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.
Wow, Gentlegamer, that's quite a conspiracy theory you have.
Quote:
"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).
This is actually wrong. Videogames are *overwhelmingly* eager to embrace easy to understand, light rules. They only have so many buttons on a controller, after all.
The more rules for more situations helps at the table, not on the screen. Adding rules for grappling, weapon sizes, treasure, tripping, etc. is not what a videogame looks for. You have one button to press to swing your sword and hit the guy x number of times to kill him, then you move on and do it again to the next guy.
Think of some of the most complex CRPG's on the market: MMOs like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, single-player opuses like the Final Fantasy series...every resolution system is astonishingly simple. And I bet to translate D&D into an MMO, Atari has to simplify things, too...because the power and technology doesn't exist to have a character that can grapple, for instance. Or one that can bull rush. Or one that can run a farm. Or one that can knock down any wall given enough time and sword blows. Or one that allows you to cut down trees. Or make jumps. Or climb "unscalable" walls.
Videogames exist in a limited, predefined world where the rules need only be as complex as the things that the heroes do. There's no treasure generation rules. There's no CR/EL rules. There's no rules for object hardness and hit points, no rules for snatching items from someone's hand, no rules for grabbing a rope in the rain, no rules for laying seige to a castle, no rules for winning over a crowd or using diplomacy. These are all rules that D&D has that would largely be ignored in a CRPG based on D&D, and have been. So in a CRPG based on D&D, you actually have to *simplify* the rules. It hardly sounds like they benefit from complexity.
Speaking as the guy taking Final Fantasy and turning it into a Pen-and-Paper RPG, I've had pretty wide experience with the difference between what makes a fun computer game and what makes a fun pen-and-paper game. And a pen-and-paper game benefits from a complex rule system, where whatever option a character can do is already accounted for in the balance of the rules, making sure that no option becomes overwhelmingly powerful.
Systems with a lot of rules (D&D) have to be *reduced* in complexity to accomodate the limitations of computer hardware. Complex rules are a PROBLEM for CRPG's. Which means that the complexity of the rules, far from being there to inspire easier CRPG game play, is actually there in spite of the fact that they make it HARDER to translate into the digital realm, and the complex rules are usually *discarded* in the translation to computer games. While I might need to know in a PnPRPG how to wrestle a hog to the ground, in a CRPG, all I need to know is what button to push to kill things.
In fact, the thing that probably makes D&D compatible with computer games the most is the grid system, which is a *simplification* of rules, forgoing complexity and embracing an artificial simplicity.
D&D is absolutely NOT designed to be a CRPG first and a PnPRPG second. If it was, it would be a simpler system, more abstract...much like FFd20 is, in trying to mirror a CRPG.
But, unlike the talk radio model, you are free to believe what you want.
I don't see what that proves at all. But hey, you've got a nice pattern going of making dismissive and insulting brush-offs to cover-up the lack of compelling content in your arguments--we've been there before and probably will be again. Don't let any facts get in your way of having fun calling me Rush Limbaugh.
Nicely put. This is the very spirit of a "rules lite" game, no matter how many pages it has, or what company puts it out.
I've been playing for over 25 years, and I've read and played in a lot of systems. Only within the last 2 or 3 months has my opinion of mechanics vs. fun really changed.
Savage Worlds got me to thinking about why we roll dice.
Burning Wheel got me to thinking about when to roll dice.
And that's what really matters, in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweeneyTodd
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.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
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.
Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.
__________________ "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
And don't let the spirit of what I was saying get in the way of you lasering in on only pieces of it to drown out the point I was making about big companies picking on small ones!
[hugs and kisses]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Dyal
I don't see what that proves at all. But hey, you've got a nice pattern going of making dismissive and insulting brush-offs to cover-up the lack of compelling content in your arguments--we've been there before and probably will be again. Don't let any facts get in your way of having fun calling me Rush Limbaugh.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
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.
BG is a 2nd Edition game.
[/pendantic]
__________________ "A rock on a stick has a 5' reach unless otherwise specified."
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.
Check out Everway. You should be able to get a copy off of ebay for ~$10-$15. Makes a very big deal about character creation and background. In some ways that's half the game. And yet it's a very rules lite system.
You can still do involved character creation in rules lite games. The difference is that after presenting your character concept to the game master, he says "duly noted," rather than trying to help you shoe-horn all the character's background into a set of skills, feats, and other abilities. That's where the true pain of character creation lies with rules-heavy systems - the quantification.
R.A.
__________________ <exasperated DM> "Underlying what? ... motivation? Do you want to play Dungeons & Dragons or not?"
<drama obsessed player> "How can I narrate my character's co-mingled sense of alienation and ennui towards modern society in this second-rate dungeon hack? My character returns to the surface and uses his remaining gold to start up an organic coffee shop that caters to left-wing revolutionaries... and hot elvish chicks."
Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.
You hit that nail soldidly on the head for me, ThirdWizard. You do that alot around here.
Changing the challenge simply to hurry along the story is too close to interactive storytelling for me, and too far away from playing a game. The price of Park Place doesn't change just because you can't afford it this time around...
My players appreciate that, too. If I wanted to have an interactive fiction session, I don't need any rules at all. If I want to play a game, I definately need them...
Boy, this one made the rules lite advocates jump up and yelp, didn't it? "It's not troooo...!"
Most of the response I'm seeing is more along the lines of puzzlement. I have no reason to suspect Dancey's lying, but his experience differs fairly dramatically from mine. For example, I'm having trouble figuring out how he gets only 20 minutes of rules interaction out of a four hour D&D session - I ran Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and if there were many sessions where we only spent 20 minutes using the rules, it would probably have taken four or five times as long to finish the thing.
Quote:
But I would have to agree I find the supposed benefits of rules light games greatly exagarated, and think that the role of consistency in running a smooth game is undervalued.
The latter does not follow from the former - rules light games almost always trade detail in favour of consistency. Example: a given bad guy can be overcome in any of a variety of ways - PCs could fight him, bargain with him, blackmail him, trick him, whatever. In D&D, the rules cover fighting him in exacting detail, other approaches are handled in a relatively simplistic (and probably incomplete, unless you want the encounter resolved by something like a single diplomacy skill check) fashion. In a lighter game like HeroQuest, whatever approach you take is going to be handled the same way mechanically, with some methods (like fighting) being less detailed than D&D and others more detailed.
And don't let the spirit of what I was saying get in the way of you lasering in on only pieces of it to drown out the point I was making about big companies picking on small ones!
I got your point; I just don't think there's anything to it. WotC doesn't feel threatened by smaller companies--Ryan Dancey himself, back in the early days of 3e, said that the market share of even the biggest of their competitors was too small for them to even consider it anything but negligible.
Besides, as has been pointed out many times, the comments were more about the marketability of Rules Lite games, and the conversation was fairly objective whether you believe it or not.
You're not actually making a point as near as I can tell, you seem to be getting defensive and lashing out. When it's been pointed out to you that you were actually mistaken about one of the most crucial elements of your claim, you've rather stubbornly clung to it anyway. I must be misunderstanding something, but I can't see what you're even trying to say anymore.
Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.
But why are there boulders there in the first place?
Why are there kobolds in the dungeon that first level PCs go to?
Complex rules justify GM's whim. Seriously. They don't replace it. When people spend lots of time preparing stat blocks for enemies, do you really believe that their first thought is "What is Zyaxx the wizard really like?" The first thought is how they can provide a challenge.
There is a heck of a lot of GMing information out there (including many of the threads on this forum) about how to come up with objective rules information that justifies GM whim. Even "I want to make an adventure" falls into this.
If you're saying that you prefer this stuff to be better hidden, so that it's easier to immerse yourself in the world and the character, okay. If you're saying you want all the numbers crunched up front because then you can enjoy defeating a set, objective challenge, okay. (I do this, too, only in my GM prep I have difficulty, and not the weight.)
But do realize that those boulders are only there because the GM invented them.
Last edited by SweeneyTodd; 6th July 2005 at 09:16 PM..
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.
Wow, your smugness is amazing dude. I mean, really, I thought *I* was arrogant. Instead of grabbing the first 80 pounds worth of gaming material you use per session (because its "consistent", of course!) and beating them over the head with it, try to listen sometimes. And just so you dont categorically dismiss my commentary as sour grapes or the shrill cry of another rules-lite emmisary, I can tell you right now I am running a D20 Star Wars game right now and loving it. My point is, just because you don't get what they are trying to say or disagree with it doesn't give your affectation of superiority any validity as concerns the topic. I recently ran a C&C game and found it to be much faster than my 3.5e game. Doesnt mean I've sworn off 3.5e. But it DOES prove (to me, at least), that The almighty WOTC crew *MIGHT* be spinning just a WEE bit because um, THEY WROTE THE STUFF. Of COURSE they like it.
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.
Just that its much easier for both sides (DM and players) if the rulebooks are not 300+ pages and still cover everything that needs to be known to have a good game.
Quote:
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.
I always thought the reward comes from having a good game, not from having lots of tools, books, whatever. I cannot speak for others but I certainly do not feel better just because I have to learn alot of rules and because I have alot of source material to draw my ideas from. What makes me happy as a player is when we had alot of fun at the game table with my fellow gamers. What makes me happy as a DM is when my group had a fun afternoon.
Quote:
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.
Oh man, I just cannot say something nice smart to that..... :\
__________________ "It is a mistake to bow to the wishes of munchkins who whine." - E. Gary Gygax 1938-2008, we will never forget you! "Yes, even at twelve years old, I was already old school... " - The Shaman
----
Currently DMing: Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk (Castles & Crusades Ruleset)
Currently Playing: nothing
The latter does not follow from the former - rules light games almost always trade detail in favour of consistency.
I don't think that it has to, and I'm not sure that Psion phrased it in such a way to necessarily imply as much. The undervaluation of consistency and the overvaluation of simplicity are often paired in the same individuals, but they are two discrete data points, and are not necessarily correlated.
But do realize that those boulders are only there because the GM invented them.
Of course. But, that's going into railroading. Most people on these boards hate railroading, and you are indirectly advocating it through your scenario. What the GM determines is the best solution, whether or not the PCs have spent resources (points in Strength) or not (points in something else) is irrelevant. The situation is taken out of the PCs hands and put into that of the GM, making their abilities and actions largely irrelevant.
This is perfectly valid, but not my playstyle.
__________________ "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
From what I gathered, the point Dancey was making was simply this: (presumably pre-3E) marketing tests indicated taht when it comes to starting up a game, being a system that emphasized less-rules did not translate into a more rapid adoption of the system for gameplay purposes. In other words, just because one was using Risus versus Rolemaster, their test groups did not suddenly experience a marked up-tick the proportion of gaming time, simply by merit of using a simpler ruleset. I may be wrong, but that was the impression I was left with.
Now, it's a valid criticism to say that he didn't back that data up in any meaningful way, either with numbers or methodology. It's certainly valid to say that there wasn't enough detail from that data to judge the veracity of that comment. Dancey is also something of a lightning rod for people's ire, for various reasons, a factor which shouldn't be discounted.
I'm willing to bet that the test groups were either pure neophytes, seasoned gamers or both. In both cases, I can see character creation taking a longer time in either system. For the former group, just learning the ropes is a challenge; for the latter group, feeling out the system is another one.
To wit: my group of experienced gamers of some years ago (a bunch well-versed in GURPS lore) agreed to try a Castle Falkenstein game that I wanted to run. I personally would label the original CF as a pretty darn rules-light system: and it drove us to distraction. The lack of specificity made it hard to imagine characters within the system. One character wanted to create a Hercule Poirot-esque character...but most of his unique factors were purely descriptive fluff. The rules system doesn't allow for specific archetypes. You can't be Monk or Spenser, you can only be Sherlock Holmes. You can't be Constantine or Howl, you can only be Merlin. And so on.
One thing that is often overlooked in lighter systems is that a lack of options also can be interepted as a lack of individuality. My group switched to GURPS from AD&D back in the day because we got tired of every 3rd level fighter being like every other 3rd level fighter, except for his equipment and maybe his strength score being a point higher or lower. Some gamers see this as a strength, and a way to make rules secondary to player's ideas....and some of us don't.
I think that Dancey's market research prior to 3E was probably flawed...but it was also the ONLY MARKET RESEARCH EVER DONE in the RPG field. That counts for something, surely.
__________________ "I'd say it's more appropriate to say that videogames are RPG-ish, wouldn't you?"
or our older WizarDru's Story Hour? You Should.
I ain't linking to Piratecat's story hour...no sir, I just won't do it. He can just get the next half-million reads on his own.
Did I mention that I have a Livejournal? It's possible that I have.
You're not actually making a point as near as I can tell, you seem to be getting defensive and lashing out. When it's been pointed out to you that you were actually mistaken about one of the most crucial elements of your claim, you've rather stubbornly clung to it anyway. I must be misunderstanding something, but I can't see what you're even trying to say anymore.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
The lack of specificity made it hard to imagine characters within the system. One character wanted to create a Hercule Poirot-esque character...but most of his unique factors were purely descriptive fluff.
And the rules lite fans would respond, "So what?"
It's funny, but I had this same discussion when 1st Edition D&D came out, about the Paladin, Ranger, etc. I said at the time, is it really necessary to have rules about a specific kind of Fighter, when you could just play your Fighter as a noble knight instead of a mercenary?
Granted, the Paladin and the Ranger had spells (and why the Ranger had spells is still a head scratcher, but I digress). But the point still stands: Do you really need rules for every aspect of a character? There was nothing stopping you in Basic D&D from playing a noble knight or an outdoorsman ranger. It did require imagination...
If you do, fine, there are systems out there that codify damn near everything. But if you are more interested in faster play, and (arguably) greater fun, then there are systems out there that allow that as well.
And any GM worth his salt will find a way to incorporate your "vision" into his rules lite game. How? Because the game doesn't dictate every single aspect. Now if you're wanting to play a diety in a low-magic, gritty game, then that's going beyond what is reasonable. But if confronted with that request, I would say, "That's a cool concept. How about a son of a diety, so I can better fit you in the story?"
It all comes down to style, in the end.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
Hence the use of the conjunction "and" instead of "therefore."
I merely pointed them out because they were points brought up in the livejournal that I agree with, even though I find some other aspects of Ryan's post to not quite match my experience.
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
I don't think that it has to, and I'm not sure that Psion phrased it in such a way to necessarily imply as much.
Well, they were two clauses of the same sentence. If he didn't actually mean them to have any particular relation to each other, I'm sure he'll let me know.
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
