TheRPGSite

There is a lot of comments on game design over on the Frank Trollman thread. Here why don't folks list some RPGs with good designs and why.

I am not asking about bad design because I think that will led to massive complaints about various items. Try to focus on mechanics and games you think are good.

And forget change the damn title. Oh well.

As much as i rail against it, the core d20 mechanic seems like a good design to me. It was an easy way to make attacks more intuitive for some people in d&d.

This isn't so much mechanics but I have always been impressed with the Harn setting design. Detailed, rich and well mapped.

I hve always liked the Ravenloft powers check mechanic. A simple percentile roll when you commit an evil act to see if the dark powers take notice and bestow a blessing and curse. Always fun to watch a pc transform into a monster over the course of a campaign.

Changed the title of the thread for you, Rob.

I believe most mechanics can be inherently "good" at what they do, and what they are meant to represent in the context of the ruleset in which they are presented.

They can only be qualified as "bad mechanics" if they are compared to other systems.  Are we talking only about D&D here?  

In response to the OP, I have always felt that pretty much all the mechanics are good ones.  Bad or unnecessary ones I don't use.

If we're talking about favorite mechanics, and we're only talking about D&D, I've always been fond of various systems of starvation and drowning, particularly 3e.

Also, Ben:  I love the Mordenkainen motif you've had lately.  You kinda look like him anyway.  I pretty much live on Oerth, so it's nice to see.

i always loved the task system from late classic trav & megatraveller.  easy to remember difficulty grades, combined with (usually) one stat bonus and one skill level.  an elegant and straightforward mechanic, IMO.

d&d-wise, the stat bonuses for ability scores in moldvay basic (never read holmes) also qualify.

In Nomine always worked well for me, despite how it was perceived by pretty much everyone.
Castle Falkenstein's magic system is very good.

All games have their flaws but I'd single out Barbarians of Lemuria as one of the best designed out there. I love the efficiency of it, the fact that very little bulk it does create some amazingly complete feeling characters.

It's also very true to it's S&S inspiration and everything about the rules just just works to reinforce the genre conventions. The magic system, the careers, the experience system, the boons and mook rules are very clever but without drawing too much attention to the mechanical aspects of the game during play.

I'll also agree that when it came out D&D 3e was a very impressive design feat (pun intended). It's not really my sort of game but I always thought it was very well designed and and it the impossible job of modernising AD&D while still respecting it's heritage (apart from the halfling feet thing).

Fan Mail, from Prime Time Adventures. It's a limited resource that players can draw from to reward each other for doing fun, entertaining things. Fan mail that you've won can can be spent later to give bonuses to conflicts. It's a limited resource, so there's some competition for it and it encourages players to play for each other.

Any limited resource that allows the player to add more dice to a roll after the result has been seen. Fate artha from Burning Wheel is an example, but there are plenty of systems that have some implementation of this kind of thing. It almost always adds tension to a failed roll along with the chance for a reversal. This kind of mechanic is especially fun when players are headed off against each other.

Fallout, from Dogs in the Vineyard. Consequences from conflicts immediately become traits on the character sheet, often troublesome traits (low dice amounts). Watching a fallout trait trait grow over multiple sessions from a troublesome drawback to a defining feature of the character is cool, and makes advancement feel organic and relevant to the character's history.

Oh gotta hurry:
The "we owe" list from In a Wicked Age.
The oracle from IaWA.
The conversation mechanic from Storming the Wizard's Tower.

BRP. Special credits to Sanity mechanic in CoC, the OG of literary emulation mechanics.

On the subject of CoC - mention goes to my luvvie of late, ToC. It just feels really well - it needed some houseruling for me, but with that done, it's perfect Lovecraftian game for me. The mechanic does support investigation - superheavy game, and I like my CoC investigative.

Mechanics-wise, there have been two systems that I am very pleased with how well designed they are.  Epic RPG by Dark Matter Press did very well in creating a good system.  The other is the D6 system for me, due to its simplicity and adaptability.

Does a combat subsystem count?

Because Silhouette's combat system is pretty fucking awesome.  It's the best I've ever seen, period.

Actually the Silhouette system generally applies across the board and it itself is pretty good.

The core of AD&D's combat system - roll a d20, consult the chart - is almost insanely wonderful in it's simplicity.  We can argue until the heat death of the universe about how Surprise and Initiative are supposed to work but the d20, then check the matrix?  Love it.

Just off the top of my head.

Empire of the Petal Throne. The original TSR boxed set. Bear with me for a second. There's this crazy baroque exotic Southeast-Asia-meets-Mesoamerica science fantasy setting, right? With Cthulhoid deities and ray guns and secret societies and shit. There's an underworld. And the PCs are foreigners who, like their players, know jack and shit about this crazy setting, have no clan affiliation and are worse off than thieves and offal carters on the social totem pole. So the natural thing to do? Raid the underworld, get rich, buy yourself clan membership (=citizenship) and eventually claw your way to whatever heights of temporal or spiritual power interest you. It's a classic D&D campaign starting with armed malcontents raiding tombs and ending with personages of real power and influence on the setting. The antics of Prof. Barker's group are a textbook example on how high-level old school PCs can change the setting.

Traveller. Genius genre emulation. Space is fucking dangerous. Education and technical competence are paramount to success. Space is fucking dangerous. Tech is not magic and has limitations, it enables those who can use it, but not necessarily creates competency where there's none. Space is fucking dangerous. Free trading as a way to explore the Universe on your own terms, for fun and profit. Did I mention that space is real fucking dangerous?

Runequest. Today no one in his right mind would marry a gritty, lethal combat system with a high-minded Campbellian approach to myth and heroics, and animistic metaphysics. Like so much in our hobby, the end result is much bigger than the sum of its parts. Like Traveller, having a default setting that was too good might have hindered its acceptance and diffusion a bit. But it's a great design and I haven't even touched on its use of a unified percentile mechanic and cherry-picking skill system.

Call of Cthulhu. Sanity. 'nuff said. Used it for all sorts of horror scenarios, non-Mythos included, for 15 years (SAN really makes your zombie apocalypse scenario come alive, BTW. Pun intended). Never even bought a supplement for it, ever. It's one of these games that just feels better and better every time I return to it.

Stormbringer/Elric! Shit, another Chaosium game. I see a pattern here. :D Yet again they do a great job of genre emulation with the magic system.

Castle Falkenstein. Never got to play this one as much as I'd like, but I loved the card-based resolution. It felt very fitting, especially with the in-game "explanation". The "it's a game, and a novel!" part was kind of annoying at times, but I think we have yet to see a better steampunk (or "gaslight") fantasy RPG, both setting- and system-wise.

D&D 3.0e. It's got all sorts of problems, I know, but it's a robust engine. I dislike some things (the full-fledged Skill system, the Feat trees, breakdown at high levels, caster supremacy etc.) but I feel they might have been the best possible implementation of demands from the fanbase, some which dated back to the 1980s.

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Take D&D 3.0e, create a bunch of new races and classes that fill the same niches in different and interesting ways (and yet feel just as archetypal to the fantasy reader as D&D's usual ensemble), throw in some nice new mechanics that fit your setting (like Truenames), and you have a new and exciting, yet fundamentally familiar, fantasy game. Pity Iron Heroes never got to do for low-magic S&S what AU/AE did for high-magic, high-fantasy d20 gaming.

Savage Worlds. I'm kind of burned out on this one, but I've got to admit, combat moves fast, is full of surprises, and supports miniatures if that's your thing (never used them, though). Gimmicky, but in a good way.

Adventurer Conqueror King. Possibly the best combination of old school principles with modern design sensibilities that I know of. Proficiencies offer a nice way of customizing a character, with more "bite" than AD&D 1e's Secondary Skills or 2e's Non-Weapon Proficiencies, but without falling for the Feat trap of trees and the CharOp slippery-slope. Also the domain system, including treating vassal rulers as henchmen. And mercantile ventures. And rules for PC mages and clerics to create monsters. And... and... the list just goes on.

Ad&d 2e spheres and 3e's domains.

Best design decisions in both editions.

Quote from: Grimace;514316Epic RPG by Dark Matter Press did very well in creating a good system.

Epic RPG has a very workable encumbrance system, weapon reach, and weapon speed (all things I would normally hand-wave away). The magic system is robust with degrees of success boosting the efficacy of the spell. I've also found the lifepath chargen a treat; ending up with a number of interesting characters I hadn't played before.

Quote from: Benoist;514246Changed the title of the thread for you, Rob.

Thanks, and the there looks to be a lot of good comments.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514308BRP.

Yes.  An intuitive core system (everybody grocks percentages) flexible enough to cover a staggeringly wide range of genres.  Essentially unchanged for over 30 years for a reason.

Quote from: One Horse Town;514330Ad&d 2e spheres and 3e's domains.

Best design decisions in both editions.

Mmm, indeed. Domains were great for reflavouring of clerics.

Quote from: One Horse Town;514330Ad&d 2e spheres and 3e's domains.

Best design decisions in both editions.

I didn't like either of these. They just struck me as invitations to min-maxing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;514707I didn't like either of these. They just struck me as invitations to min-maxing.

RPGPundit

Well, Spheres basically restrict your choice of spells.

I can just about see it with Domains, as you get a Domain power also - but i think the different feel that it gives Clerics of different religions is worth the price.

An example of good design? Ascending armor class. It's far more intuitive for most people than the alternative.

To-hit charts. No math beyond one digits additions to deal with on the players' side of the screen, and I have everything right there stappled on my side of the screen. ;)

Class disparities in TSR D&D. You want to have few rules to worry about, do stuff and kick ass? Play a fighter. You want to play with some resource management of powers and shit? Play a Magic User. You want a little bit of everything? Play a Cleric. Etc.

The Dungeon as the frame of adventuring in D&D. A concrete, endlessly customizable frame for the worlds of your imagination. Very simple to grasp, with some neat approach like mapping and such. It's one of the true secrets of D&D's brilliance, to me.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514724An example of good design? Ascending armor class. It's far more intuitive for most people than the alternative.

QFT.

Roll d20, add number, compare to AC. No matrix, no repeating 20's. Better in every single possible way.

Pendragon's personality traits.

My favourite part is that it lets me ask my character questions. I can frame a situation in the form of an opposed trait check, and then let my character decide (By rolling the dice, natch). And it's simple, you couldn't make it any simpler under the Pendragon rule system.

Of course, I'm the type of player who doesn't feel that they should have control over their character all the time, and is quite willing to concede control in the interest of making the game more interesting.

---

BRP. It's barely changed in 30 years because the designers got it right the first time. It might not be exciting, but it bloody works.

---

WFRP's career system. It immerses the characters in the setting (By giving them roles and responsibilities), gives the player a class-like advancement path, but doesn't absolutely limit them.

Amber attribute auction.
You need to set some parameters on how to run the rounds but no other char gen system sets the terms of play as successfully.

As a concept Travellers lifepath is great totally random skills and the chance of death maybe a step too far but the concept is fantastic.

I will aslo add a vote for CoC Sanity.

Paranoia's clone replacement and color coded ranks.

Savage World's powers system. While its a bit lacking in colour it is so hugely adaptable for anything. I built a Strontium Dog using them for mutant powers and he conversion took an hour all in.

Quote from: One Horse Town;514709Well, Spheres basically restrict your choice of spells.

I can just about see it with Domains, as you get a Domain power also - but i think the different feel that it gives Clerics of different religions is worth the price.

Spheres let you give up a bunch of spells you don't want to cast, in exchange for getting more of a bunch of spells you do. That's min-maxing.

RPGPundit

D&D hit points.

Elegant. Emulative.

Quote from: RPGPundit;514783Spheres let you give up a bunch of spells you don't want to cast, in exchange for getting more of a bunch of spells you do. That's min-maxing.

RPGPundit

Nah.

Quote from: Benoist;514727To-hit charts. No math beyond one digits additions to deal with on the players' side of the screen, and I have everything right there stappled on my side of the screen. ;)

I must admit that I hate to hit charts.

Quote from: Aos;514793I must admit that I hate to hit charts.

I concur, that's one thing that I don't miss from older versions of A/D&D.

When I first started playing D&D, I actually liked the charts used for combat (to hit, weapons vs AC, etc ...).

The descending AC didn't fit into any easily remembered to-hit formulas, that I could figure out at the time.  Easier to just look at the charts.

Running my finger over a chart during a fight takes me right out of it. this is why I like ascending AC.

Quote from: Aos;514813Running my finger over a chart during a fight takes me right out of it. this is why I like ascending AC.

I had no idea there were braille charts!

Quote from: One Horse Town;514816I had no idea there were braille charts!

I'm dyslexic and I have an extreme (and sometimes amusing) right-left confusion- if my finger isn't on the number everyhting goes to shit.

Quote from: Aos;514819I'm dyslexic and I have an extreme (and sometimes amusing) right-left confusion- if my finger isn't on the number everyhting goes to shit.

My profuse apologies, mate. 'Twas but an irreverant comment. :)

Quote from: One Horse Town;514822My profuse apologies, mate. 'Twas but an irreverant comment. :)

I wasn't offended in the least.

Quote from: Aos;514793I must admit that I hate to hit charts.

Love them, personally. Infinitely superior to anything that followed them, as far as my game table is concerned.

Quote from: Benoist;514824Love them, personally. Infinitely superior to anything that followed them, as far as my game table is concerned.

If you just add crits, it's even better! ;)

I love me some Role Master! It's so simple when you think about it. And yet, there's that weird notion out there that RM is super rules-heavy or something. I guess I just don't get it.

Quote from: Benoist;514828I love me some Role Master! It's so simple when you think about it. And yet, there's that weird notion out there that RM is super rules-heavy or something. I guess I just don't get it.

It's only rules-heavy if you've never played it.

If you can read in columns and rows, you're golden.

Cult of the collector strikes again.

BRP has an appealing and versatile simplicity to it that continues to work for me after all these years.

GURPS seems pretty solid in its core.

Quote from: Aos;514819I'm dyslexic and I have an extreme (and sometimes amusing) right-left confusion- if my finger isn't on the number everyhting goes to shit.

Me too (without the left/right thing). I use a ruler on charts.

Quote from: One Horse Town;514832It's only rules-heavy if you've never played it.

If you can read in columns and rows, you're golden.

Cult of the collector strikes again.

I think the main reason it gets the rules heavy label is the number of rolls. Havent played that much of it. But my understanding is MERP used the rolemaster engine (idpf i am wrong please let me know), and i played that a bit in the 90s. A lot of the guys called it Roll Master because of the charts. They were fun though.

Quote from: One Horse Town;514832If you can read in columns and rows, you're golden.

It's been twenty years since I played it (and I only played it briefly), but I seem to recall that the real boggart of the rules was not the complexity of any particular table but rather the sheer number of tables. For example, using mixed groups of NPCs with different weapons I would frequently end up in the "check this table, flip flip flip, check this table, flip flip flip, check this table" sequence that would completely bog down combat.

Probably more straight-forward from the player's side, since you usually just need the table for your weapon.

If memory serves, I also think the rules didn't help themselves much by frequently printing resolution sequences that weren't particularly efficient. (IOW, the rules would have been easier to use if you resolved things in a different order than the rules told you to.) But, like I say, it's been awhile.

And, of course, the actual resolution sequences were usually much longer than in D&D.

So, not terribly complex (until you started piling on the options from the Law books). But very, very cumbersome.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;514859I think the main reason it gets the rules heavy label is the number of rolls.

Ironically, Rolemaster and MERP don't demand a lot of rolls. During combat, you have to roll once to attack (no defense roll), and another time in the critical chart if there is a critical.

Quote from: Claudius;514863Ironically, Rolemaster and MERP don't demand a lot of rolls. During combat, you have to roll once to attack (no defense roll), and another time in the critical chart if there is a critical.

This may be something exagerated by memory, but I seem to recall the crit charts sometimes required additional rolls on other charts pr re rolls and that nay be the reason for the whole roll master thing. Again though, i havent played since the 90s and exageration of systems perceived flaws tend to occur over time. Tis was my experience going back to 2E. A lot of the mechanics we remembered as flawed or quircky in light of 3e, really weren't so when we sat down to play the game again.

As Justin noted - I remember from my MERP days as well, that the problem was not the amount of rules, but the amount of tables itself.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;514317Does a combat subsystem count?

Because Silhouette's combat system is pretty fucking awesome.  It's the best I've ever seen, period.

Why so?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;514859I think the main reason it gets the rules heavy label is the number of rolls.

Nope. Almost every action is one or two rolls only. For example, combat is roll to hit, then roll for a crit if necessary, and you're done.

I agree that RM can be rules-heavy (though core-only RM Classic isn't) but long strings of dice rolls isn't the reason.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;514864This may be something exagerated by memory, but I seem to recall the crit charts sometimes required additional rolls on other charts pr re rolls and that nay be the reason for the whole roll master thing.

No, no. One roll to attack, and a second one for the critical, that's it. The only exception is that some powerful spells (like lightning bolt) could make two criticals (that is, two rolls). But other than that, no, no additional rolls.

Yeah, Rolemaster isn't "rules heavy", it's chart heavy.  As was mentioned, the nicknames of "Roll Master" or "Chart Master" come to mind regarding it.  Not that it was ever a hard game to learn the rules to, but that there were just too many charts to reference.  

And combat wasn't necessarily a lot of rolls, but a lot of chart flipping if the group had a wide variety of weapons/skills/options available to them.  Now I have met some GMs that love the game and after they've played the game for years and years they don't need to reference the charts much (except for maybe extremely high or low numbers), but that's not something you notice a lot.  Most people just remember the constant flipping through charts.

I'm one of those people that prefer to NOT reference a chart for die rolls in a game.  So if I can find a game that has less charts and doesn't use levels (another dislike of mine), I'm a happier GM.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514873As Justin noted - I remember from my MERP days as well, that the problem was not the amount of rules, but the amount of tables itself.

MERP wasn't so bad IMO.  

Unlike 'full' RM, MERP grouped attacks into different weapon-style categories (edged weapons, piercing weapons, crushing weapons, etc.), with modifications for specific weapons (e.g., a longsword might have a +10 to the roll, whereas a dagger would have a -15).  Most of the 'core charts' fit onto the GM's screen.

In contrast, Rolemaster used different charts for every different kind of weapon (i.e., longswords would have their own chart, as would daggers, etc.).

When I GM'ed MERP/RM back in the day, I had the players use the specific weapons charts from Arms Law (since most characters had 1-3 weapons, this was relatively easy for them), whereas as GM I used the general 'weapon categories' charts.

The charts could be a bit of a pain, but the colourful criticals (and fumbles!) more than compensated, IME. :)

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;514879Why so?

I'll start off by discussing vehicle combat, because that's where it really shines.

The simple act of damaging a target is just so...intuitive!

Basically a target has a base armor rating.  We'll take my favorite AFV, the Abrams tank.  Abrams has a BAR of 25 - a figure that's taken by taking the square root of the average armor thickness for the entire vehicle, in mm.  Now before you freak out and start wigging about taking square roots and knowing vehicle armor thicknesses, it's just the number they started with in the example.  You don't have to calculate this in combat at all.  I mention it because it supports how well grounded the system is.

So back to that M1.  Base Armor Rating of 25.  It's in a tank duel with another main battle tank, which is equipped with (of course) it's own gun, which in Silhouette nomenclature is called a Heavy Field Gun.

HFG has a base damage multiplier of x25.

In my tank, I have a gunner with a Dexterity of 0 (that's actually average) and a skill of 2 (that's really, really good).

Once range, cover, movement and sensor modifiers are added, for our example, we'll say my target has a to-hit difficulty of 2.

Since I have a skill of 2, I roll 2d6.  I roll...boxcars!  Every six over the initial six you roll adds 1 to your total.  Now my target number was 2.  I rolled a total of 7, so that's 5 over the required target number.  Five times thirty = 150.

With a Base armor rating of 25, the Abrams has a Light Damage rating of 25, a Medium Damage rating of 50 and a Heavy Damage rating of 75.  I have exceeded that by more than three times - the M1 is utterly destroyed.

Another example, same circumstances.  My target due to range, cover, etc. is a 6.  I roll a 2 and a 3.  3 is the highest number but doesn't exceed the target, a miss.  Third example.  My target is a 3.  I roll a 3 and a 1, discard the 1.  Hit, but at zero times the multiplier, it's to no effect.  Fourth and final.  Target's a three, I roll a 4 and a 1.  I rolled a 1 over the target, x25, PRANG - light damage, with a possibility (depending on what I roll on the damage chart) of cascading into Heavy damage.

Personal combat works exactly the same.  To-hit number required is over target's defense modifiers, multiply overage by weapon base damage = damage done to target.  1x target base armor = light, 2x = medium, 3x = heavy.

Skill rolls are kinda the same, except obviously you're not trying to blow up a computer or the girl at the bar.  You have a target, you roll dice equivalent to your skill, and add the number equivalent to the correct stat, your margin of success indicates how successful you were in your attempt.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514861It's been twenty years since I played it (and I only played it briefly), but I seem to recall that the real boggart of the rules was not the complexity of any particular table but rather the sheer number of tables. For example, using mixed groups of NPCs with different weapons I would frequently end up in the "check this table, flip flip flip, check this table, flip flip flip, check this table" sequence that would completely bog down combat.

I think that, unless you are dyslexic (and really, then, I understand the trouble, which leads me to wonder... well, how many gamers are dyslexic, do you think? Is it the source of the chart-impaired thing? I wonder), this is no problem after you played your first games. The GM learns to organize himself, has bits of paper stuck in the Combat book to find the charts easily, will not have seven billion different weapons in a party of NPC fighting the PCs, and over time, you get to know the organization of the book.

The first (and longest-running) GM of Role Master I had was a friend I introduced to RPGs myself. He picked up the game, we were 12 years old, and started running it for us at his house. He basically had some photocopies of the main weapons in the book and stickers for others that would be used in the course of the game and ran it from there. Finding a new weapon became easier and easier. There really was no noticeable "slowing down" occurring compared to say, Stormbringer, which I was running at the time.

Now I know, mileages vary and so on, but I played the game under different GMs after that, ran the game myself, and I never noticed a significant slowdown due to the charts. All it takes is a tiny bit of organization and knowledge of the books (as in, recognize the weapon types by flipping rapidly through the Combat book if you need to, which isn't so bad at all and is acquired fairly quickly, in a matter of one-two sessions really).

Charts are just better; you either get it or you don't. :)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;514924Charts are just better; you either get it or you don't. :)

I'm e-pissing on you right now.

Quote from: The_Shadow;514880I agree that RM can be rules-heavy (though core-only RM Classic isn't)

Ah there's some truth to that. If you start adding all the shit from all the Companions to your RM game, then you start having a shitload of stuff to take care off. This becomes the same type of problem with any game that suffers from rules bloat and all that shit. I wouldn't run RM with all the stuff from the Companions. It'd be like running AD&D with the whole of UA and the Survival Guides bullshit.

I have the survival guides. The dungeneer one is kind of neat, but its more inspirational than useful. The wilderness guide has a table for how your mule behaves, I don't know anything else about it, because I never looked at it again after seeing that table the first time I flipped the book open. Also, both suffer from a glut of Holloway art, IIRC.

The survival guides may be good for some inspiration at some point or another, but as rules books, as supplements, they are part of a late-AD&D picture I don't want to see at my game table. For me it's AD&D core, MM2 and FF, and cherry picked elements from UA, basically, as far as the TSR material is concerned.

Quote from: Aos;514928Also, both suffer from a glut of Holloway art, IIRC.

Ugh, yes.

Quote from: Aos;514928I have the survival guides. The dungeneer one is kind of neat, but its more inspirational than useful. The wilderness guide has a table for how your mule behaves, I don't know anything else about it, because I never looked at it again after seeing that table the first time I flipped the book open. Also, both suffer from a glut of Holloway art, IIRC.

The dungeoneers has some of the best DM advice in the AD&D books though and the best cover of any D&D book of any eddition.

just saying....

As an aside we found the tables in the DMG a problem as we were playing at shool and often got kicked out of the classroom so played on a wall or sitting on the floor. So with no physical table having to open the books gets painful so I just memorised all the tables to save time and effort.
It's a simple mathmatical progression once you get past the 20s


I would have to say that because its a mathmatical progression its not really a rule per se its just a way of presenting the rule on a table. THACO is basically the rule and the progression of THACO by level by class


just saying ....

Yeah the cover is pretty cool, and as I said the book itself is inspirational.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514873As Justin noted - I remember from my MERP days as well, that the problem was not the amount of rules, but the amount of tables itself.

Yeah that's it in a nutshell.  To be honest, 90% of the problem with "Rules-Heavy" systems isn't the actual rules themselves, it's how, physically, the GM and players keep track of the information.  A well-designed character sheet can make what looks at first glance like a morass of info quite easy to use at the table.  When I was GMing MERP (using full RM), I would prepare the specific weapon charts ahead of time on my custom-built screen.

These days, Excel or OneNote would make RM charting a breeze.

Quote from: Benoist;514931The survival guides may be good for some inspiration at some point or another, but as rules books, as supplements, they are part of a late-AD&D picture I don't want to see at my game table. For me it's AD&D core, MM2 and FF, and cherry picked elements from UA, basically, as far as the TSR material is concerned.

Yeah, but you're an OSR Taliban guy, back to K&KA with you!  :D

Seriously though, the Survival Guides were a big change in D&D as they brought in the notion that "Well yeah, I can say my guy is a Ranger, but other then tracking, and being quieter, there's nothing I can do in the forest that the Paladin can't."  

One one end of the Spectrum you have "say what you want to have happen and the GM will make something up", and the other end you have "the character sheet being everything you can do and nothing else".  Assuming the Spectrum has 100 points from one to the other, AD&D 1.5 (UA, DSG, WSG) is like 1-3 steps away from AD&D depending on how much you use.  

Personally I like all the tables as they help keep the GM neutral.  I don't care how good you are as a GM, having to make up ad hoc rulings during a 3-week wilderness adventure as to how the characters can survive without making it a storytelling session is tough.

Quote from: CRKrueger;514954Yeah, but you're an OSR Taliban guy, back to K&KA with you!  :D

User title changed.