It's a lil taxing to utilize the "quote" html for so many points across so many posters, so I'll just go right straight at it instead. Yeah, so I'm bein' lazy. ;D
hrrrothgarrr,
I know what ya mean. But RM is an odd duck. It's always an example of rules-heavy gaming. It's actually not all that difficult at it's core. Roll percentile, take mods into account, check table.
However, it's the mods themselves that are problematic. So very many things need be taken into account, they can be overwhelming just by themselves. It's not hard...it's just....well, a lot.
I know that when I first encountered T&T, I thought it was missing almost everything that made a good rpg a good rpg. To be honest, I don't know why I initially bought it.
(I've been meaning to start a thread about this for some time. Maybe I'll get around to it today or tomorrow.)
djacknh,
Too many rules
is a drudgery. For you and I. Not for the old me. It's subjective, and it's a very good thing that there are rules that fulfill your wishes for a enjoyable game system and for Johnny Thousand Pages of Options.
Prof,
Sometimes...sometimes you're just weird enough that I figure you actually have small propellers on your head (not on a beanie...actually on your noggin), and every once in a while you flutter down amongst the us lower life forms and say something arcane and *thup thup thup thup thup*...you're off again. ;D
But I get what you're sayin', though.
feldrick,
Overall, I suppose Old School is smooth and creative. But, lots of artifacts of old-school rules and so on can sometimes be a lil bit wonky or seem arbitrary sometimes. It depends on the game. D&D had leftovers from old wargames. Things that were 'standard'. Things that, to those folks was intuative and "everyday", but to those of us on the outside, seemed really odd. Why is lower better for armor class? Seems weird. Easy enough to remember when you get used to it, but still odd. Well, lower number simply translates to lower chance to get hit. Looking at it that way it seems more intuative. Hit points in the same game seem outright bizarre, until you understand that they're very abstract and that they aren't "wound points" at all.
(For those not familiar with the concept, think of the sword fight between Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone at the end of
The Adventures of Robin Hood. Neither of them really get wounded. However, both are losing hit points like nobodies business, till the very last when Robin's final sword thrust does away with the Sheriff's last coupla hit points.)
I think that old-school games, mostly being very modular, with the various systems and sub-systems for dealing with different things certainly looks wonky and cobbled together, but most of them work in practice quite well. Sorta like when you look at a massive and thick airplane like a C-130. You think, how in the heck can that thing possible fly at all. But fly it does.
Not all new-school games are crunchy either. Risus is a very good example of elegant and borderline genius, and it's certainly not old-school.
I tend to agree that most newer game systems are a bit too over-analytical. Too much consideration for things that are nigh impossible to truely quantify and track. Too much searching for that ever-elusive (and bugbear-ish) "realism". It's a fool's errand if ya ask me. If it really was even possible, the rules would likely be millions of pages, easy.
As soon as Artificial Intelligence is perfected...then...maybe...
It's also true that gamers, both players and referees, have lost sight of what the referee's whole purpose in even being there was for. As you said.
Though, it's sad that it came to what it came to, and I think the fault lays at the feet of bad GMs from back in the day. Many players were at the hands of poor and abusive GMs. The players felt abused, because they were. The GMs used the rules (and played)
against the players. Players wanted sought just protection from the rules, so they needed stronger (and that meant, more) rules. Of course, the answer was there all along. GM. A good GM. A fair GM.
I think it's a-ok that folks would like to have a general idea of a likely outcome, though if you can't gauge that in any game that you're familar with, no matter how light or heavy, that's a problem with the players (or the general understanding of the rules by the players/GM) and not the game systems themselves. Too bad more folks don't think like that. Most need it set down for them in black and white.
Most of us would say: "Well, the rain is really heavy and driving into your face and eyes. Your combat adds will be halved during this combat because of that."
But, a game like, well, like RoleMaster, has specific mods for just that.
Folks are either afraid of adjucation, or they want to know ahead of time
exactly what the limits and benefits of a situation are. But that's not realism. When we go out into the heavy rain, do you or I know
precisely what the effect will be on what we'll be attempting in those conditions? No. We have a general idea. That's about it. Therefore, I'd say simply throwing out a "makeshift" mod (-1 "to hit") is just as realistic.
djacknh,
Role-playing certainly attracts intelligent folks. It also attracts dim folks like me.
When I started my silly search for better and heavier and more realistic, less wonky rules, I certainly wasn't doing it for anything concerning my ego. In fact, looking back, it may have been quite the opposite. I think...maybe...I think that I was simply afraid of creativity. "Those guys" made those rules. I'm not one of "them", so I can't. I need to find rules made by "them" that I agree with and like. *shrug*
Also, the wargamers from the 70's and much earlier played a lot of very complex and complicated games, and these folks probably weren't TV hounds. They certainly weren't video gamers.
Also, there's a strange dichotomy there. T&T attracts those of us who don't want or need a messload of data to run a wild adventure game. Simply put, a game that's easy. Video gamers also like games that would fit a similar description. Intuative and smooth, but deep and involving. I think we all know from experience, that even though T&T is super-light at it's core, that we can and have done just about anything and everything with her. T&T can be pretty deep too, in it's own way, and I don't mean role-playing. I mean the system itself. It's sorta sub-system-ish like old-school D&D, just different. And like D&D, it's systems and small parts all interact with one another quite well. So well in fact that every single part together causes no major problems and take any part away and it still won't break it.
porkbelly00,
LOL! I had the same reaction. "I can't find the 'Basic' in this!!!...because there's four-hundred freakin' pages!!...It could be anywhere. Heck... I think they forgot to put it in here!!!" ;D
I was likely similar. I had such grand plans for systems like Palladium and others. But they never went anywhere, simply because these "perfect" and/or more realistic games were so impractical that I never soaked them all in. Certainly not conducive to creating a campaign when you can't keep the magic or skill system(s) straight.
Once I saw (again) my love for gaming and what I loved about the things that tied into it, I realized what I needed and what I needed wasn't much.
Sure, I love the massive level of detail that Prof. Tolkien goes into for his world. But I also love Nehwon, and Mr. Leiber never gave me all of the detail of that place. But, man oh man, is it ever as alive and real to me as Middle-Earth! I opened my eyes to the worth of the economy in that. I knew from learning to shoot and learning to play bass that economy of motion is essential. You do no more than is necessary to get the job done well. Any more is wasted motion. Wasted motion is a very bad thing.
If I wanted to sort of emulate the
Action! and
Adventure of those pulp swords & sorcery tales, I didn't need realism or simulationism. I just needed some guidelines so that I and the players could go buck wild get those flashing swords a-flashing!
I take a look a more tactical-minded systems out there now, and while the designs seem sound and I'm sure much thought (perhaps even intelligent thought) was put into them, I can't help but still see it as Adam's finger on the painting in the Sistine Chapel....almost touching...but not quite. Since it's obviously not going to be reached, why strive for it for fun?
I see the tactical options and stunts and whatever, and to me it doesn't seem much different than simply "Make a L2SR on Dex." knowwhatImean?
But that's subjective, too, I guess. Plus, it doesn't take into account the fact that there are folks who really do enjoy the nuts and bolts and formulae and so on. Not my bag, but I get it.