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.
It's the only ojbective measure of a game's sucess. There are many, many subjective measures, but sales is the only real objective one.
I'm not debating sucess of a game but just the facts of how the mechanics and char gen work in response to Ryan saying that "light" systems are not faster and do not have a lower learning curve than d20.
Any old average system (@ that time anyway)that had the D&D logo on it would have done just as well given the same resources.
I'm not debating sucess of a game but just the facts of how the mechanics and char gen work in response to Ryan saying that "light" systems are not faster and do not have a lower learning curve than d20.
And on that note... We're back on topic!
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
There's something about being first, but it's not everything you think it is either.
Bingo. If it was all about being first, Superhero 2044 would be the supers RPG of chocie, and all the pulp fans would be playing FGU's Daredevils.
Ditto brands. You can't build a brand on a crappy product. The Champions brand (arguably the best-known SHRPG brand, at least until maybe M&M) certainly didn't help Cybergames' Fuzion-based Champions: The New Millenium line become any less of a disaster. And let us not venture into talk of AD&D2e. Even WFRP was out of print for a while.
__________________ 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
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.
Here's what I am saying: A RPG game system that actually makes use of a Game Master to arbitrate the game (including ad hoc decision making on action resolutions) doesn't translate well into a computer game that is marketed under the RPG's brand name. Such a hypothetical video game cannot really be true to its source since the "rules" for so many types of actions are not usually codified. That is, this kind of RPG relies on a real live Game Master performing tasks that are impossible to model in a video game.
"Rules heavy" system that have an outlined rule for everything can be translated to computer games much easier (including lots of number crunching and calculations).
Video games are highly profitable. In order to tap into this profit, a RPG publisher creates a system that is more adaptable to that format as a source. The result is a paper RPG that itself feels like playing a video game, in may ways. For example, I don't think it is not a mere coincidence that Everquest found the d20 system so suitable when translating the video game to paper RPG.
__________________ 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.
Bingo. If it was all about being first, Superhero 2044 would be the supers RPG of chocie, and all the pulp fans would be playing FGU's Daredevils.
Ditto brands. You can't build a brand on a crappy product. The Champions brand (arguably the best-known SHRPG brand, at least until maybe M&M) certainly didn't help Cybergames' Fuzion-based Champions: The New Millenium line become any less of a disaster. And let us not venture into talk of AD&D2e. Even WFRP was out of print for a while.
All of these are RPGs. What was the FIRST RPG?
__________________ 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.
Moogle: I'm talking about video games based on a paper RPG source.
Final Fantasy outsells D&D brand electronic games, although both are hugely successful. Presumably, to maximize the sales of D&D brand electronic games, those dreadful money-grubbers at Wizards would have made paper D&D more like Final Fantasy.
That is, light, fast combat with a strong emphasis on basic attacks, little attention to location and movement and a simple magic system, with no out-of-combat resolution mechanic.
Something akin to a combination of the rules-litest aspects BD&D and Tri-Stat.
Something absolutely not akin to D&D 3.x.
Of course, since Wizards makes exactly $0.00 off the sale of D&D brand electronic games (as Hasbro no longer has the rights to said brand), they have no incentive to do either. :\
I suggest falling back on the WotC made 3.x rules-heavy to sell miniatures.
Because we all know that the Warhammer and War Machine rules are far more complex than, say, AD&D.
__________________ "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
Location: Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill. . .
Posts: 3,395
Start with a "rules lite" game system. The system covers 80% of a player's game experience.
Group 1:
When the players want to try stuff not covered by the system, the DM has to come up with rules for it. Once a rule is formed, the DM adds it to the list of house rules for future reference, should the situation come up again.
After 100 game sessions, that 20% has come up quite often. The DM's house rules list has grown quite a bit. The DM's game is now rules lite (80%) with house rules (20%). He looks at the "rules heavy" game system and sees that all of his house rules are included in the core rules (100%). So the group "upgrades" to the new game system.
The group is happy with the new rules because nothing has gotten harder, and the DM's job has gotten easier.
Group 2:
Start with a "rules lite" game system. The system covers 80% of a player's game experience.
Either the players never think of or attempt something not covered by the system (the 20%), or they consciously or subconsciously limit themselves to stuff covered in the system (the 80%). [If grappling is not mentioned in the rules, do the players not think to try it, or do they ignore/avoid that option?] So the "missing" 20% is never actually missed.
Someone sees the "rules heavy" game system, sees all these new options (the 20%) available, and the group upgrades to the new game system. Now everyone wants to try all these new options. The group no longer just attacks, attacks, attacks. Now everyone is bullrushing, grappling, and disarming. The 20% suddenly becomes so much more important. The 20% seems more like 50% now.
Everyone starts pining for the old days when things were simpler. "Rules lite worked fine for us."
So, for Group 1, "rules heavy" was a good change. For Group 2, "rules heavy" was a bad change. One group saw the old cup as half empty, and now sees the cup as full at last. The other group saw the cup as having plenty, and now sees the cup twice as full as it needs to be - and they feel that they *must* drink the whole thing.
Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
OD&D 1974 - 1979+ a little over 5 years.
__________________ Story Hour
OMG! The SKY IS FALLING! --JoeGKushner
Myself, I plan to masturbate less -- der_kluge
I know that I've never really liked d20. I think it was designed by a bunch of hacks --- Monte Cook
I am sickened beyond belief. The half-orc wizard is obviously the best possible PC, and I only had to read 10 pages of the book to figure it out. D&D is dead to me! -- Mike Mearls
FWIW, I'm on the design team and I pretty much find WoW as fun and interesting as banging my head against a brick wall. -- Mike Mearls
you happen to say that 4E reminds you of the reasons you decided against a career as a special-Ed teacher--noted rpg author Darrin Drader
In my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.
__________________ 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.
In my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.
Having more options will limit what you are capable of more than having less options? I disagree.
EDIT: It's completely baed on the players not the rule system. A group of players who likes to do weird and crazy stunts will do so in a lite system or a heavy system. A group of players who doesn't like to do weird and crazy stunts won't do so in either system. A bad GM will flounder when the PCs break outside the box in either case, and a good GM will be able to run with it under either system.
__________________ "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 my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.
Exactly.
That's what I experienced many times moving to Savage Worlds, and even between other systems. If someone is very experienced in using a system, it is hard for them to imagine doing something not covered by the rules.
But I think the trust factor has a lot to do with why people don't like rules lite systems. They don't trust the GM to provide them with an entertaining story. They are more worried about the fact that they could stuff 12 monkeys in a barrel last week, and this week, the GM would only let them stuff 11. "Oh the humanity! Oh, how cruel! I can't suspend my disbelief! Help me, oh heavy rules!"
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
I'm certainly no expert in this field of study, but I've got opinions on here like everyone else.
It seems to me, that if you compare "rules-light" versus "rules-heavy" you could compare computer games - Baldur's Gate, versus say, Ultima 6 (the greatest RPG game every made, IMHO).
Baldur's Gate: You had complex spells, and complex dispel magic spells (a variety to choose from), and to successfully attack a spell caster, you often had to use a variety of strategic measures to bring down his magical defenses.
Ultima 6: To kill something, you had to whack it with a lot of pointy sticks, sometimes a lot.
Baldur's Gate: Dragons were fierce combatants, made all the more powerful with effects like Stoneskin, so you had to monitor the event log to see if the dragon had cast that, and if he had, you had to counter with a dispel magic in order to affect him.
Ultima 6: To kill a dragon, you had to have a lot of hit points, and whack it with a lot of pointy sticks.
Baldur's Gate: If you tried to convince the town guard to do something, often the game would secretly roll (or in NWN's case, would openly show you the roll, be it bluff, or whatever) that you were attempting some form of deception. Success was based on the dice roll.
Ultima 6: You either chose the right thing to say, or you didn't.
I think both were great games, but they play differently. I don't think I agree with the argument that you need a real heavy rules system to create an effective computer simulation of an RPG. Neither system would want randomness in place. Consider the grabbing the rope and swinging across with the Princess. If this were done in a computer game, and it came down to a single dice roll, people would save the game before hand, attempt it, and failing it would just reload and try it again. It would be kind of pointless, and not very fun.
At their core, they are essentially the same game. But BG takes a lot more rules understanding. I pity the poor fool who doesn't know the 3rd edition rules try to make it all the way to the end of BGII because you have to have a lot of game knowledge on how to defeat certain monsters. The Mind Flayer area would be particularly frustrating.
It occurred to me that playing C&C (with Scadgrad) that the concept of an ability score check is a long-lost concept in 3rd edition. I was hesitant to lose skills at first, but I no longer miss them. Everthing is resolved with a quick and easy ability score check, and it negates the need for a skill. If you really think about it, having a lot of rules can lead to weird conclusions. For example, swimming can either be strength (trying to swim across a fast river) or constitution (treading water in the middle of the ocean for hours). Applying a hard rule to a concept can actually make the game *less* realistic, which kind of loses the intent, I think.
The other point I'd like to make is the concept of character creation. I don't *want* to be able to create a character in 5 minutes. I want a backstory, I want a personality, I want all those things, that should be standard for any character (unless I'm slopping one together at a convention). To this end, rules-heavy can give me more flexibility and more definition, but even it is insufficient for what I want. With a rules-light system, I might be mechanically nothing more than a few ability scores, a class, and some hit points. With rules-heavy, I might be all those things, and some skills and feats as well. But neither tells the complete story of *who* I am.
Aside from trying to create people within the middle of a game (never a good idea, in any situation), I don't *care* if character creation takes 2 hours. I like character creation. It's the rules that come up during game play that I don't want to eat up all my time. Game time is precious to me, and if I can spend that time actually role-playing and propelling the story foreward, rather than debating some rules minutia, then I'm happier.
So why did these people have him do their forward?
The work in question is not a gaming product, but rather it is reference guide to the OGL and d20 STL, the formation of which Dancey played a pretty integral role in. Dancey has a good deal of working knowledge of these licenses, despite his perception of the rpg market being suspect.
Additionally, it is a mistake to view the d20 industry as a monolithic entity. The d20/OGL market if you can call it that is composed mostly of small independent publishers who have less communication amongst each other than Microsoft has with the open source community.
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.
Yes, but in a rules heavy game that "telling" takes a lot more time... at least such was my experience with AD&D (which is not rules light per se, but it's lighter then 3E) vs 3rd edition, with the kind of players that don't own or read the manuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mearls
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.
Personally, I think that you don't have more tools, you just have different tools for different jobs...
I do agree however, that games with more rules, make the system more "GM proof", by reducing the amount of "arbitrary" adjudication. Wheter this is a good or bad thing is clearly a matter of personal taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mearls
(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!)
And a good thing too, considering that we seem to disagree on these posts, but I absolutely adore your writing!
True, but if everyone thought that nothing this guy said was important, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell
The work in question is not a gaming product, but rather it is reference guide to the OGL and d20 STL, the formation of which Dancey played a pretty integral role in. Dancey has a good deal of working knowledge of these licenses, despite his perception of the rpg market being suspect.
Additionally, it is a mistake to view the d20 industry as a monolithic entity. The d20/OGL market if you can call it that is composed mostly of small independent publishers who have less communication amongst each other than Microsoft has with the open source community.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
On the "20 minutes of game in 4 hours" quote: That was Ryan Dancey. (The quote that started the thread was his response to someone who responded to that, saying "Wouldn't simpler rules help?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryonD
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.
BryonD: I would agree with you that if you are playing a game where it matters how much you can lift, then you should use a ruleset that handles that. If you want everything quantified, then use a rules-heavy system that quantifies everything.
I'm saying this kind of stuff doesn't come up in my games. Seriously. Nobody sits around wondering if they can lift 250 pounds or not. (I recognize this is an extreme example, but I'm going for a general principle. I'm not hung up on the specifics of deadlifting.)
I've had characters have to struggle to move some heavy debris to save a friend. They had a stat that measured their physical ability, and they rolled against a difficulty that represented that it was a heavy weight and they had to do it quickly.
If I'd played that scene in D&D, I would have looked at the heaviest character's Strength stat, seen how much they could barely lift, and made the weight of the debris that much.
Either way, the difficulty was the same. It didn't make any difference.
But wait, you might say. What if he was strong enough that it wasn't a question, he could definately do it. Then in any system, I wouldn't have had him roll. If it isn't dramatic or interesting to do something, why are we using the rules for it?
I think I see the biggest sticking point: None of this stuff is real. Seriously, though, it's not. The GM invented the debris. We're all imaging that it's there, pinning this guy's poor friend. The conflict isn't about mass vs. muscle capacity -- it's about this guy trying to save his friend.
And the thing is, the player was fine with it. He did something heroic, saved his friend, and everybody went "Man, he's strong." Nobody went back with a scale to measure the debris and write down how much weight he lifted.
What I'm trying to say is that it's entirely possible to play a challenging, believable game where the mechanics handle "can you achieve your goal", without knowing concrete specifics about everything.
If you want to know concrete specifics about everything, I got nothin'. You'd probably hate my GMing. I strive hard to present a believable, interesting world, and it works for my players and their preferences, but it wouldn't work for everybody.
If the concern is that it's not fair, well, I challenge the PCs with a variety of conflicts. Some are easy enough that we don't roll. Some are difficult and risky, and the system resolves those with a relevant element of chance. Some are impossible, and must be overcome in a different way. It'd be exactly the same if I played by-the-book rules-heavy, except that I'd add an additional step after deciding the difficulty where I reverse-engineered from the numbers to determine the specifics.
Because if it's not challenging and interesting, why are you using the rules to determine the outcome? And if the rules you use make those conflicts challenging and interesting, why use more?
That's just my angle.
Last edited by SweeneyTodd; 6th July 2005 at 08:54 PM..
The problem here, for me, is that nobody seems to be able to agree which games are actually "rules lite". It seems only the most extreme cases, of which I can't currently think of any, are able to be identified and globally recognized as such. In that regard it is a lot like "Low Magic". Some people love the idea. Some people hate the idea. Most are indifferent. And nobody seems to be able to agree on what the idea was in the first place.
Seriously, though, it's not. The GM invented the debris. We're all imaging that it's there, pinning this guy's poor friend. The conflict isn't about mass vs. muscle capacity -- it's about this guy trying to save his friend. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
