What daring! What outrageousness! What insolence! What Arrogance!
Warrior...I salute you.
First of all, I don’t accept that the skill system is a complex system. When a player declares that they want to do a thing that is not guaranteed to succeed, the DM decides what ability score applies to the action, same as Moldvay. A d20 is rolled. The ability modifier is added to it. If it is related to a trained skill, that modifier is added. The result is compared to a target determined by the difficulty of the task. Combat is simply a specialized variant of that, where the target number is determined by armor class. Saving throws are another specialized variant. But it is my understanding that in 5e every check in the game follows the same core mechanic. There is one basic mechanic to understand. It’s hardly advanced calculus.
While I find you a worthy adversary, I feel as though you have lost some of your initial momentum. You are strawmanning on multiple levels (I would like to coin the phrase Inception-Strawmanning).
I didn't describe the skill system as complex, I pointed out DnD 5e was more complex then OSR stuff and I qualified that by pointing to the
increased number of abilities that players have access too. All of my criticism of 5e has been directed in that direction. 5e is emminently streamlined and intuitively simple, I don't think anyone would dare suggest otherwise. However, it does provide your player with inspiration, feats, cantrips, more spells and bonus actions whereas most OSR games tend to have less things you can do, and take more time doing it.
Secondly, I dispute your assumption that in a rules light system – by which I assume you mean rules relating to most out of combat activities are essentially absent, since it is hard to get lighter than a single core mechanic – creative play is encouraged. In my experience, if a rule does not say that a player can attempt a thing, players and DMs tend to assume that they can’t attempt that thing. For example, the assumption that only thieves can sneak, climb, or find locks; a ranger needs to be a half-elf and multiclass thief if he wants to climb cliffs or stalk his prey. It is the DM, not the ruleset, that determines whether players feel empowered to be creative. The ruleset only determines what tools the DM has to adjudicate unusual actions when the player takes them.
I don't entirely agree with your interpretation of my definition of a rules light system but I can argue the point either way.
I would respond that in a rules light system the GM is almost forced to make up ad-hoc rules or rulings for many of the activities one undertakes upon adventuring and as a result becomes more comfortable making up and adjudicating ad-hoc rules and actions. Similarly, the players, having no Splitting Boar Strike Encounter Powers or lamp of infinite bezoars or Limp Bizkit Points to fall back on, must think of something to bypass or overcome many of the obstacles in the more lethal, rules-light world of the OSR (that is why lethality is a key component I think) or else they are forced to trust to the whims of the Dice Gods for succor, and they are cruel gods.
Your point about elves and thieves is valid but it is an argument against restrictive rules, not light rules, since thief skills are no lighter then general skills, merely more restrictive.
The ruleset determines the framework wherein the GM must interpret the events. If the frame is pliable and loose and there is ambiguity improvisation becomes easy. If the framework is rigid and fine-meshed and touching it causes ripples to play along its manifold gossamer threads then making up an ad hoc ruling is fraught with mortal peril.
Of course, my data set is limited to the people I played with, and the people I speak with. But unless you have some empirical study you want to quote, so is yours.
That's okay, I never claimed otherwise.
I have a couple of things to say about balance.
First of all, it’s hardly a new thing. Early editions also cared about balance. I know it came up in issue #3 of The Dragon, and I remember being annoyed by Gygax’ frequent rants about game balance and the evil of Mony Haul campaigns.
Oh yeah, they have always been a thing, but it is my observation that earlier games had a larger framework for balance. In earlier games Balance was about adventuring, in later editions, it become more about combat and being equally powerful in combat. The weak thief of earlier days could not fly without a sneak attack and an evasion skill, until we ended up at 4e, where all classes had their roles to play.
Also balance in this context has a fairly specific meaning: "You can't alter how saving throws work without immediately having to consider the rammifications on DCs based on ability modifiers and HD as well, for example."
I meant to point out how interwoven everything in 3e is, so altering a mechanic requires more discipline.
Secondly, if you don’t really care about balance, it doesn’t really matter what you do in terms of houserules. At least, I find that is true of 4e. If you run a game where players can choose their level of risk by how deep they go into the dungeon, or how far from a haven, and they know to talk or run away when they get into trouble, and you are comfortable with character death, what do you care if some particular game element is harder or easier than usual? It is not more important in one edition than another.
First, your 4e game sounds surprisingly palatable.
I think balance is a tricky subject. In a game where there are alternatives to fighting its not as important as in a game of straightforward combat. Balance becomes important when challenges become utterly trivial as a result of botched mechanics or some classes completely and disproportionally outperform others. It should also be taken into account if a ruling causes a character to no longer be able to fulfill his primary role in the group (we agree there is such a thing right?) as effectively.
I think my position on balance is predicated upon my position on rules heavy games having a greater bias towards combat in general, because combat tends to be the most codified area where mechanical differences or changes are most keenly felt. If we are convinced on whether or not systems with lots of abilities that are relatively complex are more predisposed towards combat we can resolve the question in more detail, that is if you agree.
I think the reason I find myself mellowing out here and I responded with a bit more zest to DP is that DP immediately concluded things about my players and GM and my mindset. In contrast, I think you have been nothing but respectful and I enjoy arguing with you. It's commendable actually. I'm sure your initial response was motivated by kindness and I will take public perception into account when next I enter into an elfgame dance-off.
I look forward to your reply which I will expect immediately upon your completion of this sentence.
: Monty Hall hosted Let's Make a Deal, not The Price is Right.
