detail vs. simplicity

[hirch duckfinder]

i am curious as to which way people lean .
what type of traveller are you ?
do you prefer a simple game with fewer rules , and more flexibility, or a game with lots of detailed rules for realistic simulation ?

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
i am curious as to which way people lean .
what type of traveller are you ?
do you prefer a simple game with fewer rules , and more flexibility, or a game with lots of detailed rules for realistic simulation ?

I want a simple game with lots of realistic details of course.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I enjoy Excellent characterizations not to bogged down with minutae... but with a coherent and easy to understand distillation of the rules...

 

[Dynamo]

Hmm, Im a classic guy myself and I had to think about why when I read your post. I think that keeping the rules simple makes it easier for a GM to focus on a story especially if they arn't worring about 300 tables and charts packed in a huge book. Heck a character sheet can be 5 lines on a college ruled page even speeds things up for the player (once you get the hang of hex)
I like the simplicity of CT because It lets you focus on the game and not the rules.

 

[Jame]

I want the basic rules laid out clearly, with possible complications and additions later. Also, I want the setting to be detailed and real, but flowing.

 

[scouttypej]

I like a clear rule set, with options for detail. The GM should be able to choose for his game style. I like to have lots of details up close for the players to see, but I control the background. Most of my games take place in my own setting with custom encounter tables tailored to my setting. Details are based on deckplans, equipment, and NPCs, but do not impact the basic rules. Whether a character is using a 9mm SMG; or a Krups/Vorung MP974 4mm caseless rifle, with 15mm grenade launcher under the barrel makes no difference to the man shot with said weapon (remember NPCs can buy the same weapon).
I tailor the details to the playing style of my players. If they like the trading aspect of the game, then I detail the encounters with merchants, and port personnel. If my players go pirate on me

,then I get all my deckplans together and we do some boarding action. The hardest part of details is that your players will remember more than you. So if you throw in the outlaw shipyard in the Zanth system's asteroid belt, then MAKE A NOTE OF IT. Your player's will want to go back and buy those pulse lasers they could not afford at the time.

 

[hirch duckfinder]

Originally posted by Dynamo:
Hmm, Im a classic guy myself and I had to think about why when I read your post. I think that keeping the rules simple makes it easier for a GM to focus on a story especially if they arn't worring about 300 tables and charts packed in a huge book. Heck a character sheet can be 5 lines on a college ruled page even speeds things up for the player (once you get the hang of hex)
I like the simplicity of CT because It lets you focus on the game and not the rules.

totally concur . T5 to rediscover this ???

 

[Falkayn]

I like detailed rules, both for combat and non-combat situations. It can add to the background material considerably if there are rules that show how the PCs can do stuff.

OTOH I tend to forget about the rules whilst playing and 'wing it'. My players know that if they can find the rules for me and present it clearly I'll use them, but if I've forgotten them, or they're trying something tricky in combat then I'm likely to make up something reasonable on the fly and let it go at that.

With T20 this is especially true as all I'm usually doing is stating the type of die rolls and the modifiers - so even if I;m wrong it's not usually that different a result from the rules.

IMHO detailed rules do not prevent flexibility, but often aid it by adding detail to areas that might be quite bland if not detailed - scientific explorations in 2300AD come to mind, as does computer stuff in T20.

 

[Zinzan]

I answered, free and easy GM'ing and detailed rules

My reasons are simple; I prefer to get the game flowing by referring to the rules as little as possible during play to keep the atmosphere as realistic as possible. players who have only a 30 seconds or so a turn to make decisions react much more realisticly than players who can spend 5 mins a turn discussing options. I also reinforce this by describing the visual affects of their actions rather than using game terminology.

OTOH I like to have detailed rules that I can base my decisions off (as I only ref 2 game systems D&D and Traveller it is pretty easy for me to have a very detailed knowledge of the rules). in addition I really like detailed background rules for the game for 2 reasons, 1. they spark lots of ideas for adventure hooks or simply alien situations etc. 2. They let me detail any backgrounds I need in exquisite and _consistant_ detail. It is for this reason I own most of the GT books - excellent background rules for many situations.

 

[Ron]

I voted for a simple game. However, unlike implied in the question, a simple game may lack details but be very realistic.

 

[Anton]

I like a system with clear, simple rules, so they don't get in the way of play. In my first T20 game session last night, it took over half an hour each for two people to create characters, and later, another half hour or so for us to decipher the trade tables. (Admittedly I should have had the latter prepared beforehand). Not much adventuring got done. None, in fact!

Having said that, next week should be mostly roleplaying with maybe a bit of action

So - clear, simple and well laid out rules, with more bits you can clip on later is good. Maybe less rules would have allowed for more background in the T20 book.

Player: "So what are typical Aslan names like?"
Me: "__________"

 

[hirch duckfinder]

Originally posted by Ron:
I voted for a simple game. However, unlike implied in the question, a simple game may lack details but be very realistic.

agreed . too many details in the rules get in the way of a flowing game . details can be improvised on request , and are best dealt with on a need-to-know basis . this leaves everyone with a clearer immaginary picture , which they have created partly by themselves and partly together ,.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

The game rules should be simple enough for even the freshest munchkin to understand.

The referee should supply all further details.

It's like buying an unfinished house (if you're the Jack-o-T type) - you get to detail it to YOUR tastes. This could take years...

The alternative is to buy one of these ready-made and pre-furnished houses that are popular out here in southern California - you get a "tricked-out crib" right away, but it's all somebody else's idea of what's important. Kinda like AD&D-III, GURPS, and the D20 system...

 

[WhiteStar]

I like simple games and loads of characterisation.

To me a book/film/TV/comic has to have the characters and the chemistry to work.

The same apply's to my games wether they be WoD Vampire, Fading Suns or Traveller.

I.ve seen to many games go down cause the party didn't mix.

 

[hirch duckfinder]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ron:
I voted for a simple game. However, unlike implied in the question, a simple game may lack details but be very realistic.

Hear, hear.

It is unfortunately also quite possible for rules to be incredibly detailed and wholly unrealistic at the same time. </font>[/QUOTE]yes , i was trying to summerise one point of view ( which i disagree with ) on the assumption that people who like detialed rules would argue that it increases realism and believability . " realistic " will never be a good description as this is all about fantasy .
some people find that heavy reliance on spontaneous immagination ruins immersiveness for them , and prefer to have something " absolute " in black and white to refer to . it works the opposite way for me .

 

[Secrect Cow Level]

While I don't mind detailed rules (I like TNE and Harn after all

) I prefer simplier rules myself. The game goes much more smoothly the less you have to consult the rulebook during play. A good referee's screen can help a lot with a more detailed system, but the simplier the rules, the quicker the players learn it and stop needing the rulebook.

 

[Sophiathegreen]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
I like detailed rules, both for combat and non-combat situations. It can add to the background material considerably if there are rules that show how the PCs can do stuff.

OTOH I tend to forget about the rules whilst playing and 'wing it'. My players know that if they can find the rules for me and present it clearly I'll use them, but if I've forgotten them, or they're trying something tricky in combat then I'm likely to make up something reasonable on the fly and let it go at that.

With T20 this is especially true as all I'm usually doing is stating the type of die rolls and the modifiers - so even if I;m wrong it's not usually that different a result from the rules.

IMHO detailed rules do not prevent flexibility, but often aid it by adding detail to areas that might be quite bland if not detailed - scientific explorations in 2300AD come to mind, as does computer stuff in T20.

Megra Traveller have to much detail in it that it was very hard to use or play. First they Task Resoulion System was hard to understand and use. They design rules for makeing your own vessel was too much detail that can take day's to design than starship you want.

 

[siefertma2]

I choose simplicity myself. Let's face it, we all have just so many hours in a day to create character's, learn rules, and plot out adventures. It doesn't help my game play or adventure preperation if I have to wade through reams and reams of rules books, tables, annexes etc.

If you can't explain the task/combat mechanics in two or three pages or less, then they a little pruning.

"What about Realism?" I hear you say. It's a game... it's not real to begin with.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

MAS-

I like the simplicity of play, along the lines of:

Players: "Just how does your Jump drive work, anyway?"
Referee: "Very well, thank you. Well, most of the time. Have your engineer roll two dice..."

I also like to have background details readily available, like:

Referee: "You exit J-space about 200 diameters out from the main world of the Harbinger system, which has seventeen planets orbiting a single F5-III star. Only three planets are habitable, and it's the eight planet that is your destination - it's listed as 'Harbinger B-867-M-967-A-GGN-IN-NA-PS-YELLOW'. Two Gas giants around an M3-IV star in far orbit are also present. Would you like stats on them too?"

Players: "No thanx. Our transponder is on, but we'll try to hail Harbinger traffic control."

Referee: "Fine. Traffic control is on Harbinger's third moon. Do you want the UWP?"

Players: "Naw, just let us know what to wear outside..."

Details add 'look and feel' to the background, sort of like stage properties do in a play. However, just as in a good stage play, no detail should ever get in the way of character activity (or the ref's, for that matter).

Also, having a set of 'default' details will help the ref whenever the players want to do something that wasn't exactly part of the ref's plans. I keep a dozen or so semi-generic star systems, worlds, ships, cities, ruins, buildings, patrons, encounters and other notary sojac on stand-by; they are not part of any one adventure, but they allow me to satisfy the curiosity of most rivet-counters in order to get on with the game.

 

[taishon]

Interesting this topic should come up. I just bought the CC2 worldbuilder package because I would like to add tons of visual aids including diarams and cardboard characters etc. My idea of a good balance are simple, easy-to-use rules that add a fair amount of realism and a lot of atmosphere and interest to the game. As such I am currently trying to develop a "weather encounters" variant (maybe submitting to JTAS) so I can actually describe and add random weather to a session. (By weather I include extraplanetary weather such as solar flare activity etc).

Speaking along this lines..I think I will add another topic related to weather.

Taishon