No More Massive Tomes of Rules

[Reynard]

Celebrim actually did a pretty good example with climbing above. So let's do stealth.

Let's say your group of ER docs is trying to sneak into a warehouse because they know there's an injured fellow in there being held by criminals and he may die if they don't get to him (since presumably since its a medical drama RPG there's a lot of mechanics involving what happens if you don't get to people in time and various complications related to that, unless its entirely focused on the interpersonal elements).

Now, you've got three people trying to sneak across 50' of cluttered space to get to the back door of the warehouse, then get into the warehouse, all without being seen or making enough noise to attract attention.

Assuming you actually care enough to get dice involved in the first place (because if you don't, the question was moot right out the door), a bunch of questions your basic system isn't going to be set up for have to be asked. How many rolls are going to be needed? Do they each roll individually? What does a failure mean? Is there a recovery chance after failure, and does your system have any built in matter-of-degree that helps here? Is there any rolls involved on the other side?

There are a lot of ways the combination of answering those questions can go off the rails; its not an uncommon place for designs to produce really bad results, and that's in cases where someone hasn't had to make this kind of decision on the fly, with a core resolution method that isn't really designed by itself to handle it.

So, yeah, I think there's an awfully good change that the result will be pretty cruddy, and that's if someone is even trying to adapt the system to the matter at hand, let alone if they're just trying to do something quick and dirty with a single roll.

This is where understanding the core system and being a competent adjudicator come in. If this situation comes up, the first thing to do is figure out what you want out of the attempt and resolution, then leverage what you do have to achieve that for that moment in play. Your absolutely are NOT trying to design a stealth system on the fly. You are trying to resolve a particular scene. Approached that way, you cannot have a "cruddy" result because you have determined, as a first step, what the potential results are and you certainly aren't going to make one of them "cruddy."

 

[Reynard]

The thing I think about that example is that there isn't a situation in such a game's scope where any of those activities are something that'd be particularly challenging in any context you could end up in. It doesn't need mechanization because it just isn't important to any sort of story that'd emerge out of that context.

Surely players could go completely off the games expectations, but as the narrativist folk like to say, are you actually playing the game at that point or was it just an excuse to do the freeform improv you actually wanted to do?

You're there to basically be Grey's Anatomy or Scrubs. Why are you swimming, climbing, or sneaking around? Why is it difficult and what gameplay loop is it actually a part of?

You don't need stealth rules to overhear gossip, and thats the only thing of the three where I could even conceive of a possible reason to need rules.

I trust that players can come up with all sorts of goofy crap I did not see coming.

 

[TiQuinn]

I mean, it's not an unreasonable approach. As I said, I don't think this is a problem with one right answer because everything is a tradeoff. What I do think is important is having more than one tool in your tool bag to fit the approach to the importance of the problem.

One of the tradeoffs you get with your approach is that it is reasonable and even likely that a person would fail at climbing a wall somewhere other than the bottom. It's convenient to protect a PC from the consequences of their failure, but depending on the goals of play that might not be the best resolution. There might really be fun in finding yourself in a situation where you need to make this die roll or die, even if there might not be as much fun or reasonableness in doing that 50 times in a row.

Completely agree. For me, it’s a question of do you see the PCs as heroic characters or characters potentially in over their heads, like in a Call of Cthulhu game. A heroic character, or at least a competent one, is going to succeed unless something acts on them or causes them to fail. I’m okay with controlling the level of danger at that point. I can make it a failure a third of the way up if I want them to take damage potentially but not die (depending on height), or this could be something highly risky in a very deadly situation, so any fall is likely death. Even then, I think the reward needs to match the risk. If they’re risking death on a climb, it’s gotta have a decent payoff for the players if their PCs succeed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure. They function well as limited toys that do one thing and are great for one offs and short campaigns. Eventually they are constraining and people drop them. Or maybe they just have very limited aesthetics of play and exercising their thespianism in a narrative game with a lot of low melodrama is enough to entertain them for hundreds of hours at a time. In which case, sure, you don't really need rules.

Or else they just disappear, quite unlike the games that did provide 1000 pages of crunch.

But all of this is wrong per my experience, and likely the experience of many others as well.

I've played plenty of long campaigns that were very fun and satisfying with rules systems that you would label as incomplete for not being hundreds of pages. These games are not "limited toys" or limited to "one-offs and short campaigns" nor do they disappear.

As far as games that actually have provided 1,000 pages of crunch... are there really any? I suppose GURPS and maybe a couple of others may qualify... but then we'd have to go through them and see how much is actual crunch for each edition and see if it totals 1,000.

Most games are under that threshold, for sure.

I think I've done a very good job of establishing why you should as a publisher be aiming to provide more pages with real value. Bloat is obviously a problem, and I'm fully on board with the unnecessary rules bloat of 3.5e, 4e, or 5e.

Of course you think you have. What I am saying, and others, is that we disagree. For instance, you mentioned different types of guns. The idea that having specific stats for similar weapons is somehow necessary is just false. Sure, you may like to know the difference between an M-16 and an AK-47... but for most games, that's simply not necessary.

That it may benefit publishers to try and continue to sell additional content to people, regardless of how useful that content may actually be for play, is another matter.

That's just bias. The OP offered up his position just as concretely: "Therer is no reason that 5E (or any other edition for that matter) can't be presented in a concise, complete, robust form like Dragonbane." It's that declaration that I'm trying to show is wrong. That you happen to agree with the OP's claim is why it doesn't bother you how it is presented as objective fact, while that you disagree with me is while my equally strongly stated claimed does.

No, it's not bias. It's due to the fact that I think @Reynard 's statement was more clearly opinion, and he's also gone on to point out that it is.

You don't seem to be able to do that.

 

[Emberashh]

I trust that players can come up with all sorts of goofy crap I did not see coming.

Sure, which is why its still a good tool to keep a generic way to resolve things.

But a games scope matters. Climbing, swimming, and sneaking around matter much more in a game that expects a lot of physical movement and action as part of its genre or theme.

A medical drama just doesn't qualify for that.

This, incidentally, is why I never took to the LOTR systems out there, as the ones that aren't steeped in 5e or ancient games nobody plays anymore only focus on emulating the literal story and not the full scope of the gameworld.

And even then. More than a little strange that despite Warfare being one of the biggest and most exciting and indepth parts of both the books and movies, I basically have to go to the super crunchy, non-RPG War of the Ring to get a real, gamified taste of that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is where understanding the core system and being a competent adjudicator come in. If this situation comes up, the first thing to do is figure out what you want out of the attempt and resolution, then leverage what you do have to achieve that for that moment in play. Your absolutely are NOT trying to design a stealth system on the fly. You are trying to resolve a particular scene. Approached that way, you cannot have a "cruddy" result because you have determined, as a first step, what the potential results are and you certainly aren't going to make one of them "cruddy."

Naw, you still can, because you can fail to see what the probable result of your attempt to get to that output will do. As you say, that's less likely the better you understand the core system, but applying it to situations that have no parallel within the game as-is is still fraught. That's why I use stealth as an example; its very unlike a lot of other resolutions you'll see outside of extended one that usually have much more attention paid to them.

 

[Celebrim]

But that's where you lose me. I don't think its bad design. Its just design that hasn't bothered to serve needs it doesn't expect its users to have.

Most mundane RuneQuest animals are a set of stats and skills and nothing more. Sometimes they may have a special attack form outside that. But that's about where it ends, and I rarely saw anyone bothered by that. That wasn't just something they could live with; it was something where anything beyond it would have been pointless.

So animals frequently fall into that category of low challenge opponents that you really aren't meant to fight beyond the "rats in the basement" stage of learning the game, but there is plenty of opportunity to distinguish animals from each other by size, speed, mode of attack, mode of movement, sensory capability and special attack forms. Some animals attack in coordinated packs; some animals are venomous; some animals are stealthy; some can track by scent; others have low light vision; some animals are resistant to damage because of armor or padding; some animals can fly and others are aquatic. Some animals grapple and others maul. If you've seen animals made interesting, it just sort of is unsatisfying when they aren't. And this goes double for things that are often as not, not the background color of a setting.

Even if you don't adopt the particular examples, Bestiary: Predators by BetaBunny is a great example of, "There is no need for mundane animals to be boring." Just because a game survives with boring animals doesn't mean that the game is better for it.

Frankly, it kind of strikes me as a little D&D-centric as phrased, far as that goes.

D&D is something most people are familiar with and in this case - as with the hit point and the class - I think this is an underrated element of D&D design where D&D does it really well. It's not just that cRPGs and TTRPGs are copying D&D because D&D did it first, but that the design of giving a monster a gimmick is just such good design but it engages the player on so many levels. It's good narrative, because one of the things you try to give to characters in a story is some easy to remember trait or feature. It's good challenge, because tactics are defined by space and weapons and a gimmick is a weapon that alters how you approach the combat. It's good sensation, because you're giving the player something visceral to imagine. It's good fantasy because it makes overcoming the monster so much more rewarding. I've been playing the heck out of Slay the Spire lately, and just imagine how that game would be if the monsters didn't have such strong gimmicks. It's just strong design and it doesn't have a ton of cost relative to the reward aside from requiring good design.

If you're like dropping that and saying, "Eh, not important to me.", then you are losing out I think. Imagine you'd spent 30 years playing a game with monsters without gimmicks and then coming to one where they had it. I think your mind would just be blown. It's not like game designers whether in cRPGs or TTRPGs have been going, "Well, we've learned that's pointless. Everyone gravitates the games where the monsters are generic."

 

[Celebrim]

As far as games that actually have provided 1,000 pages of crunch... are there really any?

Sure 1e AD&D has over 1000 pages in its rule books alone. Just the core rules have as I pointed out have about 500 pages, but as I pointed (and in this case most people seem to agree with me) 1e AD&D isn't a complete game system and it's always supplemented by a lot of house rules. WEG D6 goes over 1000 pages I'm pretty darn sure based on the scale of the fan compilation content, and that's not even getting into the fluff as it were of documenting what makes the game a Star Wars game. Traveller I'm pretty sure goes over 1000 pages. The "Storyteller" games setting/system that started with VtM collectively go over 1000 pages. I previously outlined how 7e CoC, in my opinion the best edition of the game and the first edition in a long time that demanded my money from me to upgrade my books, goes up to 1000 pages and probably could go over that usefully.

Pendragon comes pretty close I'd think despite it's extremely narrow focus of just one setting with just one sort of gameplay. I know I own 5e rule books totalling around 500 pages and I don't have the full system. And frankly, Pendragon is a game that I really think could do well by branching out a bit. I would love a Tortall based setting guide for example, with the necessary crunch to support that. I would shell out $79.95 for that, because as much as I love Arthurian myth and legend, it's a fandom that's really gone by the wayside since the 1950s as more modern fantasy epics are told and I could a lot more easily get players for a more modern setting that was easier for a modern person to relate to. There is a reason a lot more people don't play Pendragon despite how solid the system is.

I suppose GURPS and maybe a couple of others may qualify...

GURPS is an example of the opposite problem. A lack of coherent design and planning from the start led to a bunch of unnecessary rules bloat. I wouldn't be surprised if GURPS hit like 10000 pages of rule books. It's just a mess. D&D 3.5 is the same sort of problem with poor planning and brand management leading to unnecessary bloat. Pathfinder 1e despite a bit better planning and a good attempt to produce a complete fantasy game system, still is let down by the inconsistent quality of what they put out, but it's definitely over 1000 pages and if anything is too verbose.

Even with that problem though, those were extremely popular game systems.

Most games are under that threshold, for sure.

Most game systems, sure. Most games that are actually played are not using those systems though. If you make any attempt to enumerate what games are actually being played, I'd expect the number of 3.5e D&D and Pathfinder 1e sessions that have been played exceed the total number of game sessions in all those other systems that are under that threshold. I mean, I can't even get those games offered at conventions to try them out, compared to all the offerings in big crunchy rules heavy systems that people seem to prefer and which sell well.

The idea that having specific stats for similar weapons is somehow necessary is just false.

I don't disagree.

Sure, you may like to know the difference between an M-16 and an AK-47... but for most games, that's simply not necessary.

I don't disagree either. For one thing, the M-16 and AK-47 are both medium caliber assault rifles, so you could easily classify them together. For another, there isn't a need to necessarily differentiate different weapons in gun play unless gun play is expected to be or likely to be a big part of your system. But if there is a high likelihood that gun play is expected to be a big part of your system, then there is also going to be a high likelihood of players who understand the difference between a shotgun and a battle rifle and have experience with both and so you probably need to provide for that.

No, it's not bias. It's due to the fact that I think @Reynard 's statement was more clearly opinion, and he's also gone on to point out that it is.

I may have missed the point where Reynard said that there are good solid reasons for D&D to have 1000 pages of rules. Could you point it out to me?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure 1e AD&D has over 1000 pages in its rule books alone. Just the core rules have as I pointed out have about 500 pages, but as I pointed (and in this case most people seem to agree with me) 1e AD&D isn't a complete game system and it's always supplemented by a lot of house rules. WEG D6 goes over 1000 pages I'm pretty darn sure based on the scale of the fan compilation content, and that's not even getting into the fluff as it were of documenting what makes the game a Star Wars game. Traveller I'm pretty sure goes over 1000 pages. The "Storyteller" games setting/system that started with VtM collectively go over 1000 pages. I previously outlined how 7e CoC, in my opinion the best edition of the game and the first edition in a long time that demanded my money from me to upgrade my books, goes up to 1000 pages and probably could go over that usefully.

Pendragon comes pretty close I'd think despite it's extremely narrow focus of just one setting with just one sort of gameplay. I know I own 5e rule books totalling around 500 pages and I don't have the full system. And frankly, Pendragon is a game that I really think could do well by branching out a bit. I would love a Tortall based setting guide for example, with the necessary crunch to support that. I would shell out $79.95 for that, because as much as I love Arthurian myth and legend, it's a fandom that's really gone by the wayside since the 1950s as more modern fantasy epics are told and I could a lot more easily get players for a more modern setting that was easier for a modern person to relate to. There is a reason a lot more people don't play Pendragon despite how solid the system is.
GURPS is an example of the opposite problem. A lack of coherent design and planning from the start led to a bunch of unnecessary rules bloat. I wouldn't be surprised if GURPS hit like 10000 pages of rule books. It's just a mess. D&D 3.5 is the same sort of problem with poor planning and brand management leading to unnecessary bloat. Pathfinder 1e despite a bit better planning and a good attempt to produce a complete fantasy game system, still is let down by the inconsistent quality of what they put out, but it's definitely over 1000 pages and if anything is too verbose.

So you back up your claim that games need 1000 pages by pointing out that the ones you know of that have 1000 pages or more are still incomplete?

It would seem that perhaps the volume of rules isn't the metric to measure a game as being complete in the way you're trying to.

Also, I think the math may be off on some of your calculations. I'm not sure what you're constituting as rules or crunch, but lumping all the Storyteller games together, for instance, seems a bit misleading since each is its own game.

Most game systems, sure. Most games that are actually played are not using those systems though. If you make any attempt to enumerate what games are actually being played, I'd expect the number of 3.5e D&D and Pathfinder 1e sessions that have been played exceed the total number of game sessions in all those other systems that are under that threshold. I mean, I can't even get those games offered at conventions to try them out, compared to all the offerings in big crunchy rules heavy systems that people seem to prefer and which sell well.

Who cares about most? A game need not be popular to be complete.

There are plenty of games that are popular enough to be successful. That they're not the industry leader doesn't mean they don't do well, or aren't complete. These are some crazily wandering goalposts you've got here.

I don't disagree either. For one thing, the M-16 and AK-47 are both medium caliber assault rifles, so you could easily classify them together. For another, there isn't a need to necessarily differentiate different weapons in gun play unless gun play is expected to be or likely to be a big part of your system. But if there is a high likelihood that gun play is expected to be a big part of your system, then there is also going to be a high likelihood of players who understand the difference between a shotgun and a battle rifle and have experience with both and so you probably need to provide for that.

I've played in plenty of games where gun play is common, and yet simple categories of guns is sufficient... pistol, SMG, shotgun, assault rifle, etc.

Could we differentiate between specific models within those categories? Sure. And for some games, maybe that would work fine.

But your claim that we need to do so is just not true.

I may have missed the point where Reynard said that there are good solid reasons for D&D to have 1000 pages of rules. Could you point it out to me?

I didn't say he did that.

 

[Faolyn]

Now, let me come at this from a different direction. Actual event in my most recent fantasy game:

There is a coach being drawn by six horses along a steep winding mountain path with a sharp turn every few hundred yards. Inside the coach are two nobles and their marriage eligible noble daughter. The horses are panicked. Outside the coach are two footman, a coachman, and a liveried man-at-arms in padded armor with a heavy crossbow and a club, as well as three wights that have jumped onto the coach and are determined to murder everyone. The wights are fighting the servants, smashing the windows, and trying to pull the doors off their hinges to get inside. The PCs are on horseback chasing the coach and two of them want to cast spells while the horse is galloping. When they catch up to the coach, one of the PCs will attempt to stand up on his galloping horse and jump onto the carriage, while another one will attempt to jump on to the tongue of the carriage in order to disconnect it from the horses.

Will the rules of Dragonbane provide enough context, clarity and mechanical support that a novice GM with no prior gaming experience and no knowledge of 18th century carriages will be able to run this scene with confidence?

Think of all the things that might come up or all the questions that the GM might have when they do.

I've been playing RPGs for 30~ years and GMing various systems for a large portion of that time. I wouldn't be confident about running that using exact rules in any system. Even in GURPS.

For Dragonbane--or really any game--I'd do the PCs by the rules as much as I can and ad lib checks for jumping onto carriages, try to remember interesting chases rules, and make up what's going on in the background and with the NPCs.