the rules / legendaria conundrum

[tetramorph]

So D&D, like the war games it comes from, was trying to find a setting to game and devise rules that could be used to describe given and hypothetical "battles" and scenarios within that setting with some relative degree of verisimilitude.

So, an Ancient war gamer wants a set of rules that grants relative similitude to Hannibal's successful campaigns -- and to hypothetical battles Hannibal never fought!

G & A were trying to do the same thing with fantastical (at the time both fantasy and science fiction) literature, classical and traditional western cultural inheritance, and just good old fashioned B movies and the like. They wanted to be able accurately to game concrete things given in that legendarium, and to develop their own hypothetical situations. So, e.g., the battle of the 5 armies on the one hand, and the battle of your campaign world on the other.

Moreover, they added answers to the questions: why are these kingdoms at war? Well, because this hero went off into the wilderness and founded his own kingdom. And further: how did he become a hero? Well, because he was crazy enough as a mere veteran to descend into the bowels of the earth, kill frightful monsters and steel the treasures and antiquities they had unlawfully hoarded.

Now that is interesting! And crazily diverse.

Now here is the conundrum: rules can never perfectly match a real world situation, much less a fantastical one. So at what point do the rules start forcing you to redefine your setting so that the mechanics of the rules are simple and still make sense in the game world? To what degree do you keep tweaking the rules so that they better and more accurately match the legendaria you are trying to engage -- before it becomes way to rules heavy?

I think for those of us who run and are interested in running campaigns in an old school way, where we are dedicated, like war gamers, to a fair degree of verisimilitude to our settings, questions like these are important and inevitable.

[finarvyn]

Jan 24, 2015 14:54:32 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

Now here is the conundrum: rules can never perfectly match a real world situation, much less a fantastical one. So at what point do the rules start forcing you to redefine your setting so that the mechanics of the rules are simple and still make sense in the game world? To what degree do you keep tweaking the rules so that they better and more accurately match the legendaria you are trying to engage -- before it becomes way to rules heavy?

I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer here, as I've run far too many different campaigns over the years to have a single thought on the matter. I think my first qeustion has to be "what am I trying to accomplish?" and then go from there.

If my goal is to emulate a pre-existing setting (e.g. Tolkien's Middle-earth) I may have to tweak a lot. Wizards can use swords, the spell list doesn't have the right feel, perhaps throw out the fire-and-forget magic system in favor of a point spell system, or whatever. Making a rules set fit a world which has already been imagined can be tricky.

Most of the time I go the other route. I say "okay, here's my rules set" and then decide which tweaks make this new campaign feel different from others I've run. Maybe I pick a "Chainmail" combat system in stead of the usual one, or decide if I'm allowing rules from Greyhawk or not, or choose which HD progression I like, but maybe I'm cherrypicking rules rather than creating new ones.

Either way, my goal is to never become rules heavy. I think that much of the feel of a campaign comes from background and not rules, and so I have little reason to make OD&D overly complex no matter what setting I want to play.

Just my two coppers.

[tetramorph]

Just the kind of answer I was looking for, finarvyn.

It is actually rather encouraging.

[Admin Pete]

Jan 25, 2015 9:49:00 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

Jan 24, 2015 14:54:32 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

Now here is the conundrum: rules can never perfectly match a real world situation, much less a fantastical one. So at what point do the rules start forcing you to redefine your setting so that the mechanics of the rules are simple and still make sense in the game world? To what degree do you keep tweaking the rules so that they better and more accurately match the legendaria you are trying to engage -- before it becomes way to rules heavy?

I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer here, as I've run far too many different campaigns over the years to have a single thought on the matter. I think my first qeustion has to be "what am I trying to accomplish?" and then go from there.

If my goal is to emulate a pre-existing setting (e.g. Tolkien's Middle-earth) I may have to tweak a lot. Wizards can use swords, the spell list doesn't have the right feel, perhaps throw out the fire-and-forget magic system in favor of a point spell system, or whatever. Making a rules set fit a world which has already been imagined can be tricky.

Most of the time I go the other route. I say "okay, here's my rules set" and then decide which tweaks make this new campaign feel different from others I've run. Maybe I pick a "Chainmail" combat system in stead of the usual one, or decide if I'm allowing rules from Greyhawk or not, or choose which HD progression I like, but maybe I'm cherrypicking rules rather than creating new ones.

Either way, my goal is to never become rules heavy. I think that much of the feel of a campaign comes from background and not rules, and so I have little reason to make OD&D overly complex no matter what setting I want to play.

Just my two coppers.

Good advice, your 2 golds in a silver economy!

[tetramorph]

Yes, I see what y'all are saying.

The most important thing is having a very rules-light "system" because then the rules are not getting in the way of the world you are trying to engage.

[Admin Pete]

I like keeping it simple, so the players can focus on playing instead of the rules.

[Von]

Jan 27, 2015 17:53:08 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

Yes, I see what y'all are saying.

The most important thing is having a very rules-light "system" because then the rules are not getting in the way of the world you are trying to engage.

This.

I am likely to start building a campaign with a rules set and a set of influences in mind, and then adjust one or the other to fit. Such-and-such a novel inspires such-and-such a take on the Cleric class which demands such-and-such a modification; with that in mind the Wizard might need so-and-so done to it and so I look to so-and-so for inspiration. However, playability is the overwhelming consideration in all things and I consider nothing sacred when it comes to player engagement.

[tetramorph]

Von, yes, playability.

My own "retro-supplement," although crunchy for OS, is an attempt to build playability by having a pretty good inner-logic to what affects what within the rules.

Then it tries to link up with the legendaria I am trying to engage.

So that makes a lot of sense. Thanks

[finarvyn]

Inner-logic is fine. Absurd overuse of detail, to me, is just absurd.

If you look at MAR Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne you will notice a few things.

(1) At the heart of the game, the rules are simple. The 1975 boxed set is very similar to OD&D in its presentation and rules choice.

(2) The world of Tekumel is absurdly complex. Much history, complex (and strange) languages and word choice. A lot to absorb and a lot to learn if you want to run EPT the "right" way.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, really. I enjoy Tolkien's Middle-earth and it's equally complex, but since I know the background better it doesn't intimidate me so much.

It will be interesting to see what supplement you put together for your legendaria.

[Mr Darke]

I usually try to build the setting around the rules and go from there. For example: My campaign uses the base rules and has altered the 'fluff' to make it fit. Thus you have orcs and goblins in an somewhat Arthurian setting even when they do not fit the myths. Over the years I have found it easier, even in a rules light system, to alter the flavor rather than the rules.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Feb 12, 2015 16:50:34 GMT -5 Mr Darke said:

I usually try to build the setting around the rules and go from there. For example: My campaign uses the base rules and has altered the 'fluff' to make it fit. Thus you have orcs and goblins in an somewhat Arthurian setting even when they do not fit the myths. Over the years I have found it easier, even in a rules light system, to alter the flavor rather than the rules.

I am doing this as well. I am taking a rule-set & tweaking my home-brew setting to fit it. In my case it is getting back to the tone I initially wanted for it.