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.
Sorry, but that just sounds sad, and a good reason to play computer games.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Can't sell computer games running on "rules lite" game systems, since a computer cannot act as Game Master; "rules heavy" allows the system to be ported into the computer realm, and produce a new product line, as well as RPGs that feel like playing a video game . . .
__________________ 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.
The comment that I found most telling on this thread was "that D&D seemed like 20 minutes of fun packed into four hours". (Taken from a post by SweeneyTodd - I don't know exactly where he was quoting from.)
The following statement is one that I do not make lightly, and indeed is one I never thought I'd say: If you are playing D&D like that, you are playing it wrong.
A good DM with a group of players who are able to abide by his rulings will fit much more than 20 minutes of the "fun" activities into 4 hours. Likewise, a good GM and a good group of players will do the same, (almost) regardless of the system they are using.
So, which is better, rules-lite or rules-heavy? Well, if you want to make money, the answer would seem to be rules-heavy. (But then, if you really want to make money, the answer is to be either D&D or Vampire. I doubt any other system is making huge amounts of money.)
If your goal isn't to make money, if for instance you are interested in playing the games, the best system is the one that you have most fun with. If you like D&D, great. If you prefer C&C, that's great too. Attempting to find one true game system that will appeal to everyone is pointless.
Personally, I like D&D, but with reservations. I really like the fact that the game has provided me with a huge array of tools for building exciting adventures. I like the fact that I can spend my time dreaming up evil plots, and be sure that someone has done the hard work of describing all this in game terms, and I like the fact that the game provides reasonably good tools for ensuring that the challenges I develop are neither too hard nor too easy for my PCs (the CR system). This latter element was something I found very difficult in Storyteller, for instance.
What I hate about D&D, though, is that there's so much work involved in taking my wonderfully fiendish ideas and turning them into a concrete set of statistics. Especially when it is so obviously the case that that job could be best done with a PC application, but there does not currently exist an application that has all the features I would require (for instance, the ability to select a few elements of a monster build, and then click a "finish it for me" button) and is kept right up to date with the most recent releases. (And yes, I know that such an application is unrealistic to expect, but without it, I'm left with the work to do myself.)
I don't think any game is rules-lite if it is over something like 64 pages or so.
Page count?
Let's try to agree on one thing: "Rules Lite" is as subjective a term as "Rules Heavy", or "Obscene". We know it when we see it.
Savage Worlds, for example, is definitely over 64 pages, but it covers everything from vehicle rules, chase rules mass combat rules (those last 2 taking only 2 pages each - that's lite), powers, etc., etc. Rules Lite? I think so, but you may not.
But page count? Sorry, no.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
.. "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."
"Be there the firstest with the mostest baby."
One of the primary reasons that D&D and Warhammer Fantasy continue to dominate their respective markets is because of the brand and the world-wide community of players who cling to the game. This is particularly telling in GW's case since their rules are just laughably bad at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz
.. 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.
But one could make the argument that SAGA went down in flames because it wasn't a part of the D&D brand. It was viewed as NOT D&D. There is certainly more to sales figures than the brand, but I maintain that the brand is far more importent than how many crunchy bitz the designer throws under the hood.
__________________ all the best Scadgrad
C&C Society
But one could make the argument that SAGA went down in flames because it wasn't a part of the D&D brand. It was viewed as NOT D&D. There is certainly more to sales figures than the brand, but I maintain that the brand is far more importent than how many crunchy bitz the designer throws under the hood.
Addtionally, that game had problems because W-H blew up their world again.
Never buy real estate in Krynn.
__________________ "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
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.
You know, I'm really not sure I've ever played a true rules-lite game. I've looked at Risus, but never actually ran it. The closest I got was probably either SAGA or The Fantasy Trip, both of which were pretty solid games. Would they be considered rules-lite?
__________________ Best,
Garnfellow
Last edited by Garnfellow; 6th July 2005 at 08:05 PM..
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Can't sell computer games running on "rules lite" game systems, since a computer cannot act as Game Master; "rules heavy" allows the system to be ported into the computer realm, and produce a new product line, as well as RPGs that feel like playing a video game . . .
Have you ever played a video game? Final Fantasy 4 is a rules-lite system; Final Fantasy Tactics is comparatively rules-heavy but rules-lite by pen and paper standards; Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is considerably heavier, being based on 3.x D&D.
If you were to translate FF4's mechanics into a pen and paper RPG, it would be a relatively rules-lite system with a single unified combat mechanic and a small number of spells or powers per character (at 40th level about equivalent to a 1st-level d20 character). Less complex than BD&D, and with the same amount of out-of-combat conflict resolution inherent to the system (that is, none). Unlike any version of D&D, but much like, say, Tri-Stat, positioning and movement would be abstract, limited, at most, to declaring one line of PCs/NPCs as being ahead of the other for protective purposes. Like C&C or BD&D or AD&D, every character is representative of an archetype, and he cannot change it or customize it within the framework of the rules. In the electronic game, non-combat interaction is either ignored (most skill checks) or run by 'GM fiat' (diplomacy, traps) - just like in a rules-lite system.
An FFT character has the same amount of out-of-combat conflict resolution built into the system as an FF4 character, but considerably more complexity in combat. By level 40, he likely has levels in about a half-dozen classes and he can set a custom suite of abilities for combat, some of which would likely have out-of-combat implications as well in a pen-and-paper game. Movement is precise and Z-axis is important. However, an FFT character never has as many options during the course of play as even a BD&D character, and less in character creation than a D&D 3.x character.
A RttToEE character is a 3.x character, basically.
Rules-lite systems not only translate perfectly well to video games, they are the clear standard. Non-D&D computer games also usually run on 'rules-lite(er)' systems.
Still what? That was your whole point that just evaporated in the wind, wasn't it?
No, only if you use the talk-radio model of discussion does one detail invalidate the entire point.
He is still a big name in the industry. He publishes d20 material. Point still stands. Why do those at the top find it necessary to cast those below in a bad light, especially in such a small market?
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
One of the primary reasons that D&D and Warhammer Fantasy continue to dominate their respective markets is because of the brand and the world-wide community of players who cling to the game. This is particularly telling in GW's case since their rules are just laughably bad at times.
I think that's ridiculous. White Wolf gave TSR a good scare for a while ten years or so ago, and D&D has firmly regained whatever ground it had lost to them, and then some since. Warmachine and the various clicky games are serious competitors to GW these days.
There's something about being first, but it's not everything you think it is either.
Moogle: I'm talking about video games based on a paper RPG source.
__________________ 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.
Rules heavy games are for gamers. Rules light games are for gamers who are friends.
There's one key issue here that I think you're overlooking.
Only one person has to learn a rules heavy game. You can play D&D without owning a PH, or learning any of the rules, as long as someone else at the table can tell you what's going on.
The same thing is true with a rules light game.
The question becomes, which game is worth the time it takes to study and learn? They both take some amount of time. The more complex game probably takes more time, but it's also more rewarding in that you have more tools in your kit to deal with the game.
IMO, light v. heavy is only an issue in competitive games where every player has to learn the rules to enjoy the game. That isn't the case in RPGs.
(And it's also the case that the posts that I as soon as I make a post that generates lots of discussion, I have a rush of work that keeps me away from various boards!)
No, only if you use the talk-radio model of discussion does one detail invalidate the entire point.
He is still a big name in the industry. He publishes d20 material. Point still stands. Why do those at the top find it necessary to cast those below in a bad light, especially in such a small market?
No, he's not a big name in the industry really. No, he doesn't publish d20 material to my knowledge. He's not a game designer. He's never published anything like game material. And it's not exactly "one detail" it's the main point of your position.
I think that's ridiculous. White Wolf gave TSR a good scare for a while ten years or so ago, and D&D has firmly regained whatever ground it had lost to them, and then some since.
It's more accurate to say that TSR gave TSR a good scare. Just as I cannot claim to be an expert marksman because somebody shot themselves in the face, White Wolf cannot claim that it nicked anything from TSR.
Quote:
Warmachine and the various clicky games are serious competitors to GW these days.
Not really. I doubt Warmachine can touch Warhammer and the clicky games are totally different. WotC itself already tried to succeed with a true head to head competitor for Warhammer and got spanked.
No, he's not a big name in the industry really. No, he doesn't publish d20 material to my knowledge. He's not a game designer. He's never published anything like game material. And it's not exactly "one detail" it's the main point of your position.
So why did these people have him do their forward?
Moogle: I'm talking about video games based on a paper RPG source.
So, your complaint is about tabletop RPGs are like video games specifically modeled after tabletop RPGs? Seems like a bit of chicken-and-egg here to me.
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
Buffy (w/ its 256 pages of rules by-the-by, hole in your logic perhaps?)
A gap maybe, but not a hole.
Thing is Buffy isn't 256pp of rules. It's rules, setting info, season 1-5 synopsis, writeups of the major characters, sample archetypes, GM advice, complete sample adventure, guide to Buffyspeak, creatures and villains, conversion notes for Witchcraft, reference sheets, some fiction, and lots of art. C&C is all rules (or far more rules in comparison). Buffy may not be RISUS, but it sure sits a lot closer to it than C&C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scadgrad
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.
Well, then what do we call a game that's not RISUS yet not HERO? Using "rules-medium" seems a lot more apt that making "lite" so broad as to encompass all RPGs that are any degree less complex than D&D.
Or, we could always use the other common definition of the terms:
"Lite" = RPGs I like.
"Heavy" = RPGs I don't.
__________________ 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
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).
D&D uses a basic mechanic. I don't think anyone is argueing that this makes it rules lite.
If there is a consistent rule for something, say jumping a ditch, then on that issue the game is effectively the same as a rules heavy game. If there isn't, then it is no different than cops and robbers on that issue.
But it does not come down to one issue at a time. The real issue is how often must you make up rules on the fly vs how much do you have to keep up with. Any time you have to make up rules on the fly, then it goes back to whim, which is little more than cops and robbers.
Just having a single mechanic doesn't solve the problem, it just obscures it. If you use a core mechanic to determine how much a character can lift in the absence of a lifting mechanic, then GM whim is still the real controlling factor. Must I roll to lift 10 pounds? Can I roll to try to lift 1,000? Neither of these are ever going to be a problem. But some vague point in between is going to be whim. And that vague area is going to be the area that you actually care about. Automitcs are not interesting, the edge of chance, one way or the other is where the exciting action occurs. Exactly the point where rules lite seems to break down the worst.
In D&D I know if a character can lift 250 lbs or not. If you throw a 50/50 chance at my rules light character, it is just a hand wave to hide the same result as arguing "yes I can" / "no you can't". And, of course if you rule differently the next time then you don't have a consistent game and if you rule the same then you are back to have a rules heavy game where the rules just are not written down. Either way its some degree of fancy cops and robbers.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
I think that's ridiculous. White Wolf gave TSR a good scare for a while ten years or so ago, and D&D has firmly regained whatever ground it had lost to them, and then some since. Warmachine and the various clicky games are serious competitors to GW these days.
There's something about being first, but it's not everything you think it is either.
No, you're right. You still have to maintain the brand and respond to competitors as WotC wisely did by revamping D&D. Hell, Coke changes its packaging on a farily consistant basis too.
But the fact that you can go to just about anywhere in the world and find players who play either Warhammer of some stripe or D&D is a very powerful thing and is part and parcel of the brand itself. You may think it's ridiculous, but the brand is a very powerful thing and being the first to devlop and establish a market is a crucial element of being succesful in a long-term enterprise. It may be silly, and certainly there have been challengers, but the fact remains that in both of those examples those games sit on top of the field that they virtually invented: Role Playing games and Fantasy Miniature Wargames.
Whether or not they load up their games with more and more complexity doesn't really seem to have nearly as much to do with it.
__________________ all the best Scadgrad
C&C Society
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
