Simpler
Simplicity in rpgs is a tricky subject. Most people assume that simpler is always better. A simple game is easier to learn and to teach, and it usually moves along faster and requires less of the players. A few people reject the notion entirely and crave complexity, both for the perceived realism it brings and for the complexity itself, because complexity is usually robust and meaty.
I suppose I fall somewhere in the middle. I favor something that is robust and has enough to it that it’s a believable simulation of something, but I want a game that moves along at a good pace and doesn’t get in the way of the story.
Before I go any further, let me define some terms. When I say “robust and meaty,” I mean a game with enough going on that I can have a lot of encounters and they can all (potentially) feel and play out very differently. It means a fair number of character options that can be mixed up and arranged in different viable ways, lots of different kinds of challenges and opponents, and some factors to encourage long-term play without things getting repetitious. When I say “simulation” I just mean that the rpg is trying to portray something–it doesn’t have to be reality. A well-made Scooby Doo rpg wouldn’t have any resemblance to reality, for example, it would be simulating Scooby Doo cartoons.
Now, I’ve played a lot of 3rd Edition D&D, as you can well imagine, as well as its progeny: various d20 games, Pathfinder, and so on. At its best it is certainly robust, but few would call it simple. It can be, in fact, a headache for GMs at times, and extremely challenging to new players to attempt to learn. While it’s a system for which I’m well known, I think that if I was going to design something brand new, I would try to make it simpler, and in some ways much simpler.
Why? Well, because D&D is its own animal, so to speak. D&D needs to be D&D. It needs to play like D&D, feel like D&D, and offer various options like D&D. But that doesn’t mean other games need to do the same. If I was going to design a new game–and I am–it could offer less precision in its simulation in order to achieve faster play, for example. Is it vitally important to have a game that tracks every pound of equipment a character is carrying and offer a fairly believable subsystem for determining how much different characters can carry? No. Not always. Is it likewise important for a game to offer a way to track how good a cook someone is and compare it somehow to how good a climber someone else is, and make sure that these ratings are tracked for every single being in the game, PC or NPC? No. Is a complete list of every weapon that’s ever existed, with each weapon carefully distinguished from every other weapon needed? No. And so on.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that these things are bad. There’s no judgement being made here at all. Instead, the point is simply that there are different ways to make a game, and they’re all valid. And the different ways lead designers down different paths, which are likewise all valid. And often interesting.
For example, I want to design a game where a GM can create NPCs and other challenges on the fly–fully statted people, creatures, traps, objects, barriers, etc.–all on the fly. Not just quickly, but right there while they sit at the table. In their heads. Now that, all by itself, is a hugely different game than 3rd edition or Pathfinder.
To accomplish this, I’ve got to make things simpler, obviously. But I don’t want to take so much away that the game doesn’t feel robust to the players. The obvious solution is the one that many games take: NPCs don’t follow the same rules as PCs. PCs have their own creation system and ways of operating, and NPCs–whether people, animals, or tentacled beasties–have theirs. The only thing that is important is how the two interact. As long as that is interesting and has depth, with opportunities for variation, change, and encounters that feel and play out differently, what NPC stats actually look like don’t matter. I’ve come up with some ways to make challenges that PCs face–whether it’s a locked iron door, a ravenous tiger, or a deadly assassin–extremely easy to concoct. So easy that GMs can do it with no advance prep at all (although a couple of minutes here and there would make them even better). Without having to spend hours creating NPC stats, the GM can focus all of his prep time on the story, the setting, and the descriptions.
Which means that this new rules set can and should be tied to a setting and genre filled with great stories, imaginative inhabitants and locales, and jaw-dropping vistas. And that’s great, because that’s exactly the kind of thing I want to provide.
And that’s just one way in which–and one reason why–I would opt to create a game with various aspects being much simpler than many games. I want to make things easy on the GM. I want fast-moving encounters. I want quick initial character creation. But I don’t want to give up on characters with a lot of interesting options, and robust, long-term game play. It’s a balancing act, as most aspects of game design are. In the coming weeks, I look forward to providing more specific details on all of this, and on the game that I’m working on. I hope you’ll follow along.
-
Alas, NPCs that DON’T follow the same rules as the PCs often run afoul of consistency problems.
Imagine an NPC human that is the “Boxing Champion of Adventure Village”.
This NPC is human. He’s using skills (combat and otherwise) that are comfortably within the range of things PCs are and should be able to do. Players NOTICE when he goes and does somthing that they can’t. Likewise, they NOTICE when (because I’m not always perfectly sharp about such things), he he displays inconsistent levels of power between abilities that should be related (for instance, HP and Attack Bonus.
If this guy has WAY too many Hit Points for any possible class combination that only manages +3 to hit… They clue in.
Or worse, they notice that somehow this guy manages to have about 6 more feats than should be possible, in order to do what he’s doing.
They notice these things because they want to be able to do them too… or want to make sure whatever curse is afflicting this guy won’t land on them. They notice these things because they are trying to apply the rules (as they understand them) to solving the problem I’ve put in front of them, and I’ve handed them either undefined or grossly inconsistent markers for what is going on. And that damages their sense of fair play and their suspension of disbelief.
Now, I agree that simplification of the game system can help with this. But it can’t completely cure it. Back in 1st edition I was driven to despair by a player who made a compelling case for wanting to play a Fairy PC… but the mechanics for using this race as a PC just weren’t there. There was no way to be a Fairy, like the other Fairies, AND be a PC.
It was massively inconsistent.
I favor some simplification. I could do without the Feat system, for instance, even though I like it, because I understand the complexity and flexibility costs it imposes on play.
But I do not support what 4e did and return to Monsters and other opponents that are just placeholders for globs of stats the DM glued together with no consistent framwork in common with the PCs. Truly, I think the best way to represent the vast range of threat and capability within a large Goblin tribe is the same way as with PCs: Give them a varied set of classes and levels of power. DON’T make me invent new types of goblins over and over again. If they use the same rules as PCs, I already have a really good idea how to build them up from the basic 0-level commoner/warrior goblin into a 10th level Barbarian Cheiftan Goblin. The prebuilt NPC tables in the 3.5 DMG were very helpful with this sort of thing.
The same is generally true of any intelligent monster. And it is helpful as a consistency tool even for other monsters.With minimal practice I was able to pull pretty consistent on-the-fly NPCs out of thin air. All I needed was good source tools like the pre-built NPC templates in the DMG. And the rules for making other monsters bigger, through consistent mechanics were easy to apply as well.
Some simplification would have been nice. You did need to have an expert player’s level of game mastery to do it. But it really wasn’t all that bad if you knew how to use the books.
I want universal mechanics. I think that’s a GOOD thing. And frankly, as a solution to consistency problems, may actually be the simplest thing for players and DM’s alike.
-
I personally like simpler games these day, though I can still enjoy complex and meaty ones as well. I think you raise a number of interesting points. At one point you describe what I like to call rules light with deep character creation. For me this is the ideal approach, where there are enough options to make the characters interesting but the core combat and noncombat rules are simple/intuitive enough that once play starts the game (the mechanics) fades into the background a bit.
As a gm, one of the things I have learned about myself, and I don’t know if this adds anything to what you are saying here or not, is I like a simple engine for resolving actions in game, but i do want lots of optional procedures for establishing a living setting. For instance, I want fast and easy combat, but having a number of optional procedures for random encounters or managing world events gives me (as the gm) a sense of genuine surprise. I supose some might regard procedures as mechanics and therefore not rules light…which I think does make some sense. But lately I have been developing procedures for everything from divine intervention to world events. On the player side, things stay very light because they don’t have to worry aobut these.
-
I suggest you look into Castles & Crusades.
For npcs on the fly bonuses are determined by HD/ level and DC or CC challenge class in C&C is determined by the formula CC = CB + CL.
CL is challenge level and is situational. Something easy is CL 5 and challenging is CL 15.
CB is challenge base and is either 18 of an abiloty is not prime or 12 if it is prime.
You can pick which abilities are prime (PCs have 3 if human and 2 if demi-human. Monsters usually pick either P )physical abilities) or M (mental abilities) and in some cases sometimes both.To determine success roll d20 + level/HD + ability modifier => CC.
Easy to learn and apply on the fly.
If you want a set of robust options to use for players look at what’s available in the Castle Keepers Guide. Or do what many C&C players do and design your own options. This game was designed with customization in mind.
-
I’ve played many games over the years and for most NPCs, I can come up with stats on the fly, but its just the basics, general stats, skills, equipment, etc. They’ll know a few skills pertaining to their area of expertise, have some sort of motivation/ambition and a quirk or two to round them out. Twilight 2000 had a pretty quick and dirty way of generating NPCs pretty quickly. I also enjoyed WEG’s Star Wars, characters and NPCs were a breeze to generate. D20 and D&D 3.5 games usually require a little more prep, especially for a major NPC, the NPC section of the DMG came in quite handy. So I really like systems that are easy to use, and those that are not “easy”, then a whole bunch of pre-gens that I can slap a simple template on are the next best thing. I think every player’s book should have at least one full and detailed example of character generation and a char-gen flow chart, so I don’t have to hunt through the book looking for charts (it took me a while to get used to Decipher’s Star Trek RPG, for example).
Sometimes I’m not a big fan of hit points. I liked the system from WEG Star Wars, taking damage made it more difficult for your character to do things, as opposed to D&D’s “I just took two arrows, but I’m still able to fight at my full ability” mentality.
I also like Savage Worlds, I’ve played several one-shot games with it, it’s easy to teach and learn and I can play just about any genre with it. -
I would like to begin by saying that I have played several RPG systems, beginning with AD&D back in 1984. I have played every incarnation of D&D up to and including D&D next. Of those systems, I believe that the original AD&D is still my favorite. The rules were simple and there was no escalating power creep through the printing of more and more splat books. On the whole, though, I love the 4th ed system for Shadowrun. The skill ranks adding to your dice pool is far more customizable than anything I have seen in a D&D system. I wish that there was a fantasy system using similar mechanics, as that is my favorite genre. But, to quote my favorite podcast (Happy Jack’s RPG Podcast), “If you’re having fun, you’re doing it right.”
-
AD&D Unearthed Arcana had quite a bit of power creep, and plenty of splat was published in the pages of The Dragon.
-
-
Very nicely put, Monte. I can’t wait to see what you’re working on and the decision process behind it.
-
I am greatly enjoying Barbarians of Lemuria. I love the careers-as-backstories-as-skills. It does the same thing that Mongoose Traveller does with careers, but in a fraction of the time. (Granted, you loose something for the joy of the simplicity.) I look forward to playing BoL with my kids, and letting them do most of the work (as opposed to Pathfinder or Savage Worlds or Harvesters in which I do most of the heavy lifting for rules.) I don’t know how robust it will be in the long run, but for a quick fix, on the fly, fun game I like it a lot. (If I had a regular group of adults to play with, I’d choose Savage Worlds, because characters in Savage Worlds can do the kinds of things I think characters should be able to do.)
-
I reject the notion that 3e / Pathfinder is a headache for the GM. I have found ways of simplifying the work on my end to keep the game simple and moving quickly. Computer software is what I am talking about. I have been using Hero Lab for a few years now, and I have found that it is the easiest way to walk someone through character creation. It prints out a clean character sheet devoid of complexities and gives me enough details that my players have no trouble learning the game or playing at a brisk pace. For me, this software has sped up my game development time. I can do in one hour what used to take 4+ hours by hand. If I want to alter a monster to make it “level-appropriate” I can just import it into an adventuring portfolio, stat it out and print off the stat block, which comes out similar to the format used in the Bestiaries. With this out of the way I have more time to focus on storyline work and dungeon building without having to worry about monsters. I can easily do this with templates as well which makes all the time it took me to make mathematical changes go out the window. Point, Click, done. I try to integrate published material into my games as well. My group uses the Pathfinder rules, but we run Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms with the new rules. The game flows a lot better this way. The software I use also comes with an integrated tactical console that allows me to pull up my monsters and PCs and track HP, Spells used, conditions applied, and initiative during encounters. I can even have it roll initiative for me every round if I so choose to. (Sometimes if I have a large group, I will let the computer roll it to keep them paying attention).
-
Christopher, I think the point is that you shouldn’t have to rely on third-party providers to do this sort of work. It is, in many ways, a crutch. If the game’s designers know that on-the-fly creation would be a challenge if not grind the game to a halt, then the designers should have provided the GM with the tools to work around this issue to serve as a stopgap whenever a quick NPC/item/creature is needed that only needs enough substance to be mechanically present in the game.
-
Who said that NPCs that don’t follow he same rules as PCs have to even have feats? or even recorded HPs? think outside D&D, guys. They can follow rules(!) of their own. One of the worst things about (early) 3rd edition is the monster-follow-(demi)-human class and feats. If I were a dragon I’d have many better things to do than try to get puny fighter/sorcerer/bard/rogue/cleric/whatever levels. I’d get real dragon-class(es) levels. Gargantuan creatures with improved evasion, yeah. Great. Like that great Zilla movie. Now I know she was a rogue. Now I tremble.
Monte, you sure are making a judgement and I wait to see more arguments to support your choice of simpler games. Specially the solution(s) to stimulate/keep interesting long-term playing.
Best!
-
I think one thing missing from this post is noting that different groups play the same game in wildly different ways, and that needs to be taken into account.
As an example, i’ve played in a few D&D groups, and they all handled rules differently, even though we all had the same books. Some would take carrying capacity into account, others would not. Some would count XP for each encounter, others would just have the DM say “you’ve all levelled up now”, and so on.
My point with this is that any tabletop system built should (in my extremely naive opinion) allow the group to take it to whatever depth they want. Just because there are rules for everything, doesn’t mean they need to use those rules. But having the option is nice, and (again, in my opinion) leads to a more widely adopted game. After all, if you build a game that’s too simple, not everyone can customize it how they like it, and they drop the game. If you have a game that lets people play to exactly how deep of a “rule level” they want to play, they’re more likely to stick with it.
On a personal level, this is why i still love 3e. I can take it to whatever depth i want, and (as the guy above me noted) there exists a ton of software to automate anything that could be considered tedious about the system. The amount of rules doesn’t diminish the ‘speed’ and flexibility of the game.
-
Oh god. Yet ANOTHER game system aiming to beat D&D Next? Why not join the 13th age crew … then again you could have also stayed at WotC where they just make the game you describe …
-
Sometimes creative people just, you know, create stuff. It doesn’t have to be about beating anything.
-
-
Yes, yes, yes and another damn yes! I already expected D&D Next to have different rules for NPCs and PCs (PCs more like 3e, NPCs more like 4e) and I’m really longing for just that. I want to have highly customizable PCs as a player, because I have time to handle it and want to play exactly the character I have in mind. Whereas as a GM, I don’t have time at all. I need to get done with the crunchy stuff as fast as possible. Quick monster & encounter building, easy built traps and so on, so I can focus on the story and atmosphere. If a NPCs is complex or not, the PCs won’t even notice most of the time. And if I need a really over the top NPC, I still can build him like a PC and I’d be happy.
If that is what you are designing right now, Mr Cook, you’re designing something which might make me stay away from me long term love D&D. I just needs a compelling world, too, but thinking back to Arcana Unearthed I’m pretty confident it will.
-
Hey, somebody already made the game you’re talking about. It’s called DCC RPG. Also, it’s a lot of fun to play.
-
In my experience, FATE based games tend to have a pretty robust system using adjectives that align with stats. Someone can be a “great” swordsman and a “poor” cook’ for instance. The focus on description keeps players immersed in the game fiction. The collapsed/compact power levels are a blessing and a curse – the math never gets too unwieldy, but there isn’t a whole lot of differentiation between similar threats. Still, it may inspire you for more rules light play. Cheers, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
-
Games with fast chargen yet interesting campaign options for characters is a very interesting design challenge, and I’ll be interested in how you tackle this.
FATE games for example have kindof fast chargen but stagnates rather quickly in long campaign play, and the authors admit it.
-
Deferring some or all option choices (skills, feats, etc) until during game play can help here, I think. Then people don’t need system mastery (familiarity with the entire feat system, for example) and the referee can tailor the options to fit the setting or story. The only danger here is that players might not feel enough interesting options are offered to them, but that is easy to fix with communication.
One example of the deferred skill paradigm can be seen in the LotFP language rules (I’m guessing Monte is already familiar with them).
-
-
Pingback: Friday Knight News - Bane Edition: 20-JUL-2012 | Game Knight Reviews
-
The game systems that have gone down the best with the gaming group I’m in are A Song of Ice and Fire and Heroquest. Both simpler than D&D but neither feeling to sacrifice any degree of robustness for the world they are portraying. So I’d agree with Monte that simplicity is generally something to be strived for. Simplicity also has one other positive benefit I feel. It makes it more difficult for rules lawyer players or GMs to detract from the story that is being told by everyone by insisting that everything is ‘correct’ rather than consistent and, most importantly, fun.
-
Pingback: Why Not d20? | Monte Cook
-
I am absolutely, fully, completely in favor of “simple, yet with meat.” I love me some D20, but I get weighed down by the sheer heft of it all, and it turns the players into whinging min-max clowns. Give me something like B/X D&D with more options as levels increase and I’m down.
-
Pingback: Eine Milliarde Jahre — De Malspöler
-
As you say, NPCs that follow the exact same rules as PCs are a pain for the GM to design and keep track of, so they should be simple. Indeed, the issue is how they interact. The players, unaware of what the GM has to do, should at least -feel- as though the NPCs are the same category of existance as the PCs, else you have this strange feeling where NPCs are completely unlike the PCs and believability is ruined because ‘Why don’t the NPCs work like we do?’.
-
There are certain aspects you expect when playing D&D and a certain level of mechanics to govern (and, ack, balance) the universe is one of them. But imagine a game that when some one does something or strikes someone you, as a player, don’t automatically calculate what stats or bonus or feats he must have to do what he just did. That, as a player, what you think about is the event that just happened, that what was described before your characters eyes, and how she is taking that in and is about to react accordingly to.
Not about what you are going to roll as a player, but what you are going to do as a character. Then having a rules set that facilitates that kind of play without breaking you out of that creative stream everytime you do something. Simple. Fun. Defined. Fair. in the hands of a good Gm or moderator, the sky is the limit.
Sometimes, that’s why I really enjoy playing new games at Con’s that accepts beginners. Because to me, those situations tend to be about the experience, rather than the game itself.
26 Comments