Is it wrong...?

[Arac-4105]

Is it wrong of me to begin to despair over the phrase "making the rules easier" used more and more in RPGs these days? Remember when thinking was actually done for fun? I don't think of myself as a grognard, but I do remember when we didn't think twice about calculating combat numbers in our heads on the fly. Champions, with its OCV, DCV, and ECV was cake compared to THAC0, but after a few sessions of practice, they all became fairly easy to deal with.

Now I'm seeing some folks talk despairingly about such old systems on other message boards and I'm asking myself, "Have we really gotten this lazy, this fast?" I won't speak for anyone else, but I know that I used to work at a mind-numbing job day after day and when it came time to game, I'd relish those little bits of mental gymnastics. I know crunchy game systems aren't everyone's cup of tea, but come on, people were calling D20 a complicated system!

So my point is this: is it wrong of me to think that systems are being dumbed down too much? I know that there's a growth away from the wargaming roots, but are we too far removed? Is there a balance to be struck, or am I just hideously out of touch? Is the ultimate version of a game one that can be played with a coin and one character stat? If so, TWERPS should enjoy a renaissance. :D

[Spence]

Is it wrong of me to begin to despair over the phrase "making the rules easier" used more and more in RPGs these days? Remember when thinking was actually done for fun? I don't think of myself as a grognard, but I do remember when we didn't think twice about calculating combat numbers in our heads on the fly. Champions, with its OCV, DCV, and ECV was cake compared to THAC0, but after a few sessions of practice, they all became fairly easy to deal with.

Now I'm seeing some folks talk despairingly about such old systems on other message boards and I'm asking myself, "Have we really gotten this lazy, this fast?" I won't speak for anyone else, but I know that I used to work at a mind-numbing job day after day and when it came time to game, I'd relish those little bits of mental gymnastics. I know crunchy game systems aren't everyone's cup of tea, but come on, people were calling D20 a complicated system!

So my point is this: is it wrong of me to think that systems are being dumbed down too much? I know that there's a growth away from the wargaming roots, but are we too far removed? Is there a balance to be struck, or am I just hideously out of touch? Is the ultimate version of a game one that can be played with a coin and one character stat? If so, TWERPS should enjoy a renaissance. :D

Personally I don't think you are too far off the mark at all. In general I don't think any of the RPG's in play are too hard rules wise or game mechanic wise. I think the problem is too many people have simply forgotten how to be creative. If everything isn't pre-made for instant use it is "too hard".

In the early years of role playing all the way into the early 90's I never was in a group where every single member wasn't able to run the game and take their turn as GM. Sure some GM'd more often that others and some were better than others at it. But everyone took their turn in the barrel and I think the overall GMing by everyone was better for it. These days it seems that the GM's are very very rare and 99% of RPGer's only want to play and never ever want to put th effort into running something.

It isn't that RPG's are hard, it is people are too lazy to create something. They simply want instant effortless gratification.

Just an opinion....but there you have it.

[Badger]

I agree. (Though I never could wrap my head around THACO :o)

[Toadmaster]

I've come to hate the term "state of the art gaming system" as this typically means some funky resolution system and trendy weird setting.

I'm sorry but I like rolling dice, and large thewed men and chainmail bikini'd women hacking tolkenesqe creatures to pieces. :D


I understand the whole streamlined rules thing, the 80s really brought us some wild games that resembled computer programing. I mean when you need an 8 1/2 x 11" fine printed flow chart to run combat that is a bit extreme. I don't understand the idea that HERO is too complicated, it is actually one of the easier games I've played.

[Mike W]

Is it wrong of me to begin to despair over the phrase "making the rules easier" used more and more in RPGs these days? Remember when thinking was actually done for fun? I don't think of myself as a grognard, but I do remember when we didn't think twice about calculating combat numbers in our heads on the fly. Champions, with its OCV, DCV, and ECV was cake compared to THAC0, but after a few sessions of practice, they all became fairly easy to deal with.

Now I'm seeing some folks talk despairingly about such old systems on other message boards and I'm asking myself, "Have we really gotten this lazy, this fast?" I won't speak for anyone else, but I know that I used to work at a mind-numbing job day after day and when it came time to game, I'd relish those little bits of mental gymnastics. I know crunchy game systems aren't everyone's cup of tea, but come on, people were calling D20 a complicated system!

So my point is this: is it wrong of me to think that systems are being dumbed down too much? I know that there's a growth away from the wargaming roots, but are we too far removed? Is there a balance to be struck, or am I just hideously out of touch? Is the ultimate version of a game one that can be played with a coin and one character stat? If so, TWERPS should enjoy a renaissance. :D

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I'm not bothered by systems that require some thinking and that can lend themselves to lots of modifiers. Like you, I enjoy the mental gymnastics and the challenge of them. And I also tend to get a bit more out of my characters in such systems because I am very good at doing the numbers in my head on the fly. Give me a VPP in Champs and with no notes I can still get a ton out of it because I can do the math in my head as fast as most people can with a calculator. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the elegance of something like White Wolf or the old West End Star Wars where there isn't much thought about what dice to roll or how many modifiers there are. You normally have a very good feel over whether you will accomplish something just by glancing at your character sheet and it is a bit harder to get "uber lucky" and pull one out of your butt. But it does help the game and therefore the story move faster a lot of times, so it can be good as well.

[Supreme Serpent]

"Making the rules easier" is not a dirty phrase to me. I use the rules to play a game, I don't play a game to use the rules.

Systems I'm familiar with I can run and play casually in. But I have people in my group, people who've played and run Champions for 20+years, who sometimes still have problems calculating accurate attack rolls or finding the adjusted cost of a limited power without the aid of a computer program ("-1/2 limit on a 50pt power makes it cost 25, right?"). That's an issue IMO with the player. Then there are systems that have lots of exceptions, modifiers and special cases that are often poorly referenced so you have to just KNOW (or ignore). IMO a system issue.

To me, "making the rules easier" is making them largely internally consistent and intuitive. You can still have crunch, but it shouldn't be significantly different crunch for different things without reason. If I go in blind to a new system and after a session or two my character tries something new and I don't know what dice to roll for it or if high vs. low is good, the rules ain't easy.

[FenrisUlf]

OT: Isn't it kind of odd that as geek stuff has gotten more respectable and mainstream (D&D, SF films, giant monsters, whatever), the kind of imagination required to create such things has gotten harder to find?

[nexus]

I've come to hate the term "state of the art gaming system" as this typically means some funky resolution system and trendy weird setting.

I'm sorry but I like rolling dice, and large thewed men and chainmail bikini'd women hacking tolkenesqe creatures to pieces. :D


Can I get an amen!

And yes, I largely agree with OP. Crunchy systems aren't for everyone but it seems like "crunch-heavy" gets slapped on any game where the mechanics can't be fit on a 3x5 note card with room left to doodle in the margins.

[Mike W]

OT: Isn't it kind of odd that as geek stuff has gotten more respectable and mainstream (D&D, SF films, giant monsters, whatever), the kind of imagination required to create such things has gotten harder to find?

I don't think it's gotten harder to find the imagination. I think it's gotten easier to ignore the imagination. Like so many things, when they go mainstream the "non-geeks" shall we say, took over and homogenized it for everyone's "benefit" so it all starts looking the same. The people making the decisions don't really understand what made the original stuff cool or interesting, so they go out of their way to make pale imitations that superficially LOOK like the originals but which lack the imagination, originality, or general characteristics of what made the originals really work.

For example, lots of people have tried to write Conan the Barbarian, but only a handful of been any good at it(Howard and Green are about it). How many people have tried to rip off Tolkien or Moorcock? And how many have shown any real understanding of the originals in their writing? Star Wars was awesome but even Lucas hasn't been able to completely recapture the magic of the originals. Partly, it was because the originals were so different and so new that nothing could measure up. Even if you did a GREAT homage, it would still seem to be derivative and not quite as good as the originals. But too often, the homage is mediocre because the writers don't understand why the originals were good stories in the first place.

[steamteck]

Well said Mike w!

[CrosshairCollie]

It depends.

There's too simple to be playable, too complicated to be playable, and a wide spectrum in between.

The original Marvel Superheroes game was likely in the first category. Quick and fast, but a lot of holes. Quicksilver's Unearthly Agility, for example, didn't really help him dodge. These games are usually for beginners.

There are lots of games that get too complicated to be playable, there was one military post-WW3 game ... I can't remember if it was Aftermath or Twilight 2000, but if you actually shot someone with a gun there was a truly ludicrous amount of computations and dice rolling involved to determine the total effect. There were two hit locations in a dog's tail. These games usually try to be 'gritty' or 'realistic'.

Just how simple or complicated a game can be, or needs to be, between these two extremes, is a matter for personal taste. Some people can handle HERO, some can't. A lot of it depends on just how much effort you're willing to put into it. I read game books as entertainment; a friend of mine owns game books he's scarcely cracked open. He's been playing Champions since 3rd Edition and, when he tried running, was unable to figure out Stun Multipliers (reading the combat entries in the Pulp Hero villains sourcebook, he read the d6-1 StunX as d6-1 Stun, period. I knew something was up when someone did 2 Body and 5 Stun with a pistol).

So, a hardcore gamer will be more than happy to sit down with a book and pore over it time and again; the casual gamer will want to jump right in without a lengthy warmup time.

So, really ... it's a very individualized thing.

[Rage]

Then you've got things like the PDQ system which is stupid simple, but a hell of a lot of fun to play in.

[nexus]

Speaking strictly for myself, I've never found Hero that difficult but I understand some system "click" better for some people and that's cool

What I never get is when Hero is called more "complicated" than things like d20 or that there is so much more Math involved. For the sake of discussion, I'll just say that yes, character creation can have more math, probably on the high end compared to some systems though I'm not entirely sure on that and even then only for Superheroic characters, IMO.

But for running the game? Not really, IMO and it's all addition and subtraction of integers. If people can tally their success, subject their opponents, roll damage, subtract and track their (Essence, Blood Pool, etc) for Storyteller I can't see Hero's mechanics being that much more complicated.

Aside from familiarity and preference.

[Rage]

Heroes biggest saving graces in the complexity tables are that it's almost totally unified (with the exception of the skill rolls compared to the rest of the rolls) and it uses metric numeracy. I was able to take to it like a duck to water, while other games like Exalted, leave me frustrated and bored.

[Matt the Bruins]

I do think the turn/segment sequence of Hero is a LOT more complicated than most Initiative systems, even if it is more realistic. But I like the versatility of the character creation setup.

[tkdguy]

It's not just the complexity of the game; it's also the feel of it. The nice thing about HERO is that the feel of the game has remained the same, despite many of the game mechanics being expanded or changed. That can't be said about D&D. Third Edition is a very different game from the previous editions, and it had certain elements I didn't like. That's why I visit Dragonsfoot instead of the WOTC boards.

[Supreme Serpent]

(Moved to General Roleplaying)

[copeab]

Is it wrong of me to begin to despair over the phrase "making the rules easier" used more and more in RPGs these days?

Yes ;)

As I've gotten older, I've looked for ways of simplifying the systems I've run, or even move to easier systems. I may have lived for lots of crunchiness 25 years ago, but today I want something easy to use in play and easy to prep for -- roll out of bed, run a session, roll back into bed.

[Hermit]

Is it wrong of me to begin to despair over the phrase "making the rules easier" used more and more in RPGs these days? Remember when thinking was actually done for fun? I don't think of myself as a grognard, but I do remember when we didn't think twice about calculating combat numbers in our heads on the fly. Champions, with its OCV, DCV, and ECV was cake compared to THAC0, but after a few sessions of practice, they all became fairly easy to deal with.

Now I'm seeing some folks talk despairingly about such old systems on other message boards and I'm asking myself, "Have we really gotten this lazy, this fast?" I won't speak for anyone else, but I know that I used to work at a mind-numbing job day after day and when it came time to game, I'd relish those little bits of mental gymnastics. I know crunchy game systems aren't everyone's cup of tea, but come on, people were calling D20 a complicated system!

So my point is this: is it wrong of me to think that systems are being dumbed down too much? I know that there's a growth away from the wargaming roots, but are we too far removed? Is there a balance to be struck, or am I just hideously out of touch? Is the ultimate version of a game one that can be played with a coin and one character stat? If so, TWERPS should enjoy a renaissance. :D

I think there's a happy medium somewhere between having it so brainlessly simple you might as well be playing rock paper scissors , and so complex you need advanced calculus to determine your character's hair color. Just where the ideal line between the extremes IS varies from person to person, but yeah, there have been times when I've been stunned by what some folks consider 'too hard'. Of course, I've also been overwhelmed by some mechanics that went for "complete and total accuracy and realism", so there you go :)

[Vondy]

I think there's a happy medium somewhere between having it so brainlessly simple you might as well be playing rock paper scissors , and so complex you need advanced calculus to determine your character's hair color. Just where the ideal line between the extremes IS varies from person to person, but yeah, there have been times when I've been stunned by what some folks consider 'too hard'. Of course, I've also been overwhelmed by some mechanics that went for "complete and total accuracy and realism", so there you go :)

You propose balancing the dialectic.

Interesting.

[Hermit]

You propose balancing the dialectic.

Interesting.

*checks dictionary, returns*

Thank you.

;)

[Curufea]

Nearly everything I was going to point out has already been said in this thread.

I'd just like to add that play style is often being ignored in these replies. It's a big factor in how you play a game - some genres actually require a rules-lite approach, especially games that are more freeform and storytelling in nature.
Would there actually be a need to convert Toon to Hero, for example?

[The Monster]

Speaking strictly for myself, I've never found Hero that difficult but I understand some system "click" better for some people and that's cool

What I never get is when Hero is called more "complicated" than things like d20 or that there is so much more Math involved. For the sake of discussion, I'll just say that yes, character creation can have more math, probably on the high end compared to some systems though I'm not entirely sure on that and even then only for Superheroic characters, IMO.

But for running the game? Not really, IMO and it's all addition and subtraction of integers. If people can tally their success, subject their opponents, roll damage, subtract and track their (Essence, Blood Pool, etc) for Storyteller I can't see Hero's mechanics being that much more complicated.

Aside from familiarity and preference.

I agree with you - Hero is, if anything, *less* complicated than d20 to me for this reason: in Hero, once you get the mechanics down, they work across pretty much everything; there are certainly some interactions of powers and such that get tricky, but basically, once you learn the system, you know the system. For d20, however, knowing the basic system is only the beginning: each spell has its own unique paragraph (or more!) of its own little set of special rules, as do many feats, class abilities, etc. To know what a character can do, you have to have the specific reference book which explains it.

Whenever someone talks about 'making rules simpler' I think back to the bright, well-educated, professional-career couple I knew a few years ago who complained to me about the game they had just bought which had so many rules they just couldn't get play the game. As a long-time gamer, I know how convoluted some rules books can get, so I asked what the game was, ready to offer my help...the game they were complaining about being so complicated was :nonp: Risk!
So it's hard to predict who is going to be frightened off by what.

Me, I really like good, solid, consistent, gritty rules. But I like to be able to adjust the rules to fit the situation, applying detail and grittiness as I feel the desire or need, without violating the system. Hero works at any level or any setting I've tried, even when the grittiness level varies from session to session with the same characters in the same campaign. I like the options to be there, ready for when I want them, but not necessary to play. My frustration with 'simpler' rules is that I don't feel like they offer mechanics that are flexible and gritty.

[McCoy]

As a rule of thumb, the answer to any question that begins with "is it wrong" is probably "yes."

This may be the exception.

[Spence]

In the early years of role playing all the way into the early 90's I never was in a group where every single member wasn't able to run the game and take their turn as GM. Sure some GM'd more often that others and some were better than others at it. But everyone took their turn in the barrel and I think the overall GMing by everyone was better for it.

As an addition to the thought above. I was at ConquestNW this weekend and got to play in as well as GM where all of the players were not only familiar with the system, but most actually GM their own games. Needless to say it was some of the best Hero gaming I have had in years :thumbup: Everyone at the table understood both sides of the game (player/GM).

[AdamLeisemann]

(Warning: The following is a work of Opposed Opinion)

For starters, no. You are not wrong. It is simply a matter of your personal taste.

Now, far be it from me to suck up to the Forge, but I will speak somewhat in defense of rules-light ideology (which, by the way, has little to do with rules-light practice.)

The idea of simplifying (not "dumbing down") the rules is to speed up the gameplay. Frankly, I do not like to memorize a whole bunch of calculations on the fly. It slows the game down for me. This is made even worse the more poeple there are in a group because most of us are not math majors. This is just a personal opinion of mine, but this is where I think the big idea of simplified gaming comes from.

In addition, I find rules-complexity stifling for me. I look at a complex syastem like AD&D, Palladium, Rolemaster, or GURPS, and they don't leave me with many options. HERO is the only exception I have found, and even then, I can only accomplish the desired level of flexibility with the help of my bean-counter brother. I try it on my own and I never get it as I want it to be. As for how simpler games can actually promote the ideas; this is a simple principle of "Less finagling to be done to get what you want." (This works best in the game Truth & Justice. Of course, it down-right sucks in Sorcerer.)

As far as such games being lazy, I will have to answer from a design perspecive. I always start off wanting to make something simple, and while I think the basics are easy to grasp, it is all too easy to wind up with a game that is mechanically cumbersome, just to try and fit in all sorts of things just to fit the impossible goal of pleasing everybody. So, at the very least, I can appreciate how hard it is to design something like TWERPS on the level of temptation alone. Is it lazy to play these kinds of games? I don't think so. The trade-off of a smaller rules set is that the GM has more work to do. Instead of looking up Modifier X or Y, s/he has to simple make one up most of the time, resulting in a need to actually do more improvising. It can seem a bit arbitrary as a result, but a good GM should be able to guage it in regards to the loose guidelines (Okay, it's pretty tough, so I'll give you a -2 penalty.) That certainly is not lazy. It's actually much harder than picking out from a huge list of modifiers. It's just that there's less weight when 99% of the modifiers are left out.

This ends my little counterargument. Plese, do not take offense, this is merely my opinion and taste.

EDIT: Now, for me, "Simplicity" is defined by the question of "How much referencing of the book do I have to do?" So as complex as character creation is in HERO, I will agree and consider the other rules to be relatively simple.

[Vondy]

As a rule of thumb, the answer to any question that begins with "is it wrong" is probably "yes."

This may be the exception.

My running joke is that when anyone starts to ask me a halachic question I cut them off and say "no." When they persist I cut them off again and say: "No." If they yet persist I hear them out and give them an answer. The reason I do this is that people who are asking a halachic question are often 1) looking for a loophole and have a pretty good idea of what the pious or at least right-thinking answer is already and are hoping you'll rubber stamp sub-standard conduct, or are 2) really don't know the answer and are giving you the facts they hope will get the answer they want to hear because they're afraid they won't like it. The amusing part of this is: they usually know way less than they think they do and shoot themselves in the foot... mwahahahahahaha!!! I don't like being treated like a rubber stamp for shifty religious values and bad character traits. On the other hand, I tend to bend over backward for people who are asking an honest question. Still, when I write my commentary on the halacha it will consist of one word printed page size with an exclamation point: "lo!" (No!). :D

[CourtFool]

My running joke is that when anyone starts to ask me a halachic question I cut them off and say "no."

I think you can generally tell by the subtle subtext of the question if they are looking for an unbiased opinion or just want to find an army of ‘yes’ men to strengthen their ranks.

[lapsedgamer]

I don't think it's gotten harder to find the imagination. I think it's gotten easier to ignore the imagination. Like so many things, when they go mainstream the "non-geeks" shall we say, took over and homogenized it for everyone's "benefit" so it all starts looking the same. The people making the decisions don't really understand what made the original stuff cool or interesting, so they go out of their way to make pale imitations that superficially LOOK like the originals but which lack the imagination, originality, or general characteristics of what made the originals really work.

For example, lots of people have tried to write Conan the Barbarian, but only a handful of been any good at it(Howard and Green are about it). How many people have tried to rip off Tolkien or Moorcock? And how many have shown any real understanding of the originals in their writing? Star Wars was awesome but even Lucas hasn't been able to completely recapture the magic of the originals. Partly, it was because the originals were so different and so new that nothing could measure up. Even if you did a GREAT homage, it would still seem to be derivative and not quite as good as the originals. But too often, the homage is mediocre because the writers don't understand why the originals were good stories in the first place.

You are so right. You end up with stuff like Eragon and The Scorpion King. Oh, and let's not forget those horrific Uwe Boll movies. Repped.


It depends.
There are lots of games that get too complicated to be playable, there was one military post-WW3 game ... I can't remember if it was Aftermath or Twilight 2000, but if you actually shot someone with a gun there was a truly ludicrous amount of computations and dice rolling involved to determine the total effect. There were two hit locations in a dog's tail. These games usually try to be 'gritty' or 'realistic'.


That was Aftermath. Almost every game put out by FGU (Fantasy Games Unlimited) fell into the overly complex category. I owned Space Opera when I was in high school. My friends and I wanted to play it, but we decided that we just weren't man enough after a three-hour character creation session.

EDIT: Oddly, this never bothers me when I play Hero.

The only exception I know of was their Daredevils game. That was a neat little pulp game. It might be worth finding a cheap copy to swipe stuff from for Pulp Hero games. I remember some pretty decent adventures being published for it.

[starblaze]

I don't think it's gotten harder to find the imagination. I think it's gotten easier to ignore the imagination. Like so many things, when they go mainstream the "non-geeks" shall we say, took over and homogenized it for everyone's "benefit" so it all starts looking the same. The people making the decisions don't really understand what made the original stuff cool or interesting, so they go out of their way to make pale imitations that superficially LOOK like the originals but which lack the imagination, originality, or general characteristics of what made the originals really work.

For example, lots of people have tried to write Conan the Barbarian, but only a handful of been any good at it(Howard and Green are about it). How many people have tried to rip off Tolkien or Moorcock? And how many have shown any real understanding of the originals in their writing? Star Wars was awesome but even Lucas hasn't been able to completely recapture the magic of the originals. Partly, it was because the originals were so different and so new that nothing could measure up. Even if you did a GREAT homage, it would still seem to be derivative and not quite as good as the originals. But too often, the homage is mediocre because the writers don't understand why the originals were good stories in the first place.


The idea has become the institution. Star Trek for instance used to be revoluntionary in its time and now it has become something that many people avoid alluding too in other science ficition. It has become something that people accept as a standard of sorts.

[Toadmaster]

You are so right. You end up with stuff like Eragon and The Scorpion King. Oh, and let's not forget those horrific Uwe Boll movies. Repped.



That was Aftermath. Almost every game put out by FGU (Fantasy Games Unlimited) fell into the overly complex category. I owned Space Opera when I was in high school. My friends and I wanted to play it, but we decided that we just weren't man enough after a three-hour character creation session.

EDIT: Oddly, this never bothers me when I play Hero.

The only exception I know of was their Daredevils game. That was a neat little pulp game. It might be worth finding a cheap copy to swipe stuff from for Pulp Hero games. I remember some pretty decent adventures being published for it.


That is odd, because Daredevils basically used the same rules as Aftermath. FGU games actually were not too bad (well except for Space Opera which I never was able to figure out either), but they were definately more complicated than they needed to be. Many of their games are great examples of rules just to have rules, they tended to have lots of charts you really didn't need to use, somebody there really liked flowcharts.

On the other extreme their game MERC was pretty simple while still being fairly well fleshed out. FASA's Behind Enemy Lines was another example of this, very detailed but easy to grasp because the rules were pretty basic.

[lapsedgamer]

That is odd, because Daredevils basically used the same rules as Aftermath. FGU games actually were not too bad (well except for Space Opera which I never was able to figure out either), but they were definately more complicated than they needed to be. Many of their games are great examples of rules just to have rules, they tended to have lots of charts you really didn't need to use, somebody there really liked flowcharts.

On the other extreme their game MERC was pretty simple while still being fairly well fleshed out. FASA's Behind Enemy Lines was another example of this, very detailed but easy to grasp because the rules were pretty basic.

Keep in mind that I haven't seen either game in decades, but I remember Aftermath as being much more complicated. It seemed that they cut out a lot of stuff for Dardevils even if the basic mechanics were similar. Wasn't there a insane multiple table bullet strike thing going on to resolve gunshots. I don't remember that from Daredevils. I also remember Bushido as being much more user friendly than Land of The Rising Sun, though they both covered the same material.

FGU also brought the world Chivalry and Sorcery. I can't begin to explain how maddening that game seeemed to be. I was browsing through the rule book and thought that I would rather do anything than to try and play the damn thing.

[input.jack]

Would there actually be a need to convert Toon to Hero, for example?

Done it ;P

[AdamLeisemann]

Done it ;P

Okay. I would like to see that conversion, please. :)

[Bismark]

Keep in mind that I haven't seen either game in decades, but I remember Aftermath as being much more complicated. It seemed that they cut out a lot of stuff for Dardevils even if the basic mechanics were similar. Wasn't there a insane multiple table bullet strike thing going on to resolve gunshots. I don't remember that from Daredevils. I also remember Bushido as being much more user friendly than Land of The Rising Sun, though they both covered the same material.

FGU also brought the world Chivalry and Sorcery. I can't begin to explain how maddening that game seeemed to be. I was browsing through the rule book and thought that I would rather do anything than to try and play the damn thing.

Oddly enough, I ran C&S 1st ed (something of a rite of passage in RPG-land. methinks) and had all the subsequent versions (I still have both 3rd and 4th).

I still reference Space Opera when I am in a sci-fi mood (it had the advantage of existing before media companies and publishers started taking Intellectual Property [too] seriously and gleefully ripped off as much fiction, TV and movie stuff as it could - including the real Starship Troopers:D)

Aftermath's flowcharts are legendary, as well as the way the various sub-mechanics (the various parts of combat anyway) did not match up properly.

Bushido and Daredevils, which were very similar in basic mechanics, were pretty easy to deal with.

[input.jack]

Okay. I would like to see that conversion, please. :)

Sadly, it was lost when the drive it was on fried back when I was living in Eureka.

The short form is "no-one takes Body" ;)

[st barbara]

The idea has become the institution. Star Trek for instance used to be revoluntionary in its time and now it has become something that many people avoid alluding too in other science ficition. It has become something that people accept as a standard of sorts.

Now I don't want to start another "Star Trek" debate but the show , in its original incarnation, was FAR from "revolutionary" !

[st barbara]

Oddly enough, I ran C&S 1st ed (something of a rite of passage in RPG-land. methinks) and had all the subsequent versions (I still have both 3rd and 4th).

I still reference Space Opera when I am in a sci-fi mood (it had the advantage of existing before media companies and publishers started taking Intellectual Property [too] seriously and gleefully ripped off as much fiction, TV and movie stuff as it could - including the real Starship Troopers:D)

Aftermath's flowcharts are legendary, as well as the way the various sub-mechanics (the various parts of combat anyway) did not match up properly.

Bushido and Daredevils, which were very similar in basic mechanics, were pretty easy to deal with. "Daredevils" was the first "Pulp" game that I ever tried to referee !:)

[TheRealVector]

Is it wrong of me to begin to despair over the phrase "making the rules easier" used more and more in RPGs these days? Remember when thinking was actually done for fun? I don't think of myself as a grognard, but I do remember when we didn't think twice about calculating combat numbers in our heads on the fly. Champions, with its OCV, DCV, and ECV was cake compared to THAC0, but after a few sessions of practice, they all became fairly easy to deal with.

Now I'm seeing some folks talk despairingly about such old systems on other message boards and I'm asking myself, "Have we really gotten this lazy, this fast?" I won't speak for anyone else, but I know that I used to work at a mind-numbing job day after day and when it came time to game, I'd relish those little bits of mental gymnastics. I know crunchy game systems aren't everyone's cup of tea, but come on, people were calling D20 a complicated system!

So my point is this: is it wrong of me to think that systems are being dumbed down too much? I know that there's a growth away from the wargaming roots, but are we too far removed? Is there a balance to be struck, or am I just hideously out of touch? Is the ultimate version of a game one that can be played with a coin and one character stat? If so, TWERPS should enjoy a renaissance. :D

Uh...I'm like mad at numbers and stuff. There's like...uh...too many of them.

[CourtFool]

Uh...I'm like mad at numbers and stuff. There's like...uh...too many of them.

More than you could possibly imagine.

[Tom]

That is odd, because Daredevils basically used the same rules as Aftermath. FGU games actually were not too bad (well except for Space Opera which I never was able to figure out either), but they were definately more complicated than they needed to be. Many of their games are great examples of rules just to have rules, they tended to have lots of charts you really didn't need to use, somebody there really liked flowcharts.

On the other extreme their game MERC was pretty simple while still being fairly well fleshed out. FASA's Behind Enemy Lines was another example of this, very detailed but easy to grasp because the rules were pretty basic.
Could it be because they had their rules so spread out (as in entirely different books which had to be purchased separately) you couldn't figure out how to use half of them? I think they had some of their math for interstellar travel wrong too, but it's been a long time since I tried to make sense of it...

Now I like HERO -- it's the only system I still run. It's straight forward 90% of the time, and I like having all the rules I really need in one book and being able to pretty well put everything my character can do on a single sheet...

On those rare times I play in a friends D'nD game (I think it's either 3.0 or 3.5), I need a couple of reference books nearby to remember what I can do...

The Turn/Segment SPD chart has never been an issue for me, but I started out as a war gamer and played SFB back when it came in a ziplock bag.

[cutsleeve]

I don't think that simplified game rules are necessarily bad myself. Whenever I encounter a question of whether a games system is bad I always have a go to question. "what where they trying to do with that rule, what where they trying to model, and how well did they model it.

An example would be one of the best game setting ever made. Tales from the Floating Vagabond. This little gem was a multi-idiom setting with a comedy feel. It was fairly rules light (the whole book was 99 pages long including the business cards.) and simulated its setting very well. It's even funny to read.

Then I give the example of the other end of the spectrum with The Palladium Fantasy Role-playing game which is over 336 pages long has several different magic systems, psionics, A very bland fantasy setting, and the stereotypical Siembieda character classes that wobble through power ranges more then a oscilloscope. It does a horrible job of simulating any kind of fantasy world you can image, even its own. I do however have to give it kudo's for being the most balanced game Siembieda has made so far.

People make the game more than systems its like comparing baseball, basketball,and football. They're all different systems of play and each does their own thing fairly well. Then theres Hockey which seems like Soccer made way to complex by ice skates, pucks, and sticks for hitting people with. However for each of these systems it's the players and the play you root for not the system. Except for those few people who just can't get into cricket with their over-sized bats and country club dress code.

[Tclynch]

Honestly, if I didn't already know the Hero system so well, I would be using something else. I prefer rules-lite games now (Tri-Stat, BRP, etc) as I have less time to teach/ learn than I used to ad want to start GAMING asap. My current group plays Fantasy Hero because half of us know it very well.

[Vondy]

Personally, RPGs make you smart. :D

I was at a meeting the other day and a question of converting pounds to kilograms game up for my daughter's weight. We needed a rough number so did it in my head. Everyone looked at me surprised and the psychiatrist at the meeting said: "wow, he's good."

I thought: What? Its just hero math.

Truth be told, without RPGs I'd be math illiterate. I had some very untalented, unkind excuses for math teachers growing up. I actually heard the phrase "are you stupid?" from more than one of them. Of course, math abilities aside, in retrospect they were none too bright. I would have given up on math entirely if it weren't for RPGs. But, through RPGs I learned algebra, some applied physics, basic set and probability theory, metric conversions, and even a handful of rocket science equations. It was that experience that led me to think "I can learn this on my own," and pick up math books on calculus and trig.

Its also RPGs I have to thank for a broad array of otherwise useless knowledge in terms of God knows how many obscure subjects, let alone history, geography, anthropology, and whatnot. I research settings and pick up all sorts of bizarre tidbits. Most of my research never gets air-time when the game is run, but I still benefit from doing it. At the very least they build breadth. Heck, there are aspects of Hero as a system than have helped me with the Talmud, believe it or not.

I'm telling you: role playing games make you smart. They are an education in of themselves if you let them be. They teach you to do math in your head and give you an application more interesting than a pee-brained track coach droning on about variables, and give you an opportunity to put your geeky interests to use as an educational tool.

I don't think the rules need to be dumbed down. I do, however, think they need to be written in precise, tight language. Part of the creative process of games used to be that you had to figure out situations the rules didn't spell out for yourself. No 500 page rule books; no 500 page FAQs. That part I can do without.

[mayapuppies]

I too, am of the school of RPG's. It sure wasn't my teachers or my parents that educated me on the basics. I can attribute all of my history knowledge to researching for RPG's as well.

Simplifying mechanics is not a bad thing in of itself, but invariably the reality is "they" dumb down the mechanics rather than simplify. I am constantly dealing with players at the FLGS that treat RPG's as offline point and click video games.

[Savinien]

Is it wrong... To want Von D Man to dumb down his posts so I dont' have to look up the words?

[Roter Baron]

Personally, RPGs make you smart. :D

I was at a meeting the other day and a question of converting pounds to kilograms game up for my daughter's weight. We needed a rough number so did it in my head. Everyone looked at me surprised and the psychiatrist at the meeting said: "wow, he's good."

I thought: What? Its just hero math.

Truth be told, without RPGs I'd be math illiterate. I had some very untalented, unkind excuses for math teachers growing up. I actually heard the phrase "are you stupid?" from more than one of them. Of course, math abilities aside, in retrospect they were none too bright. I would have given up on math entirely if it weren't for RPGs. But, through RPGs I learned algebra, some applied physics, basic set and probability theory, metric conversions, and even a handful of rocket science equations. It was that experience that led me to think "I can learn this on my own," and pick up math books on calculus and trig.

Its also RPGs I have to thank for a broad array of otherwise useless knowledge in terms of God knows how many obscure subjects, let alone history, geography, anthropology, and whatnot. I research settings and pick up all sorts of bizarre tidbits. Most of my research never gets air-time when the game is run, but I still benefit from doing it. At the very least they build breadth. Heck, there are aspects of Hero as a system than have helped me with the Talmud, believe it or not.

I'm telling you: role playing games make you smart. They are an education in of themselves if you let them be. They teach you to do math in your head and give you an application more interesting than a pee-brained track coach droning on about variables, and give you an opportunity to put your geeky interests to use as an educational tool.

I don't think the rules need to be dumbed down. I do, however, think they need to be written in precise, tight language. Part of the creative process of games used to be that you had to figure out situations the rules didn't spell out for yourself. No 500 page rule books; no 500 page FAQs. That part I can do without.

Wouldn't teach English and history if I had not started with role-playing games, so I can only subscribe to D-man's point of view.

Same for the games and their complexity: What we need to get more youngsters interested into the hobbies is easiesr (or more accessible) rules and gaming-boxes taht get you right into playing the game and actually taech you how to play and gm it - like the old D&D "red box".
Include a setting, an adventure and of ya go!

Speaking for myself my gaming interest has changed from realistic rules to rules that support the genre and a re easy to handle as a gm. Players usually do to have too much trouble to handle their character, but as a gm I don't want to be bothered with to many obscure detaisl and options.
D&D 3.5 and D20 is a helluva game - but a gms almaost-nightmare if yoz don't have a lot of time and energy to create characters. In that sense Hero is easier because you have a unified angle in creating characters.

[Vondy]

Is it wrong... To want Von D Man to dumb down his posts so I dont' have to look up the words?

Wait till I start writing in argot.

[Tim]

Wait till I start writing in argot.

Have you learned enough to start posting in Hebrew?

[Vondy]

Have you learned enough to start posting in Hebrew?

I read and write Hebrew. The issue is typing Hebrew. I type in English at 40 WPM or so. The Hebrew keyboard is a pain (for me). I plink.

[AdamLeisemann]

Sometimes, when I talk about the math in HERO, my mother says that the HERO System belongs in schools so kids can learn how to do math in general.

[Spence]

Sometimes, when I talk about the math in HERO, my mother says that the HERO System belongs in schools so kids can learn how to do math in general.

Apparently no one told your Mom that learning math and retaining that knowledge is against school policy.........:sneaky:

[mwiggins]

was cake compared to THAC0,
I found a shortcut to thaco that was easy. Kinda pointless now.
I would do two rows of numbers. for example a first leval fighter(no magic or strength)
20 19 18 17 16 15 14
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
When he hit second leval and got a +1 sword
20 19 18 17 16 15 14
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

do a set for every weapon. change the number alignment to allow for level, magic +, strength, ect.
I was slow at math, it was the only way I could keep up.

[AdamLeisemann]

Apparently no one told your Mom that learning math and retaining that knowledge is against school policy.........:sneaky:

Ah well. Policy Schmolicy. It has a good way of helping to encourage the teaching of math. :p

[FenrisUlf]

Sometimes, when I talk about the math in HERO, my mother says that the HERO System belongs in schools so kids can learn how to do math in general.

I'd have liked learning math that way. Hey, maybe we can pitch it to the Department of Education? At least one HERO Games Basic Rulebook for every classroom in America!

[AdamLeisemann]

I'd have liked learning math that way. Hey, maybe we can pitch it to the Department of Education? At least one HERO Games Basic Rulebook for every classroom in America!

Good idea on paper, until you crunch the monetary costs...

But it would be a fun idea.

[Maur]

Hmm... $50 for HERO 5th Ed vs about $50 for a math book.

[Old Man]

Yeah, but 5er is bigger. In college I noticed that every year the books got smaller, but more expensive. My freshman physics text is bigger than a phone book, hardcover, and cost me $25. My particle physics book fit in a coat pocket and cost $60.

And with Steve at the keyboard, you know your word-to-dollar ratio will be very, very high.

[Maur]

As you go up in subjects, you get fewer people needing that book, so they charge more to compensate (e.g. BIO100 would have 5 classes of 300, BIO3xx would have 1 or 2 classes of 30 each). The publishers also have figured out that letting colleges resell textbooks is cutting into their profits, so most publishers have moved to an accelerated edition release rate. That way schools can't get more copies of the older version, so more students are forced to pay the price of a new book.