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.
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.
FWIW, my experience has shown been that over the long haul, there is little or no difference between rules-light and rules-heavy in terms of in-game vs. out-of-game activity. Rules-light might have a slight early advantage, but the inevitable house rules and arguments once the players stretch their wings eventually suck up whatever savings their might have been.
What it boils down to for me is that subtraction is easier than addition both for the DM and the players. In other words, in the long run I am better off simplifying a rules-heavy game for newbies and gradually lettting them get up to speed on the full ruleset than I am if I engage in perpertual ad-hockery once they've hit the limits of what a rules-light game provides.
This is also a significant reduction in the learning curve when mutliple people DM, or when players migrate from group to group. This is I think is the real advantage of d20.
__________________ "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
BG2 is a combination 2e/3e game. It has monks, barbarians, and sorcerers after all.
Hm, I like D&D 3e. I like having options that help me build the character I want. Sure, I could just say that my fighter character spent years on the street learning to fight and stealing before becoming a squire to a noble knight, but I actually like having the rules back this up. Sure, a rules-lite game could achieve this, but usually its up to the DM to say 'Okay, you know how to pick pockets or such-n-such...'
Some people prefer rules-lite (I'll leave the definition of what that is to others...) and others like rules-heavy. I'd much rather play a rules-heavy game, BUT if I ever met a GM who was willing to work with a rules-lite system to allow me to build the character that I wanted, I wouldn't be adverse to trying. But there's no way in hell I'll go back to the 2e way of things, where 'all fighters are the same.'
2e may not be rules-lite, but it was liter than 3e...
__________________ In Soviet Russia, dice roll you!
Check out my webpage: The Codex Malevolence (updated 1/22/07)!
Chock full of Fiendish Conversions to D&D 3.5 (and some new material too).
Books Used Last Session: Core 3.5 Books, Dungeon Magazine, Libris Mortis (blaspheme), Complete Adventurer, PHBII
Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.
In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.
What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).
Games really are a short term thing anyway. Like any hobby it has fads and they come andgo -- WEG Star Wars one day -- RIFTS another. Few systems are evergreen and fewer still are played after 5 or so years. Unless your game is D&D odds are each year past the first 3 less groups play it -- yes there is probably at least one group playing Melanda and a few folks still play Dragon Quest or Powers and Perils but the "fad" has past -- heck even D&D is subject to the fad. OD&D is still played exclusivly by some as is 2e and 1e and the like
Now as for your 5 year mark, the Buffy RPG and Cinematic Unisystem is quite well supported.
It is more than 3 years old thus far and has 5 supplements (1 is a screen and 1 is a journal) and with 2 more in playtest/approvals -- There is a spin off game (Angel) with 1 supplement (a GM Screen) with supplements for that in approvals/playtest as well .
Arguably Army of Darkness (which uses the same system) could be counted as support since crossovers are discussed in the rules.
There is also Ghosts of Albion in playest which has good crossover posisblity. Oh yeah there are 2 issues so far of a supplement/magazine with more support and an adventure in Game Trader --
Thats a lot of support. How sustained this will be is up in the air but I suspect once Eden produces more non liscensed content (ala Beyond Human) it will have a decent life cycle. I am quite sure that it will make the five year limit easy
Risus which is ultra rules lite is sizable web community as well -- Risus is too small to print since the rules can fit on a 5" by 8" card
None of these games meet or exceed D&D in sales but in since gaming started only White Wolf's storyteller has come close of ANY game. Even rules heavy stuff (GURPS and Rolemaster) don't come close
D&D/D20 is the brand for most gamers. The bulk of the rest are into WOD, often the LARP version
The thing is gaming is not one single consolidated hobby ala Hackmaster in the KODT verse. It is several sub hobbies who often play together --
Some games group (mine) dislike tactical wargaming and are perfectly happy with GM arbitration as long as it enhances fun. Rules lite is fine for them
Others want Narrative systems ala Risus, Wushu or Story Engine. These are the rarest group but they do exist
Many gamers are unhappy with that much roleplaying or storytelling and want a minis driven game and rules for most situations. D&D is a better fit for them
The thing is it can be hard to get enough gamers to play any games together, much less oddball systems
IME gamers often play D&D as the least objectionable choice -- One or more gamers always seem to hate the pet game of another gamer and won't play it period.
Since a compromise needs to be reached D&D is the default choice. It is familiar and OK to most people.
An analogy -- You and 5 friends want to go out to eat.
One wants Thai, one wants Mexican, 3 want American and 1 wants Chinese. Since some of the people won't eat Thai, Mexican or Chinese the group ends up at Burger King. Only part of the group really wanted burgers but no one refused them either.
I think that game publishers and writers (including myself) overestimate the amount of satisfaction that people get from D&D --
I would bet in many groups there are at least one or two players who would prefer another system or style at least part of the time . The difficulty in getting a group together can make it hard to make that happen so they suck it up and play D&D.
At least thats better than not playing
As for the market-- This is my opinion gaming is a fan hobby with room for 2 (maybe 3 if the numbers of gamers grows) main companies with real employees, a few part time print companies and lots of lots cost of entry PDF companies, a few of which will make a living for the owner
This is a healthy vibrant market and provides ample support for all types of gamers.
Now we as gamers need to get people away from Evercrack and LARPing and to the table but beyond that its a pretty good setup
JMO I don't think the market will change much in the next few years -- D&D on top, WW in second everyone else bringing up the rear -- its been that way for more than 10 years or more
I would love to get a million more players for alternate systems but given the limits of the hobby the current set up is pretty sweet
OK. :\ It would have been nice if you could have addressed my questions though--y'know, in the interest of promoting better communication and understanding or something. It seems you made a claim based on some information which was shown to be faulty, but you stuck to your claim anyway. I don't know what you're trying to say--or perhaps more accurately, I don't see any evidence of anything you're trying to say. I'm still trying to reach some understanding here of what you're getting at, though. It's quite possible that I'm just not seeing something obvious--it happens to me all the time.
IME gamers often play D&D as the least objectionable choice -- One or more gamers always seem to hate the pet game of another gamer and won't play it period.
Since a compromise needs to be reached D&D is the default choice. It is familiar and OK to most people.
An analogy -- You and 5 friends want to go out to eat.
One wants Thai, one wants Mexican, 3 want American and 1 wants Chinese. Since some of the people won't eat Thai, Mexican or Chinese the group ends up at Burger King. Only part of the group really wanted burgers but no one refused them either.
I think that game publishers and writers (including myself) overestimate the amount of satisfaction that people get from D&D --
I completely agree and I've always had the nagging perspective that that was the missing element from the market research Dancey unveiled vs. anecdotal "common knowledge" on various Internet RPG discussion forums.
Having more options will limit what you are capable of more than having less options? I disagree.
More rules = more options? I think not. When the concept of RPGs was explained to me years ago, it was something like this:
You can do anything. You pretend like you are there. You aren't limited to stay "on the board."
My first "rpg" sessions were exactly like this: my friend was DM, and I was the player. We had no rules (didn't have a copy of D&D). He drew dungeons and I was a warrior or thief or wizard (changed each time). He adjudicated whatever actions I wanted without dice or set rules, just his judgement. Those sessions were the most pure and "outside the box" RPG sessions I have ever participated in. We were quite creative at 11 years old.
When I finally had a copy of the D&D rules, I became more constrained. As time went on, my players (whom I had taught to play RPGs) and I became more and more constrained in what we conceptualized within the game because we were used to thinking in "rules terms."
A several years ago, I came full circle when I realized how much my involvement with the rules had come to guide my thinking. Seeing the rules for what they are, I was able to break free and become a better GM and better player, often surprising other GMs with my "creative" thinking while participating as a player character.
Quote:
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.
Rules tend to train you to think in terms of the rules. The fewer rules in general, the less constraint.
__________________ 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.
Wow, your smugness is amazing dude. I mean, really, I thought *I* was arrogant.
I am smug and arrogant because I am always right. Always. Any indications that I may be wrong, well, I refer you back to step one.
Quote:
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.
I did. I'll get to the specific response in a moment.
Quote:
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.
Cool. Say, I created some d20 SW Starship Control sheets. I'd appreciate whatever input you might have regarding them!
Now that we're done with the preliminaries, I wonder if you actually read my post or the posts to which I was responding.
Some specifics are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredramsey
You know, the more I read about this guy, the more I think he is a total boob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverleaf
It's all hot air, he's just trying to model a "study" after a premeditated conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredramsey
like some kind of spoiled children. ... Am I the only one who sees their statements as juvenile and pointless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentelgamer
Ryan Dancey is a putz!
Admittedly, the last was actually a response to my post - as was yours.
Now, let's go back to what *I* said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
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.
Note, in my post, that there is absolutely no value judgement of those who enjoy rules-light games - heck, I'll play anything once or twice, given the chance.
Instead, there is a value judgement of those who enjoy rules-light games and are using this as an excuse for personal attacks on Ryan Dancey and Mike Mearls.
In other words, your criticism of me is not only misplaced, it's also nonsensical. The only thing I could be logically accused of is hyperbole in my last sentence - there actually is a good amount of "Huh - I don't agree with his results / they don't match my experience"-style commentary, all of which was enlightening to read.
Some posters, however, couldn't contain themselves with attacking the position, and decided to attack the person instead. I called them on it.
__________________ "A rock on a stick has a 5' reach unless otherwise specified."
Location: Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill. . .
Posts: 3,395
Quote:
My first "rpg" sessions were exactly like this: my friend was DM, and I was the player. We had no rules (didn't have a copy of D&D). He drew dungeons and I was a warrior or thief or wizard (changed each time). He adjudicated whatever actions I wanted without dice or set rules, just his judgement. Those sessions were the most pure and "outside the box" RPG sessions I have ever participated in.
Serious question (not a bait): why did you move away from that and into a game system? Why don't you go back to playing with absolutely no rules, just DM adjudication?
Rules tend to train you to think in terms of the rules. The fewer rules in general, the less constraint.
Then what do more rules mean? D&D has rules for grappling, tripping, disarming, overruning, bull rushing, etc etc.
Are you claiming you are just as likely to attempt to do these things in a game that does not have these options (like O/BD&D)? You saying that you are more likely to attempt to do interesting and neat stunts in a rules-lite game than D&D becasue what?
My thought is that it isn't the game system that encourages these actions. It is the players and the GM.
__________________ "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
Good for them. That's why we have different systems. I thought that was clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredramsey
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...
All well and good...but to some of us, it feels false and arbitrary with no real benefit, cost or difference other than lip service. Every wizard was as good as every other wizard. You could pretend that Mortimer was a great illusionist, while Snerd was a master necromancer...but that's all you were doing, IMHO: pretending. The rules didn't support such an option, except by DM fiat. That, in fact, is why we stopped using the Castle Falkenstein's native system and converted to GURPS (a couple of years ahead of the official conversion). The mechanic in the game basically made the players slaves to the DM's whim...and worse, it felt boring. Every conflict was resolved in the same dull, unsatisfying way. This is not a condemnation of many rules-light systems that have more satisfying mechanics, by any stretch: but the point is that the complete lack of specificity made the entire endeavour unsatisfying. It felt one-step removed from simply playing pretend...and if that's the case, why bother a game system at all?
Some of us simply prefer more complex systems. If you prefer to think of us as unimaginative, that's your perogative.
__________________ "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.
Serious question (not a bait): why did you move away from that and into a game system? Why don't you go back to playing with absolutely no rules, just DM adjudication?
I've given some pretty serious thought to --if not exactly that question, at least very closely related ones-- and I think the reason I don't play that way is that it sucks, mostly. It takes a very special group and GM to pull it off and not have it be a very frustrating experience for everyone involved. And I say this as a relatively supportive person in the rules lite spectrum--I ignore huge chunks of the d20 rules on principle.
Yes, it does impose some constraints, but what isn't being said is that constraints aren't always bad.
Location: Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill. . .
Posts: 3,395
Quote:
"The fewer rules in general, the less constraint."
Then what do more rules mean? D&D has rules for grappling, tripping, disarming, overruning, bull rushing, etc etc.
Imagine a game with so many rules that the Players are completely paralyzed and unable to play at all. Reading the rules sucks all the imagination out of the reader's brain, and he is left an automaton.
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.
I had the great enjoyment of sitting down for a game of DitV at a con a month ago - the setting was different (jedi padawan in an outpost) but the DM explained the basic mechanics for us in about 10-15 mins, we chose some pregenerated characters (and how much time is spent generating new characters from scratch anyway? not many times per campaign in my experience) and we had three hours of excellent fun. Excellent fun.
Cheers
__________________ Plane Sailing
(Enworld Admin)
If you need to email me click here
"It makes as much sense as having Batman kill his parents and then go on to fight mutants from another dimension." - Rykion
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
