Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[SweeneyTodd]

Originally Posted by ThirdWizard

In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.

In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.

If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.

EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.

Okay, this helps. I really think that you're conflating "rules light" with "GM decides". If the GM, for some bizarre reason, wants to have an unspottable assassin, they've chosen to do so. Are you saying that the players should go "Whoa, back up, couldn't I have spotted him?" I think that's reasonable in any system. Is the difference that in the first case, the players can point to a rule that says they get to check?

I'm getting this feeling that maybe you're saying that complex rules offer a defense against a bad GM. I suppose that's true; if you have a GM who always says "no" unless what you want to do is specifically spelled out in the rulebook, then yeah, you want as many rules as possible.

But I don't get why anyone would want to play with a GM who constantly says "no", or is out to get the players, regardless of the rules you're using. Because the GM typically has a lot more power than the players, I don't understand why people would give that power to someone they don't trust. Rules don't offer all that much defense, except for maybe channeling a disruptive GM's "bad urges" into areas not covered by the rules.

[ThirdWizard]

Originally Posted by SweeneyTodd

Help me out here. Are you saying that if I go "Oh, those are pretty heavy, DC 25", instead of having predetermined the size of boulders that might fall randomly based on the stone makeup of the tunnel, that I'm railroading? I feel a little lost here.

Trying not to use the world "railroading" becuase I don't want to derail the thread (pun intended) over what is and is not railroading, I'll try to clarify.

I'm saying if player strength is largely irrelevant to whether or not the PCs succeed or fail at a strength related ability, then the system has failed in a degree, in my eyes. The amount the character can lift doesn't have to be front and center, but it should be quantifiable in some way lest the ability to use said strength fall out of the players' hands.

Bring it to something else. Say that there is a pit blocking the PCs and there is no jump resolution system. If the GM wants the players to be able to jump it, then they can jump it, and if the GM doesn't want them to be able to to jump it then they can't. Now it is true that a DM in D&D could just make it huge or small, but there are many points in between. The monk character might be able to jump extremely far, whereas the paladin in full plate can't make it at all. At this point, player choices have a real impact on the outcome of their actions. There's more struggle, more suspense, and more satisfaction over success, to me personally, in this type of scenario.

So, playstyle difference. In the end, I'll play what makes me have more fun, which for me is a rules-heavy system. Other people will play what they prefer, which might be a rules-lite system, or no system at all (as someone pointed out message board roleplaying with no rules are extremely popular).

Now, if you disagree with the premise, then I'm all ears. This is, of course, all oppinion.

[Quasqueton]

Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.

Nope, I don't see that. I see how my choice of action will fall in place during the game "segment". The rules tell me how the choice of action will resolve. They don't tell me what action I should choose.

Edit: I remember clearly a GM (who was an old school AD&D veteran) telling me I couldn't charge an enemy because the movement had to be in a straight line. His reason: my character didn't line up so that it could charge a straight line going by the battle grid. I had to remind him that the battle grid doesn't exist and straight line is the shortest distance between two points. d20 had contracted his ability to conceptialize actions during the game.

Oh, well, there's a great point. A DM had a brainfart and that proves that the d20 mechanics raped his brain and made him stupid. Maybe I should put away my books before my mind is completely drained of intelligence? [/sarcasm]

Edit: Oh, and the concept that you have to charge along a straight battlegrid line is not in the rules. So using that as an example of bad rules is disingenuous.

Quasqueton

[der_kluge]

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?

[NewLifeForm]

Originally Posted by Gentlegamer

The point I make is that the more rules there are, the more likely they are to constrict and guide your conceptualizing in game actions. They also can encourage the GM to dissallow actions not explicitly allowed or spelled out by the game.

In D&D and most similar games you can be an Elf, Dwarf, Human, Halfling (I've always wanted to play a Fullling!) and the other established species native to most D&D campaigns. You can then choose from an assortment of classes. If you can dig through the massive mountain of books in your collection, you can, after a time, locate the book that has the odd species and/or class concept your looking for.

For my current campaign I sent out an email that said, "What do you want to be?"

I ended up with a Human Mercenary, a Wood Nymph, An Elf-blooded Human who became a Ranger after failing to make it as a Paladin, a Demon Hunter who dislikes violence, and a few weird ones

It's a mind set more then anything else.

NewLifeForm

[Hobo]

As someone said back on page 2 or so, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion between rules lite and rules insufficient game systems. Neither the boulder nor the spotting the assassin example illustrates anything about rules light systems, as is claimed. They illustrate problems with rules insufficient systems instead.

[SweeneyTodd]

Originally Posted by ThirdWizard

Like I said, the example wasn't important. He just didn't like the boulder example for some reason.

Do you share the oppinion that all actions in the game are actually GM railroading and rules-heavy systems are just trying to cover up this fact?

Doh! I'm still confused. I thought this was what you were saying. Do you read this as what I was saying?

What I was trying (badly) to get across is that everything in the game is imaginary. I know I said "GM whim", but I was quoting someone. Everything in the game has been created by someone at the table, and in any functional group that's definately going to include both players and GM.

I don't think "Saying it's all make-believe" is the same as saying "The GM railroads". The former is always true. GMs have power at the table, power to create things from whole cloth. (Hopefully the players do, too.) Nobody should be using this power to block out anyone else's creative input.

I guess what I was saying is "Any game can be broken by the GM, or played well, and rules heavy systems require more effort to do both."

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Turanil

Are you kidding? In BOTH cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.

As ThirdWizard said, the difference is how much control the player vs. the GM has in determining EXACTLY what your character's powers and limitations are.

My fighter is a blacksmith. What can he make with this skill? How long does it take? how much gold does he need in raw material? How good are his wares? How skilled IS he? Is he more skilled the my friend's fighter?

D&D would say: This is all a function of the craft skill. You put skill points into it to show your skill, you use the formula to determine cost and time. You can make more expensive goods buy spending more gp/time to make them. You are only as skilled as your ranks + ability score + any special mods.

A RL system might say: Your blacksmithing is a function of your strength score. Make a strength check to see if you make a good item. IF you roll exceptionally, I'll say the item is exceptional. I'll say it takes two weeks to make a large item, one for a small item. Cost? uh, well, iron is poor here so you'll make items at 1/3 cost to buy them. Oh yeah, since you and your friend have the same str score, you're equally as good, but I might give you a +2 to your check because your backstory says your a blacksmith...

OR IT MIGHT SAY: Your blacksmithing is a function of your intelligence (or wisdom, or con, etc). You must roll an intelligence check to make an item, failure means the item is wasted. It takes a week to use your skill, but I'll make it longer if your unreasonable (iron doors, etc). Cost? 1/2 gold. Your as good a blacksmith as anyone else with the same intelligence score...

OR IT MIGHT SAY: Yeah, you can make simple blacksmithing stuff. It doesn't matter. You do it.

You get the point.

[SweeneyTodd]

Originally Posted by ThirdWizard

Bring it to something else. Say that there is a pit blocking the PCs and there is no jump resolution system. If the GM wants the players to be able to jump it, then they can jump it, and if the GM doesn't want them to be able to to jump it then they can't. Now it is true that a DM in D&D could just make it huge or small, but there are many points in between. The monk character might be able to jump extremely far, whereas the paladin in full plate can't make it at all. At this point, player choices have a real impact on the outcome of their actions. There's more struggle, more suspense, and more satisfaction over success, to me personally, in this type of scenario.

Aha! Now I think I'm getting you. Sorry, definately a point where I failed to communicate.

I'm not advocating a system without attributes, or difficulty levels. This situation would be handled in a rules-light system by something like "Roll Body, you need 4 successes. Bob, you're in platemail, you need 5." The guy with more Body dice is going to have a better chance of making it. Players' choices in character construction provide ability, and challenges provide an opposing value. So in some systems, mechanically the jumping across a pit works pretty similarly to lifting a weight, or spotting a thief, or what have you. Trait vs. difficulty.

Then again, on the other hand, I'd be unlikely to roll at all, unless it was a chase situation where they've got to get across right now. If there's nothing at stake (or if the result of failure is uninteresting, like "Aahhhh... *splat*", then I let them narrate the result themselves. Player choice factors in there, too, but at the social level and not the rules level. We probably have a dozen rolls, if that, per session, and they're usually of the "Oh, this is really bad" variety.

(For what it's worth, I think this is a useful discussion, and I don't think tempers are flaring. I'm only responding so often because I find it interesting.)

[JamesDJarvis]

Originally Posted by Gentlegamer

Edit: I remember clearly a GM (who was an old school AD&D veteran) telling me I couldn't charge an enemy because the movement had to be in a straight line. His reason: my character didn't line up so that it could charge a straight line going by the battle grid. I had to remind him that the battle grid doesn't exist and straight line is the shortest distance between two points. d20 had contracted his ability to conceptialize actions during the game.

It wasn't D20 contracting his ability to conceptualize actions it was his not reading the rules or not understanding the rules that got in the way. The rule book has examples that show folks what it means by "straight line".

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by der_kluge

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?

Yes. Exactly. Its about power.

A RH system gives more power to the players because they have a firmer grip on what they can do and have rules they can use to do them.

A RL system gives more power to the DM because he can adjunctate the game without being pounded to death by hundreds of rules.

I doubt there will ever be a happy medium.

[Quasqueton]

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?

I think it comes down to some are saying one is by definition better than the other. Or that one is by definition worse than the other. That one decreases imagination, or that one opens creativity.

I do not find that one increases the fun, nor that one decreases the fun.

Quasqueton

[ThirdWizard]

Originally Posted by SweeneyTodd

Doh! I'm still confused. I thought this was what you were saying. Do you read this as what I was saying?

Not at all. That was in response to Turanil's "So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim." To which I disagree, because that would imply to me that he believes that the PCs abilities are completely irrelevant to the game. I can't agree with that on principle.

I don't think "Saying it's all make-believe" is the same as saying "The GM railroads". The former is always true. GMs have power at the table, power to create things from whole cloth. (Hopefully the players do, too.) Nobody should be using this power to block out anyone else's creative input.

Agreed there. The world around the PCs (and its reaction to them) is entirely in the hands of the GM. This is not a bad thing.

I guess what I was saying is "Any game can be broken by the GM, or played well, and rules heavy systems require more effort to do both."

Hmm... well I'll say a good player/GM will be able to pull off either a rules-heavy or rules-lite system. A rules-heavy game can more easily hide a poor GM's bad abilities, as well.

[Gentlegamer]

Originally Posted by Quasqueton

Oh, well, there's a great point. A DM had a brainfart and that proves that the d20 mechanics raped his brain and made him stupid. Maybe I should put away my books before my mind is completely drained of intelligence? [/sarcasm]

Edit: Oh, and the concept that you have to charge along a straight battlegrid line is not in the rules. So using that as an example of bad rules is disingenuous.

Quasqueton

Never said the rules said you had to charge along straight battlegrid lines. What I did say was the way the rules were set up caused my friend's conception of in game actions to contract. Yes, it was a brain fart, but he NEVER would have thought such a thing playing AD&D.

[ThirdWizard]

Originally Posted by Joshua Dyal

As someone said back on page 2 or so, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion between rules lite and rules insufficient game systems. Neither the boulder nor the spotting the assassin example illustrates anything about rules light systems, as is claimed. They illustrate problems with rules insufficient systems instead.

Note that was in response to someone saying that all roleplaying is consists of DM fiat and railroadig. It was less to do with rules-lite systems and more illustrating a point. Like I said, the example given was largely irrelevant. Pick any situation that a lite system doesn't cover and use that.

[SweeneyTodd]

Originally Posted by der_kluge

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?

From what I've read on these boards and elsewhere, that's how a lot of people play. I think some players would be pretty surprised if they saw how little was actually "behind the curtain".

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by ThirdWizard

Note that was in response to someone saying that all roleplaying is consists of DM fiat and railroadig. It was less to do with rules-lite systems and more illustrating a point. Like I said, the example given was largely irrelevant. Pick any situation that a lite system doesn't cover and use that.

If that's true, then can I paraphrase your statement into "All Rules Lite systems are insufficient?"

[Quasqueton]

Yes, it was a brain fart, but he NEVER would have thought such a thing playing AD&D.

You never would have charged in AD&D. There was no game mechanic for it. You would have just moved up and attacked -- something you can still do in D&D3.

Quasqueton

[SweeneyTodd]

Originally Posted by ThirdWizard

Agreed there. The world around the PCs (and its reaction to them) is entirely in the hands of the GM. This is not a bad thing.

That's actually one of the things I think should change, and I don't play that way -- but that's totally off topic.

Hmm... well I'll say a good player/GM will be able to pull off either a rules-heavy or rules-lite system. A rules-heavy game can more easily hide a poor GM's bad abilities, as well.

Then I'll say "Then I'm not a good GM", because I run games the players love with light systems, and eh, am mediocre with the more complex ones.

And with that, I've proved I'm not qualified to continue the discussion, and I bow out. (Rules-light game to run tonight, best get ready.)

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Joshua Dyal

If that's true, then can I paraphrase your statement into "All Rules Lite systems are insufficient?"

You COULD go further and say "All Rules systems are insufficient" but RL seem by the nature to be moreso than RH.