Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;485889Hmm.
Well, 2e/3e did it with a penalty for non-proficiency because characters will normally be using weapons they're proficient with. Making proficiency a "plus" is adding one extra modifier to almost every attack roll.

This guy speaks truth.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;485771Once upon a time it WAS rules normal. These days without a 300+ page book that details how a character wipes his ass per the RAW it is considered rules lite.

How times change, I guess.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;485569Its a funny term, because when I think "rules light", I think Over the Edge, or Everway, or stuff like that, and not B/E D&D, which I would consider "rules normal".

RPGPundit

I don't think that rules-lite was actually a "thing" until the 2000's or so.

To my recollection, game designers in the 90's tried to make games as cumbersome and fiddly as they could because, ostensibly, this is what the gaming public wanted...I guess...maybe. I'm not really sure why these were popular, to tell the truth.

Some people wanted to get away from complicated rules sets, and that's when games started using rules-lite as a selling point. I think that a lot of these games were inspired by people's fond memories of OD&D/BECMI.

Compared to games like Shadowrun, HERO, Rolemaster, and even AD&D 2 through 4, B/E D&D could be considered pretty "lite".

I can find examples of "rules light" as a usage as early as the beginning of 1996: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.misc/msg/fbec58a73fdadd20?hl=en&dmode=source

QuoteIn fantasy gaming you can find a rules-light or rules-heavy a system as you
please. In SF gaming all the systems available are very rules intensive. Even
GURPS Space is very rules-y. (I like it a lot and use it for doing background
for Colonisation workshops we run at SF cons. But.) I think the reason for the
perceived need for mechanics heavy SF games is the technology - it needs to be
consistent - and the physics. I talked to a friend who said that he could not
be happy running a Chanur game without first working out exactly how the vanes
work on the ships. Traveller is *very* good for people like this - and in fact
he is a Traveller nut.

I wonder if there is a hole in the market for a wide-open rules light SF game.

There are probably earlier references, but Google search is becoming more and more crap these days, so I have to fight it to find what I'm looking for.

Other references from the same period tended to point to Everway, OtE, and Feng Shui as examples of what the person was talking about.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;486159Other references from the same period tended to point to Everway, OtE, and Feng Shui as examples of what the person was talking about.

And, notably, these early rules-light systems all featured simple, universal mechanics. They weren't achieving rules "lightness" by simply not including rules for things -- they were still trying to provide universal mechanical coverage for any action that might need to be resolved; they were just doing it in a different way than the "hyper-detailed mechanics for everything" systems of the '80s and early '90s.

Unlike OD&D, BECMI was fairly universal in its coverage. But it was also 300+ pages covering numerous sub-systems. (And that's not including Immortals.) I'd describe it as a middle-of-the-road system. Describing it as "rules light" is to rob the term of meaning, IMO.

Very nice differentiation over there, Justin.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;485889Hmm.
Well, 2e/3e did it with a penalty for non-proficiency because characters will normally be using weapons they're proficient with. Making proficiency a "plus" is adding one extra modifier to almost every attack roll.

Yes, and? You already have a modifier for every attack roll.  Several of them in fact.

Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 3e: no change in attack bonus.

Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 4e: change in attack bonus.

That's the main difference.

Quote from: Mistwell;486233Yes, and? You already have a modifier for every attack roll.  Several of them in fact.

It should be fairly obviously a bad idea to add extra steps, because  its easier and people forget all the modifiers involved less often.   If you can design a system that does something in 4 steps rather than 5 with no loss of function, do it in 4. If you can do it with 3 or 2 or 1 step, do it that way instead. Its not rocket science.

Anyway, while we were talking about prior editions/ in general, I have a suspicion you're in favour of additive proficiency bonuses just because its what 4E uses. If yes, I'd recommend trying to claim that the extra addition step in there for 4E does something useful that justifies the extra math, rather than defending pointless extra addition as being only neglibly worse.

Quote from: B.T.;486235Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 3e: no change in attack bonus.

Fighter switching from a longsword to a greatsword in 4e: change in attack bonus.

That's the main difference.

Nooooot....exactly.

Weapons in 4E each have an additive "proficiency" bonus, usually either +2 or +3.

The proficiency bonus for both the longsword and greatsword is +3, so switching from one to the other doesn't actually change the attack bonus unless you're specialized in one over the other...but this has been true in nearly all editions. Switching from a longsword, to a greataxe however, would change the modifier slightly.

You know what I meant.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;486157I don't think that rules-lite was actually a "thing" until the 2000's or so.

To my recollection, game designers in the 90's tried to make games as cumbersome and fiddly as they could because, ostensibly, this is what the gaming public wanted...I guess...maybe. I'm not really sure why these were popular, to tell the truth.

Some people wanted to get away from complicated rules sets, and that's when games started using rules-lite as a selling point. I think that a lot of these games were inspired by people's fond memories of OD&D/BECMI.

Compared to games like Shadowrun, HERO, Rolemaster, and even AD&D 2 through 4, B/E D&D could be considered pretty "lite".

I distinctly recall using the term "rules-lite" as early as the early 90s, and I was using it to refer to games like Amber or Over The Edge.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;486441I distinctly recall using the term "rules-lite" as early as the early 90s, and I was using it to refer to games like Amber or Over The Edge.

RPGPundit

I seem to remember hearing this around that time as well. I'm sure it was in use by regular gamers before it made its way into print or on the net. It is a pretty intuitive term. And even if the spectrum was different then, there was still a spectrum of heavy-light.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;486249It should be fairly obviously a bad idea to add extra steps, because  its easier and people forget all the modifiers involved less often.   If you can design a system that does something in 4 steps rather than 5 with no loss of function, do it in 4. If you can do it with 3 or 2 or 1 step, do it that way instead. Its not rocket science.

Anyway, while we were talking about prior editions/ in general, I have a suspicion you're in favour of additive proficiency bonuses just because its what 4E uses. If yes, I'd recommend trying to claim that the extra addition step in there for 4E does something useful that justifies the extra math, rather than defending pointless extra addition as being only neglibly worse.

Unless it is a variable change (which 4e does too often IMO), it's one step.  Adding 4 to your attack bonus is no harder or easier than adding 6, as long as the number is fixed every time.  I really don't see this as an onerous task.

Now, it gets much more difficult when the rule is "Add +2 when flanking", because that's a variable bonus that does require an extra step.  And 4e absolutely has more variable bonuses than 3e, and that can be annoying.

So no, my reaction is not in defense of 4e, as I think 4e lacks in areas related to this (variable bonuses).  I just don't think it's a good argument that a bonus that happens every single time you attack is a meaningful step.  You do it once, when calculating the total fixed bonus, and you don't need to touch it again.  In a game that involves this many variables, that's not a meaningful issue.

Quote from: Mistwell;486493I just don't think it's a good argument that a bonus that happens every single time you attack is a meaningful step.  You do it once, when calculating the total fixed bonus, and you don't need to touch it again.  In a game that involves this many variables, that's not a meaningful issue.

The system is still objectively worse - even if not by much.

Precalculating does save on screwups, but even then there will periodically be shifts that will probably cause recalculation to be required (switching to a ranged weapon/different key ability modifier)...and the more modifiers involved the more likely it is that one of them is going to be forgotten.

Note that you're coming at this from a player perspective, as well. For the GM, its a different set of NPCs or monsters every fight and so a new batch of calculations.