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.
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, 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?
^^^^ What he said.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
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.
FWIW, Ryan Dancey has not worked for WotC for, what, at least 3 years now?
__________________ Jack O'Neill: So what's your impression of Alar?
Teal'c: That he is concealing something.
Jack O'Neill: Like what?
Teal'c: I am unsure - he is concealing it.
"...but the Senator, while insisting that he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity."
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.
Ryan Dancey no longer works for WotC. Prior to working for WotC, Dancey worked with AEG, on lines that were crtainly "lite"-er than D&D/d20, e.g., Lot5R and 7th Sea. Dancey was also the motive force behind the OGL, i.e., the reason you can download 97% of the rules for D&D and d20M for free.
Mearls has worked for WotC for all of about a week and a half. Most of his career to this point has been freelancing for small companies with none of the financial stability of WotC. Given his near-meteoric rise in the RPG design biz, I have a hard time buying into the idea that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I don't see anything they are doing as attacking, and I don't see how ad hominems really help. These are two people whith a lot of genuine experience in the RPG biz. Agree with what they have to say or not, I find it all incredibly insightful.
__________________ 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
Setting D&D 3E as the baseline of what a rules heavy game is (and anything below that rules-lite) is like setting SLUG (or FUDGE) as the baseline of what a rules-lite game is (and anything above that rules-heavy). D&D 3E is pretty much the height of rules-heavyness, not the standard.
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
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?
Absolutely right in that the Dancey/Mearls postulate seems to ignore branding and the inherent value of the brand. WotC dominates the market because it cranks out more Rules Crunch than anyone else? It has has nothing what-so -ever to do w/ the fact that it's the D&D brand their crankin' out "rules heavy for?"
riiiiight.
Look, WotC could have recreated 3.X as simply as The Window for instance, and because of the brand, it would have probably sold like hotcakes due to a combination of factors. The brand and the other marketing elements are clearly more important than the actual rules of the game (anyone actually FINISHED a game of Monopoly lately? Ever?) if we're to use nothing other than raw sales figures to define quality.
__________________ all the best Scadgrad
C&C Society
I'll refrain form the classic C&C/D&D 3.X and instead go for my favorite, the d6 SW vs d20 SW for an example.
I can create a non-jedi PC in d20 in 5 minutes. Any level. A jedi takes 10-15. I cannot create any character in d6 under 15 min, despite having alot less steps to go through. While d6 is a lighter system (one mechanic, etc) combat takes ungodly long. Roll to hit. Roll to dodge. Compare rolls to find how hit you are. Roll damage. Soak damage. Repeat. d20? Roll to hit. Compare d20 roll + mods to Defense. Roll damage. Subtract from vitality/wound. Repeat.
What are the rules for tripping someone in d6? How much damage does fire do? Can I swing across a chasm with a princess in my arms while dodging blaster fire? I KNOW how to do all that in d20, in d6 its either vague or not mentioned.
Perhaps the greatest thing I dislike about rules-lite is being a PLAYER. I feel like I have less control over my own PCs action because ultimately, the guy at the end of the table will be the decider of my action's success and failure, not myself or even impartial dice. If the DM doesn't believe I can swing across the chasm with the princess, He will a.) SAY NO or b.) Make an extremely difficult TN/DC Check. With some formula of rules, I can determine MYSELF my chances of success/failure and decide if I wish to chance it. The DM, of course can asign additional modifiers ("The princess isn't as light as she appears") to keep up tension, but WILL KNOW if the stunt is out of my league.
This is also what Dancy meant when he said the experience doesn't transfer DMs. Maybe DM A likes Errol Flynn and lets me do it with a decent DC, but DM B is very realistic and doesn't allow it, or makes the DC much higher (and of course, doesn't mention that.) Insue the "DM A lets me do it" arguement.
I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options. Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.
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.
Opinnions can be wrong, when they are based on false facts. The ridiculousness of the described methodology of the experiemntation is what sent up red flags for me. When someone purposefully throws a parade in front of my face my first instnct is to watch out for what I might step in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz
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?
For D&D, we've been told such but let's not forget that 900 pages of core rules for about $60.00, re-sold after revision several years later for $90.00, and supported (despite what we've been told) by dozens of supplements as opposed to a rules-light booklet that might be able to sell for $20.00 and has a limit to how much support it can offer before it is adding too many rules to call itself rules-light.
True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems?
Point me to where either of them said anything bad about a specific system.
Not to mention, they're not talking system design, they're talking marketing and sales.
__________________ 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
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*) . . .
My comment based on the observed phenomena of Dancey's reasoning and my interpretation of his motive:
Ryan Dancey is a putz!
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options. Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.
Man. I'm sorry you had such bad experiences.
I couldn't GM my players if they didn't trust me. Nor could I play in someone's group if I didn't trust them.
Sorry, but that just sounds sad, and a good reason to play computer games.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
I don't see anything they are doing as attacking, and I don't see how ad hominems really help. These are two people whith a lot of genuine experience in the RPG biz. Agree with what they have to say or not, I find it all incredibly insightful.
Mearls is a good designer, absolutely.
Keep in mind though, that Dancey is and always has been primarily an organizational/marketing guy, not a designer. That, combined with his behavioral history of adjusting facts to suit his theories, well, I pretty much write everything he says off from the word "go."
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.
While I agree that Ryan Dancey is lacking in credibility, I'd advise those who are inflamed by his statements to not interpret them as reflective of WotC's views and attitude. Dancey is no longer associated with Wizards in any way.
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.
Eh.
It's hard for those with invested opinions that his forecast don't look too kindly on to not appreciate his predictions.
But really, what started the blog was commentary on industry events. It's topical. And Mike feels he observes a pattern, apparently. (I don't want to speak for him, especially as he has already poked his nose in here today, but that's my perception anyways.)
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
From Mike Mearls' blog:
...Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.:
This is nonsense. ZERO time difference? What was the resolution of the stopwatch? Five minutes?
How about the GM creating a 12th level NPC for 3.5e and then create one for a rules lite system. Still think the difference will be zero? Ever have to create an NPC of greater than 4th or 5th level for a random encounter?
I don't want to spend any time pointing at rules. The only rule that a GM should EVER have to point to is the one that says the GM has the final say. And that he should only have to do once per new player. Any arguments will wait until after the session. There are exceptions to this: particularly if it could mean life or death for the PC.
Doesn't basic set D&D qualify? Its not until you hit companion and master level rules that weapon mastery and variant class options got introduced. The no skills aspect appeals to me as a rules lite game. And it had plenty of support through modules as I remember it (B1-9).
I consider it rules-light, although it's not as light as say Fighting Fantasy, Twerps, Tunnels & Trolls, etc.
The whole light/medium/heavy is very subjective anyway, since people use different criteria to classify things.
That character creation is taking as long in rules lite systems and rules-heavier systems I cannot believe. Char creation in D&D vs. C&C is like two worlds. Where in D&D it can take hours (no joke) I have yet to see someone having longer than 30 mins for a C&C character.
I have yet to see a 3.x D&D character that took more than 30 mins too, unless it was a new character at high level, or the player was just really indecisive and sat around wondering what he wanted to do.
Wow, what a bizarre assertion...was Mr. Dancey using humans or lab rats in his experiment?
Anyone who thinks Savage Worlds or Castles & Crusades don't play faster or create characters faster is using some weird control group.
I may well be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that the focus groups that Ryan is referring to were conducted during the development of 3E...when neither of those particular games existed.
__________________ Jack O'Neill: So what's your impression of Alar?
Teal'c: That he is concealing something.
Jack O'Neill: Like what?
Teal'c: I am unsure - he is concealing it.
"...but the Senator, while insisting that he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity."
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.
Not really, no. Give Everway to neophyte *gamers* and they won't know what to do. Give Everway to people who have little to no experience with RPGs and the chief problem will be you, the GM, messing with their heads by trying to fit their experience into traditional gaming instead of just playing Everway. An ex of mine has actually run the game quite successfully at a summer camp program using this "non-gamerish" gaming idea.
The fact of the matter is that a sizeable chunk of gaming these days is rules light.
"But eyebeams, this is so outrageous and wrong, and contradicted by market data X!"
Newp. It's just that once it frames itself in a certain way, RPG players start ignoring it as "real" roleplaying.
These days, lost and lots and lots of people roleplay by post with no rules whatsoever. This is probably the majority of non-MMO online gaming right now. People play games where they fill the shoes of characters in Harry Potter or the X-Men and abide by GM moderation to unravel problems that simple conversation can't solve. They have lots of arguments, but they also have large, thriving communities.
The irksome thing for me as a game designer is that they don't need what I'm selling. They game by custom more than rule. It's like trying to sell crutches to competitive sprinters.
Past that, we have MMOs and ther computer games, which are strategically complex but put much of the tedium under the hood. Yes, the social sphere is different. The highs of dramatic interaction might be lacking. But one of the hidden principles of successful game design is in this ditty:
1) Most people run crappier games than they admit.
2) Their games tend to be crappy in the areas they stress the most.
3) This happens because of a combination of micromanagement and social dysfunction.
In truth, few people harvest the social potential of gaming -- they socialize in spite of the game. They use it as a pretext to socialize and this is what takes up a good chunk of the 4 hours/20 minutes equation.
It is possible -- easy even -- to design a game that teaches people how to maximize in-game social activity and integrate it with the rules and narrative. There are well-known principles that get used in dramatic arts all the time.
But that game would never sell, because in the end it would recommend a form of gaming that would either not be counted as gaming at all or would be absorbed by groups that aren't "official" games but are having plenty of fun nonetheless.
Incidentally, this is not just an indication that gamers suck or anything. The same dynamic is at work when people get together to play a game of casual soccer.
Last edited by eyebeams; 6th July 2005 at 08:00 PM..
WotC dominates the market because it cranks out more Rules Crunch than anyone else? It has has nothing what-so -ever to do w/ the fact that it's the D&D brand their crankin' out "rules heavy for?"
riiiiight.
There's quote from Mearls that I used to have in my .sig, which was basically, "If you think that D&D has remained popular simply becasue it was the first, or that it's a recognizeable brand, you have no business being a designer."
Quote:
Originally Posted by scadgrad
Look, WotC could have recreated 3.X as simply as The Window for instance, and because of the brand, it would have probably sold like hotcakes due to a combination of factors.
Well, they recreated ther hottest-selling campiagn setting and novel series, Dragonlance, as a rules-liteish RPG called SAGA, and we all know what a huge success that was. They even tied it with some of earth's most popular comic books with the Marvel SAGA game, and that went kaput, too.
(Granted, we also need to consider TSR's poor business practices.)
It's not all about branding.
__________________ 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
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
