Quote from: The Traveller;651054What do you think about the concept that some game systems are a bit on the complex side for a GM to take the whole burden of running them? Would that automatically qualify a game as 'bad' for you?

'Bad' for me, yes.

As a GM, I find 'non front loaded crunch' a distraction from the actual game.

Ideal for me, is rules light with just enough crunch to get the job done.

I don't really want myself or the players to be mired in gamespeak and focused on builds, rules, etc...



I know crunch like a brother you fight with.

I have constructed countless Champions superheroes.

Played Rolemaster for years.

Played a ton of wargames; Star Fleet Battles, Advanced squad leader, Empires in arms; tons of these games.

I am no stranger to rules crunch; I just find it distracting in an rpg.

Quote from: The Traveller;651054What do you think about the concept that some game systems are a bit on the complex side for a GM to take the whole burden of running them? Would that automatically qualify a game as 'bad' for you?

Not objectively bad, no. I don't know of any game that would actually be somehow too much of a weightlift for every GM everywhere. I've seen a noob friend of mine start with GMing by running Rolemaster when we were some 12 years old or some such and it went admirably well. Even a game like Dangerous Journeys can (should) be started with Mythus Prime, to then gradually upgrade whatever would be better with more granularity at the table via the Advanced rules options.

Some systems which would be too heavy for this or that GM to use comfortably, yes, absolutely, that happens all the time: that's relative to the particular inclinations of the GM though, and the good GM just shouldn't run systems he wouldn't be comfortable running in the first place.

Quote from: The Traveller;651054What do you think about the concept that some game systems are a bit on the complex side for a GM to take the whole burden of running them? Would that automatically qualify a game as 'bad' for you?

I remember a quote from Chivalry & Sorcery 2nd edition which basically said if you're playing a wizard character, you (player) need to be an expert with the magic system.

There was a guy we used to play AD&D with who memorized every spell in the PHB. Saves, material components, etc. He'd cast spells and the DM would just ask him what it did. I never considered this laziness by the DM. A few times during the game, the DM stated the spells did not work, when clearly they should have worked "by the rules". The player didn't say anything and accepted the ruling because we all knew the DM had a good reason for changing the "rules".

That's completely unlike a 3.X campaign I was in comprised of several rules-laywers, who would spend half the game arguing over idiotic minutiae. I don't think this was merely a function of the system in use, but there's definitely a shift of authority from the DM to the "rules" in more modern gaming systems. I'm sure there are plenty of terrible DMs out there who pissed off a lot of players with stupid adjudications, but that's a problem with the individual, not the game system.

Quote from: Benoist;651031Fuck if I know. Bill's answer is kinda obvious, but at the same time, these kinds of dickish players were there before: we knew them as "rules lawyers" and "munchkins" and other more-or-less interchangeable stereotypes, before that. There had to be an incentive for the post-2000 school of design to cater to this audience, and I feel the answer might be much more complicated than we'd expect (not to mention, way off-topic for this forum).

Incentive may just be to get as many players as possible into the game. Not sure.

There are a lot of players that enjoy the combat in an rpg more for the tactical challenge than for the roleplay.

Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but every player is simply not focused on roleplay as a primary concern.

Quote from: Brad;651060A few times during the game, the DM stated the spells did not work, when clearly they should have worked "by the rules". The player didn't say anything and accepted the ruling because we all knew the DM had a good reason for changing the "rules".

That's usual in my gang's games as well, but we're also mindful that sometimes memory lapses. If something goes against a precedent, we'll point that out to the DM. If there's a good reason, so be it -- and if 'god' just forgot, then he thanks us for the reminder.

Quote from: Bill;651058'Bad' for me, yes.

As a GM, I find 'non front loaded crunch' a distraction from the actual game.

Ideal for me, is rules light with just enough crunch to get the job done.

I don't really want myself or the players to be mired in gamespeak and focused on builds, rules, etc...

Your preference is totally valid - and I like that you phrased it as your preference rather than a Gleichman-like absolute.  

In my experience, though, rules complexity is different than focus on rules.  We could play a very simple game like The Fantasy Trip - and still be mired in game-speak, rules options, and modifiers.  On the other hand, I have played in plenty of Hero System games that were all about the story - and the system just did its job without becoming a focus.  

Quote from: Brad;651060That's completely unlike a 3.X campaign I was in comprised of several rules-laywers, who would spend half the game arguing over idiotic minutiae. I don't think this was merely a function of the system in use, but there's definitely a shift of authority from the DM to the "rules" in more modern gaming systems.

I think the shift of authority is true of D&D editions, but I don't think it's true of RPGs in general.  If anything, comprehensive rule sets like Hero or GURPS are more of a 1980s thing, whereas the 1990s had more games like Vampire or Over the Edge that emphasize story over rules (for different meanings of "story").

Quote from: jhkim;651107We could play a very simple game like The Fantasy Trip ...

Heh, well that just goes to show that "very simple" is in the eye of the beholder!

TFT is in the "Why must it be so complicated?" category for a friend of mine whose druthers would be old-time D&D all the time.

Quote from: Bill;651061Incentive may just be to get as many players as possible into the game. Not sure.

There are a lot of players that enjoy the combat in an rpg more for the tactical challenge than for the roleplay.

Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but every player is simply not focused on roleplay as a primary concern.

I think the incentive is the system-mastery char op crowd will buy a lot of books. In a 'rules are a resource of the referee' model, you're only selling material to one person in the group.

Problem is, when you cater your product towards the hardcore wonks, you make it less accessible and reduce the intake of casual gamers. This in turn makes the hardcores even more important, as they're a bigger part of the customer base. And so on.

One of the things that's encouraging about D&D Next, is it looks like WotC finally came around to the realization that they couldn't ride the hardcore rules mastery market any longer. They want to reverse the trend of the last decade and sell fewer rules each to more people.

You can sell tons of elaborations to whoever wants them enough without needing to toss away a simpler core.

The thing is, if there's profit in telling people they 'need' a stack of books two meters high, then someone is going to do it.

Stuff tends to find its market in this Internet age. My local comics & games shop does not carry (for instance) Star Fleet Battles, but that does not keep SFB from continuing to attract players. It appeals to people who LIKE the intricacies of the system!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651025Apparently not allowing players to automatically succeed at any crazy action they want to attempt makes one an asshole DM.  So that begs the question: At what point did DMs lose their balls and allow themselves to be bullied by players who have an overinflated sense of entitlement?

At the same point in time when DMs thought they had a sense of entitlement

Just as a comment:

While I wouldn't argue it at the table, because its a waste of time and is just going to slow down the game, I don't think tipping a table with 3 people on it would require the ability to lift 600 lbs.

My dining room table is a large, rustic wooden table (it was made by my father from the hardwood floors and rough cut beams of his grandfathers house, its a really neat piece, but thats beside the point). Tipping it would not require an incredible amount of leverage, and while having worked in construction for many years has left me fairly strong,I wouldn't consider myself D&D fighter strong.

Now adding 3 people on top of it fighting would add to the weight, but it would also significantly heighten the center of gravity. If you timed it when the three had placed more of their weight on the side of the table away from you rather than near you, it might actually HELP you tip the table over.

Now, absolutely none of this has to do with anything I would argue midtable during the game, but it does show how two people can look at the same situation and not see the difficulty being the same at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Yes.  It's safe to assume that players don't have a lot of practice leaping up in the middle of combat to swing on chandeliers towards an opponent.

Middle of combat?  It's a tavern brawl.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015I'll bet you $100 you can't do it.  Especially on a floor that is so slippery that, according to you, is easy to slide across like an ice rink.  How are you going to get your footing?  Also, a table doesn't have a single pivot point like a wheelbarrow.  And I doubt a thick wooden table is just so easy to flip over.  If it's stable with 3 people fighting on top of it, you think it's a card table?  Jesus, you're just failing all over the place.

Your desperate need to have me fail is amusing.   Yes we have no idea how large the table is, if for instance the table were picnic in nature, trying to tip 3 people off of it would be extremely difficult.  I guess I'll pull a you and just cut a table leg out, no attack or damage roll needed.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015According to you, a player wanting to throw a flask of acid on an opponent does not need to make an attack roll?  There's no real difference in throwing a bowl of stew and throwing a bowl of acid, mechanically.  Not only are you being stupid here, but the rules actively disagree with you as well.

wtf?  rules are a resource, and, fuck, your talking AD&D where you 'pick and choose' which rules you use, where houserules are encouraged, and whatever else you all blather about  now all of a sudden you are talking rules actively disagree?  make up your mind.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Again, because you're essentially doing an attack.  Where do you draw the line?  If the farmer was 100 pounds?  150 pounds?  200 pounds? before an attack is necessary?  I guess my fighter doesn't need to roll to hit any more when fighting goblins or other similarly small creatures.  He can just barrel roll them all automatically...

It isn't combat?  It's a fucking tavern brawl.  What happens Mr. Immersion when the PC can't hit Slim Tim the skinny drunk farmer?  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Do you know how hydroplaning works?  I'm guessing not, unless you are assuming that a player is sliding at 40mph.  You're describing a floor that is as slippery as a sheet of ice.  If that were the case, you don't think it would affect everyone else that is currently fighting on it?  There is a big difference is sliding a few inches or even a foot on a slippery surface, and sliding a dozen feet.  You really have no concept of physics or friction.

Nice try.  Yes I do know how it works.  That is why you don't need to be going 40mph for it to occur.
According to you the floor is completely covered in spilled beer. Why should it mater how far he need/wants to travel.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Exactly.  A non moving rope right there getting hit by a sword or axe?  why not.  Maybe if it was really thick it might take more than one hit, but why would you need a to-hit roll for this, when you don't when throwing a bowl of stew at someone who is presumably going to try to avoid it?

Rules says drawing and attacking is a -2 initiative.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015no, you're an idiot for completely missing the point (none of those scenarios resulted in paralysis by analysis).

Sure it does.  Once a person new to your group realizes that you shit on anything you don't want, they'll just do what the others do, I swing, I cast, I hide.  W00T immersion ftw.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Completely failing at things like basic physics or common sense doesn't help either.

A Table has one pivot point just like the wheelbarrow  That is how a level works a pivot point.   Hydroplaning occurs from several factors, tread, surface area and weight are key components to that.  That is why a human can hydroplane very easily compared to a car.
For you 'common sense' compels you to force players to roll to hit(because the rules actively say so) in a tavern brawl against commoners.:rolleyes:

Rather that point out point by point again about how you keep failing (like a brawl is a fight), let's just take one thing:

How big would a tavern table have to be in order to have three full grown men on top of it fighting?

Sommerjon and Sacrosanct:

If you had the same essentially complete set of details, and leisure to calculate, I do not think you would have any argument left except over how small a very small chance should be of unexpected outcome due to imponderables.

Handling such a volume of accounting is a better job for a computer program than for a person, but in the event you don't have that going!

This is part of the beauty of having a GM: said worthy can determine the otherwise indeterminate. There are more and less time consuming methods, offering more or less verisimilitude.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651209Middle of combat?  It's a tavern brawl.


It isn't combat?  It's a fucking tavern brawl.  What happens Mr. Immersion when the PC can't hit Slim Tim the skinny drunk farmer?  

 
For you 'common sense' compels you to force players to roll to hit(because the rules actively say so) in a tavern brawl against commoners.:rolleyes:

What in your opinion, makes a tavern brawl, NOT a combat? I'm curious.

Is it because there are only improvised weapons being used rather than swords?  I suppose an MMA match isn't combat either because the combatants are completely unarmed.

If it has anything at all to do with with notion of some combatants being commoners and thus 'not important in the fiction' then you are fucking storywanking and not gaming in the first place so just narrate the 'scene' as you see fit and be done with it.