucking point being made.

If you don't care to bother with house rules, however, then a game with an established framework for generic task resolution is going to be more flexible than one that doesn't in terms of what you can do within the game rules as written.  

That's it.  It really is that simple, and I remain baffled as to why this is so hard to grasp.  It's a very basic concept, one that we have even discussed here in the past, even specifically as regards the case of older D&D editions.

So really, this is "I don't like to have to make house rules."

Wow.

It's confusing because he's claiming this flexibility without the caveat that you impose - don't include house ruling. Then it makes sense.

But everything he's written, as far as I can tell, includes house rules and, therefore, is simply trying to apply a preference to make the argument about flexibility.

Really, J, go back and read his original posts.  I have no problem with some of it.  It's when he tries to say things like "more flexible" or "less input" in ways that seem completely foreign to me. And all of this is based simply on OG trying to get him to define "less flexible."  Because, I think, he had the same reaction as me. "You're kidding, right?  I could make up any thing I needed to rule on something.  How much more flexible can something get?"

If you add the caveat that attempts to diminish house/spot rulings, then you are in a different realm.  In software, we sometimes make the distinction between flexibility and robustness; the latter being, to put it in terms of this discussion, trying to design a system that avoids house rules (so to speak). Perhaps this is why I'm having a problem with his assertion.

QuoteBut everything he's written, as far as I can tell, includes house rules

No it doesn't.  

QuoteReally, J, go back and read his original posts.

I have.  Every last one, down to the letter.  His choice of terminology isn't the best because he's trying to explain something that I suspect he doesn't know a widely accepted term for like "unified die mechanic" or the like.  

It's also a point I happen to agree with (though I don't care for FUDGE).  I don't like house rules, I don't like having to make them at all.  I don't buy a game to have to go and write half of it for the author, and I don't want to have to deal with the confusion that seems inevitable in any group once you start dealing with variant rules.  If you wanted to find somewhere to go after his argument, go after his like of FUDGE, because it's the real rhetorical weakpoint in what he's presented, because FUDGE basically makes you write everything but the die mechanic yourself.  

But the rest of it is a pretty basic description of the advantages of a flexible, open-ended task resolution system, something that OD&D just flat doesn't have.  He's not stating a single word that isn't true, and he's not even stating it in a terribly inflammatory or even strongly negative manner.

Quote from: Daztur....

Then Xanther gives some examples about how mechanics for hiding behind a rock could be made up whole cloth (exactly what I was talking about) and this restores sanity.

....

I wouldn't call making them up from whole cloth but rather by analogy from previously existing rules that cover essentially the same situation.

I think our disconnect is over the term "flexible" I think the OD&D rules are flexible in this example.  Now they may not be comprehensive or possess a systematic framework for adjudicating almost any action.  It's in a way one of the weakness of a class based approach to character definition.

One could call such rules more "incomplete" or more "open" depending on the conotation you want to use.  I'd prefer a more neurtal term though.

I will mention that somewhere in the AD&D DMG there is a mention of using Petrification Save as a catch-all roll to do all sorts of stuff.  Not that I find that a very satisfying approach.

I will agree that the OD&D rules left out a large amount of rules on what you might think would be very common adventuring situations.  Given that it was the first RPG, and the nature of document creation in 1972, I willing to cut it some more slack than say a game created recently.  There is also more to a game for me than an overarching resolution mechanic.

This is why a game like Traveller was so impressive to me in 1978 with the skill based approach you have actual explicit rules that can be applied to many situations.

Quote from: J ArcaneHe's even been quite polite about it, despite the both of you responding with nothing but pointless abuse and personal attack.

This I actually agree with J Arcane about even though I don't agree with Daztur's preference.  Internet board RPG lingo savvy is something I struggle with to.  I understood what he meant in broad terms.  

Daztur I find BD&D more flexible when I GM because I don't have to reference the rules to setup scenarios.  For the most part, I only use the rules for what they cover.  Since there is a fairly bare bones rule structure, I don't have to spend a lot of time in preparation or playing concentrating on the specifics of task resolution.  If it sounds reasonable I allow it and move on.  Swimming, jumping, falling to name a few aren't exactly tasks that I find all that entertaining in RPGs.  I always considered taking 10 and 20 to be a half step to that.    

I understand your preference in unified mechanics because it allows the die to be the final arbiter of success for at least all forseeable tasks.  Basically it provides a framework for the GM to make reasonable calls that are consistent.  I have a little more faith in the players and myself to provide that reasonable consistency more so than the rules.

Edited to add:  I love Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP) too which is a unified mechanics system.  I'm a contradiction to myself.

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, this is what I'm talking about.  That's fucking dull.  At that point, you're not even really doing something that could be described as a game except in the broadest terms, because it's not even really interactive anymroe if you're just doing the same things and rolling the same dice over and over again.  The only guy who still gets to make any decisions is the spellcaster, but he gets squat for spells per day, so half the time, he's not even got that to play with.

And yet by and large, that is the model for the vast majority of RPG systems, especially the so called "lite" or "simple" ones.

Not to toot my own horn, but many of the best combats I've seen recently have been run with FtA!, which is considerably simpler than D&D 3.x to run.

The difference isn't in how simple or complex a game system is, but in how much versatility of action it allows players to do.  If the players will be rewarded with the best chance of doing damage if they do the exact same attack every single time, then that's what they'll do. If on the other hand taking things like terrain or position in account, and if you have morale rules, and if you have a way of doing different particular "stunts" that fit the moment (and not just the exact same "special attack" that you use EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME you attack, because you took a feat in it and it has the best bonus), then the combat will be exciting.

RPGPundit