General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.
And that irritates me. Those guys are on the top. They won't gain more customers or improve their market share by marginalizing other game systems. They should, instead, paint WOTC as the "gamer's friend" who believes in the idea that we all share a common interest.
Am I the only one who sees their statements as juvenile and pointless?
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
...the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.
Only if you change the yard markers. Remember that back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming. It certainly has endured, for more than the Dancey-Mearls-requisite 5 years....
For the record, I don't advocate rules-heavy or rules-light systems, in particular, I mostly play D&D (since 1974) because it has always afforded me the best chance to find players. It's a simple matter of swimming in the biggest pool for me.
This is something I very much agree with. It is true for me as well and will continue to remain that way, I think.
Only if you change the yard markers. Remember than back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming.
Not by me.
(And, as I recall, Rolemaster was in print back then. )
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
Only if you change the yard markers. Remember that back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming. It certainly has endured, for more than the Dancey-Mearls-requisite 5 years....
Ya, but Vampire didn't stay Ruules lite for long if it every was.
There is absolutely no reason for you to get snarky nor try to intimate that I'm being some sort of gaming snob. Your tone is uncalled for.
I didn't assert that C&C is rules heavy. I'm simply making a case for it not being "rules lite". 256pp of core rules (PH and M&T, which the TLG site states are the required minimum) isn't really all that "lite" in my estimation. And I would deifnitely not put AD&D1e in that category. OD&D might slip by...
"Lite" is Buffy, or Sorcerer, or Risus. C&C is in a middle-ground, nearby the early editions of D&D that eventually birthed "rules heavy".
IMO.
If you want to do some testing with "lite" RPGs, you give test subjects Everway or The Window.
I wasn't trying to be "snarky" (good word by the way), just taking a stab at being humorous which as usual is exceedingly difficult on the web.
I have played The Window and liked it very much actually. Everway didn't do much for me though. My definition for rules lite happens to be "those games which are significantly less complex than 3.5" which is essentially the touchstone game for not only this thread, but the entire site. To that end, I consider games either lite on rules or heavy on them. It would seem to me that considering only games such as Buffy (w/ its 256 pages of rules by-the-by, hole in your logic perhaps?) and The Window as being the hallmarks of "rules-liteism" as perhaps a bit too narrow, though again, I don't go in for the rules-medium definition. YMMV.
__________________ all the best Scadgrad
C&C Society
It occurs to me that "amount of time" is only one measure... what about "quality of experience" -- i.e. if I spend the same amount of time generating a character in system X and system Y, but I enjoyed myself more in system X, then system X wins. If the time and enjoyment of character creation are equal, but then I have a better time playing the game with system Y, then Y wins. If I'm the DM and prepping system Y is a chore, then X wins. Etc.
There are many other measures, and it depends on whether you're the company or the gamer: am I more likely to buy future products with X or Y? Am I more likely to recruit other players with X or Y? And other questions I posed a couple of posts back.
I have to keep repeating to myself that Mearls and Dancy are concerned with what keeps selling product. That keeps me from going "Man, they don't get it."
Really, I'm the one that doesn't get it, not from their perspective. I've run two campaigns in the past two years, and am starting another one soon. One system was free, another was $50 (including two supplements), and the third was $15. None of my players have had to buy more than pencils and paper.
I spend plenty of money in search of ideas -- it's just that I buy novels and DVDs, and watch movies and television. I have enough rules, so I get creative fodder from sources that are 100% "fluff". Heck, some of my best inspiration has been free, talking with people about the nature of human relationships.
I am sooooo not their target market. From their perspective, it makes no difference whether I exist or not.
Rather than get miffed, I just need to extend them the same courtesy of indifference. They're not relevant to me, I'm not relevant to them, it's all good. No offense given or taken.
That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light)
You don't say?
Quote:
consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?
Or is it just that none have?
Well, what's to add?
I can think of setting and adventures. With setting you run the risk of turning the game into a travelogue. Besides Buffy: The Dayton Chronicles doesn't sound like it would be any more or less different than adventures in Sunnydale.
Adventures I can see. But adventures don't sell that well. 2nd edition Paranoia manged a bunch of them, but a lot of those were joke books for the DM. Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues was a hillarious read, but it was kind of a dud to play. So those weren't really adventures so much as they were fiction designed to torture the PCs. And if I'm going to torture my players, I'm going to do it with a cheese grater, like Mom always did.
__________________ "I asked Dave to please send me his rules additions, for I thought a whole new system should be developed. A few weeks after his visit I received 18 or so handwritten pages of rules and notes pertaining to his campaign, and I immediately began work on a brand new manuscript. "Greyhawk" campaign started —the first D&D campaign! About three weeks later, I had some 100 typewritten pages, and we began serious play-testing in Lake Geneva, while copies were sent to the Twin Cities and to several other groups for comment. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS had been born."
— EGG, Dragon #7
Dancey has lost a great deal of his credibility since the GAMA fiasco. There was a time when I would have bought into such a claim as true.
FWIW, Dancey states explciitly that this is his opinion, and presents the anecdotal evidence that led him to form said opinion. I'm willing to give his opinion some weight simply based on his experience, and the test situation he describes is more formal than any observation I've been abel to make.
While his opinion may not be 100% irrefutable, I think there's a germ of some kind of truth in there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Well, I've been observing for more than 30 years and I doubt that anything but a rules-heavy system could generate enough product to bring in enough profit to justify an expenditure on marketing that would sustain it for a long time.
Perhaps, but haven't we also been told many times that it's the sales of core books that really provide most companys' meat and potatoes? If a truly "lite" RPG had really connected with an audience, isn't it possible that it would have sustained itself even wihtout a barraeg of supplements?
I mean, most boardgames are just a single product, right? If Monopoly or Risk can sustain itself for decades with basically a single product (keeping in mind the theme sets are a pretty recent thing), why couldn't an RPG?
I think the closest exmples we can find of rules-lighter games that have sustained themselves are Vampire and Call of Cthulhu. The latter could possibly be considered "lite", but the former is still somewhere in the middle. Their product lines also seem to focus less on crunch and more on adventures and setting material. Granted, CoC isn't really a big player anymore...
Ultimately, I think that truly "lite" RPGs simply appeal to a very limited audience. Contrary to popular belief, it's really the experienced gamer that is drawn to system that let them rely less on rules and more on their own years of experience. Yes, it may be that "lite" games are easier for newbies to learn, but, IMO, only when aided by the guidance of an experienced gamer (barring an exceptionally-written rulebook). Give something like Everway to a group of nothing but newbies and you'll see a lot of head-scratching. Give them something like the Basic Set (a focused version of a complex game that provide clear goals for gameplay), and you give birth to a hobby.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
I find it incredibly interesting that people are mentioning games like AD&D1e, OD&D, and C&C in the same breath as "lite".
Well, compared to 3.5E in it's current state, of course.
However, I'm not sure you can really compare D&D 3.5E to anything at this point. No other game system has the support of dozens of companies making products for it.
You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.
On the other hand, what I see are two of the biggest names in gaming making an comment based on some observed phenomena (whether or not you agree with the rigor of their data collection methodology*), and those people who are the supporters of "smaller games" - the underdogs, if you will - are just aching to be insulted so that they can point to the big guys and say, with injured nerd-pride, "We're better than them; see?"
* - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.
"Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.
In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.
__________________ "A rock on a stick has a 5' reach unless otherwise specified."
"Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said."
I lumped all of those games together because they were all being referred to as "lite" in this thread.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of sales than popularity. But what about persistence? Perhaps it's the case that it's fresh product that keeps a game alive, something oft asserted elsewhere, and it's more than rules heavy games lend themselves to this model than rules light games moreso than any enduring appeal of the rules which leads to the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.
In fact, I'd go so far to say I beleive that is the case.
That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light) consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?
Or is it just that none have?
While I wouldn't call White Wolf's Storyteller games rules light, although they are certainly less rules heavy then D&D, I'd say that much of their success has come from following the GURPS model. Although by focusing on a single setting, rather than producing more generic content setting bloat rather than rules bloat occurs.
I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of sales than popularity.
In the above discussion, for good or for ill, sales is being used as the measure of popularity but I understand what you are saying and the point you are making. It would be hard, however, to accurately gage how many people are currently playing, for example, 1E GURPS, so we are left with sales as the beanchmark by which we can measure success of a brand. And I do think it is important to stress that what has been referred to as a "system" should more accurately be labeled as a "brand" for the sake of this discussion since the system used by a brand can change a great deal over time. What edition of GURPS is current, btw?
But I also consider just about every game mentioned in this thread rules heavy. Risus (6 pages) and similar games are rules lite. Any game where rules (and non-setting material) take up 100+ pages is not rules light.
Bingo.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
__________________ "I asked Dave to please send me his rules additions, for I thought a whole new system should be developed. A few weeks after his visit I received 18 or so handwritten pages of rules and notes pertaining to his campaign, and I immediately began work on a brand new manuscript. "Greyhawk" campaign started —the first D&D campaign! About three weeks later, I had some 100 typewritten pages, and we began serious play-testing in Lake Geneva, while copies were sent to the Twin Cities and to several other groups for comment. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS had been born."
— EGG, Dragon #7
* - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.
"Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.
In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.
True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems? And yes, no matter how many "this is my opinion"s you use, it comes out as trash talk.
As far as I am concerned, it paints them and their company in a bad light. High-profile people are representatives of their company 24 hours a day. It's part of the job. So why stir things up like this? What good does it do them?
If anything, I suppose, it could steer more people to smaller, friendly game companies and systems. After this, I certainly hope it does.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
Something I don't get, which may just be my own perspective getting in the way, is why rules-light games are perceived as "Cops & Robbers".A badly designed rules light game can, but nobody's defending badly designed games.
HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool, Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE -- one thing these games have in common is that any conflict at all that comes up can be resolved using the basic mechanic. These conflicts can be interesting and challenging. There's little cause for confusion or debate, except perhaps about difficulty levels (which always have to be decided).
There's also lots of things these games don't address. How much I can carry. Whether or not I can jump a seven-foot ditch. How long I can hold my breath. The relative damage of different-size swords.
But if those things ever came up in an interesting fashion, something involving a conflict with real stakes, you could use the rules to resolve them. And if they don't show up in an interesting fashion, then why do I care?
Similarly, on the topic of appeal to new players, I'm waiting to see more rules-light games that are actually written for them. I can't fault Everway for not producing massive of new roleplayers, because it's not easy for anyone to digest. How many games actually explain how to play? How to GM? I don't mean the usual five pages in the front and a chapter in the back of the GM Guide, but really explain it.
But look at Dogs in the Vineyard, and it explains what the game's about, how to make a character, and how to resolve conflicts. Then the GM's section explains how to create a scenario from scratch, specifically, in clear terms. I wouldn't give D&D 3.5 or Everway to a group who'd never played before, but if they were interesting in the setting for DitV, I think they could pick it up without help quite easily.
Last edited by SweeneyTodd; 6th July 2005 at 07:37 PM..
True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems?
I'd call it a concern for the health of the hobby combined with a sense of exasperation from seeing good game concepts go out of print.
Or they're evil and sit back on their thrones, drinking glasses of puppy, lording over the fallen RPGs like vultures over carrion, while John Wick polishes their boots.
I'm guessing the former, but the latter makes for a more interesting mental image.
__________________ "I asked Dave to please send me his rules additions, for I thought a whole new system should be developed. A few weeks after his visit I received 18 or so handwritten pages of rules and notes pertaining to his campaign, and I immediately began work on a brand new manuscript. "Greyhawk" campaign started —the first D&D campaign! About three weeks later, I had some 100 typewritten pages, and we began serious play-testing in Lake Geneva, while copies were sent to the Twin Cities and to several other groups for comment. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS had been born."
— EGG, Dragon #7
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
