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.
I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.
__________________ 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
If they were being run by the equivalent of Dungeon Milquetoasts that couldn't make a ruling and cutting of "disputes" without pointing to a written rule, the results are quite questionable.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
I remember arguements a-go-go about where people were standing in combat and the like.
But then I'm a pretty crunchy kind of guy.
__________________ "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
While somewhat interesting as an observation, I really have to wonder what that has to do with most groups out there who normally play rules lite games.
Rather than giving rules lite games to various random focus groups of gamers, they would need to study folks who regularly play rules lite games to make such a sweeping pronouncement of their utility.
Doesn't sound like a particularly well-controlled experiment. Length of time to create characters or resolve disputes is almost entirely a function of familiarity with a given ruleset, and similar rulesets. The difference between rules-light and rules-heavy games in that respect is how long it takes to become familiar with them. It doesn't sound like Dancey has observed enough gaming groups to control for the various permutations and produce useful data.
SOMETHING THAT DRAMATICALLY REDUCES THE TIME SPENT ON ACTUAL COMBAT:
1) DM uses a stopwatch.
2) Each round of combat the player has 6 to 10 seconds to determine what he does.
3) If past the 6 or 10 seconds he is still hesitating and making calculations about his next move, he has lost his turn of play, and does nothing during that round.
Anyway, I am going to implement this rule in my next tabletop campaign. I am death-tired of players who are counting and recounting squares, asking many thing to the DM and whoever, changing their mind and saying "No! No! I don't do this but rather that...", etc. Such players spend more than two minutes per each round of combat discussing tactics and possiblities, arguing over a point of rule, and what not. Now I am going to say: "It's action, you don't have time for strategy unless you spend your round thinking about it and nothing else. So now do something or lose your turn. If it's bad tactics, it's normal, in such a hurry mess, one can only make mistakes, including foes." By the way, when something dangerous happens in rela life, you don't waste time looking around for best tactics, either you fight or run NOW!"
End of rant.
__________________ (\_/) Searching the web for campaign settings? (Ovo) HOMEBREW WORLDS <(..)> The Wiki Campaign Settings' URLs page
While somewhat interesting as an observation, I really have to wonder what that has to do with most groups out there who normally play rules lite games.
Rather than giving rules lite games to various random focus groups of gamers, they would need to study folks who regularly play rules lite games to make such a sweeping pronouncement of their utility.
OTOH, aren't rules lite games promoted as being "easier" to start with and to play, in general? I don't know much about these systems, but if I were a newbie, I would want to start with something "easy" and a rules lite system would be more attractive because I wouldn't have to learn as much to start playing. But it seems, at least from Ryan Dancey's peepshow, that is not the case and could, in fact, turn off people who think "If this is rules lite, I'd hate to try the rules 'heavy' games!"
While somewhat interesting as an observation, I really have to wonder what that has to do with most groups out there who normally play rules lite games.
Rather than giving rules lite games to various random focus groups of gamers, they would need to study folks who regularly play rules lite games to make such a sweeping pronouncement of their utility.
He did somewhat address part of this bit (although this wasn't hard data) in the first half of the post that buzz didn't quote :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Dancey
In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.
There are two big problems with that shift:
1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.
2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.
__________________ David A. Blizzard
"The only constant I am sure of is this accelerating rate of change" - Downside Up by Peter Gabriel
SOMETHING THAT DRAMATICALLY REDUCES THE TIME SPENT ON ACTUAL COMBAT:
1) DM uses a stopwatch.
2) Each round of combat the player has 6 to 10 seconds to determine what he does.
3) If past the 6 or 10 seconds he is still hesitating and making calculations about his next move, he has lost his turn of play, and does nothing during that round.
Anyway, I am going to implement this rule in my next tabletop campaign. I am death-tired of players who are counting and recounting squares, asking many thing to the DM and whoever, changing their mind and saying "No! No! I don't do this but rather that...", etc. Such players spend more than two minutes per each round of combat discussing tactics and possiblities, arguing over a point of rule, and what not. Now I am going to say: "It's action, you don't have time for strategy unless you spend your round thinking about it and nothing else. So now do something or lose your turn. If it's bad tactics, it's normal, in such a hurry mess, one can only make mistakes, including foes." By the way, when something dangerous happens in rela life, you don't waste time looking around for best tactics, either you fight or run NOW!"
End of rant.
I use to have a few players who did this. Then I implemented the 30 second rule. I kept track, secretly, of the time a player took during their turn. When it got to 30 seconds and they hadn't done anything, or figured out what they were going to do, I'd say "Time's up" and move to the next person. I did it this way because some people, usually the one's who can't make up their minds, have a hard time under pressure and they'll keep looking at the clock and get nervous rather than plan their move.
I haven't had to do it in a while and I've still got the same players.
I don't buy it. Having played things like Buffy that do have a simiplier system I found that character generation was faster for those who knew what they wanted. People unsure of characters take longer no matter what the system. Combat, was definately faster. A single d10 rolled, damage pre figured out, a big table with all the manuvuers on it for easy reference, the game supplied us with the things we needed.
It also had less of a learning curse for the players. So, over the course of two session the players become very proficient with all aspects of the game, even ones their characters were notr concerned with.
But speed is not just based on the system. If the players are indicisive and none creative, if the DM doesn't know what he is doing or not able to relaly think fast; the game is going to take a long time.
The question is, what is "rules-lite" and what is "rules-insufficient"?
Some games that claim to be rules-lite (and perhaps it's some of these games that Dancey observed) but they really may be "rules-insufficient".
For me, I like having things defined simply for consistency. In 1E/2E, I didn't always remember what I ruled for a particular circustance, so I like that in 3E so much more is explained - just so I can be consistent.
I certainly would disagree with Mr. Dancey as a whole that rules-lite systems fail to deliver what they promote. Sounds like someone trying to justify their increasingly rules-heavy system.
Having said that, I'll agree that character creation and dispute arbitration probably take roughly the same amount of time, rules-lite or rules heavy. After all, arguing is arguing, whether it's about gaming rules or whether Thai or Indian curries are better-tasting.
If tested for combat and action-resolution, I think rules-lite systems would show their advantages. In my experiences of playing C&C or even OD&D verus 3e (or if you want to get really ornate, Traveller: TNE spaceship combat ), combat is about twice as fast (and twice as fun, but that's subjective) in the rules-lite systems.
If tested for combat and action-resolution, I think rules-lite systems would show their advantages. In my experiences of playing C&C or even OD&D verus 3e (or if you want to get really ornate, Traveller: TNE spaceship combat ), combat is about twice as fast (and twice as fun, but that's subjective) in the rules-lite systems.
I can definitely see how combat would be faster. Less rules = Less options in combat.
But the quoted statement mentioned only character creation and argument resolution. If there are no clearly defined rules, then it's really all a matter of personal preference. Player A could say "Well, my last DM would let me do this." And the GM would say "But that's not how I do it in my game." I can see that leading to a lot of arguments because a rule is not truly defined. I would think it would take work on the parts of both the players and the GM to decide what they can and cannot do. To me, that sounds like just as much work as trying to learn a "rules heavy" system.
I agree that trying to play D&D without the the rules for D&D wouldn't save much time. I don't think that tells us much, though.
If both players and GM have been trained to look to the rules to adjudicate everything, it's almost a tautology to say that rules that don't adjudicate everything won't be helpful to them. Similarly, if a group includes people who enjoy arguing details, a lack of detail just shifts where the arguments happen.
Our group plays rules-light. We don't try to provide mechanically balanced tactical wargame action. We don't try to simulate a fantasy environment in precise detail, either. If we did, heavy rulesets would be useful -- but we have zero interest in those things. And when we run into a difference of opinion at the table, everyone works together to resolve it quickly so we can get on with play. (Then again, we do that when we play Scrabble, too.)
Our group has one total newcomer, one person who's played freeform online games, and two D&D'ers. The D&D'ers were the players I've had to work with most heavily, because they've been taught that one has to be "good enough to be an on the fly game designer" to come up with interesting ideas. That's only true if you presuppose that interesting ideas must bring with them lots of rules.
I don't know if Ryan hasn't met groups whose styles are appropriate for a lighter ruleset, or if he doesn't care, because they're not his target market. But I think one or the other is the case. I do think either way it's a rather disappointing lack of analysis of the situation.
I have played several of the "lite" systems and Ryan's statements make absolutely no sense to me. Most of the people I know what were total rpg noobs can't roll up a d20 character on their own after reading the PHB. In fact most of them needed a little help even after doing it a couple times. The lite sytsems I have played (AFMBE,Tri-stat, and the like) I can go over it the first time and most of the players will be able on their own afterwords.
As far as mechanics goes d20 is not much more difficult IMO than most lite systems in actual play. Players in my groups have picked up the basic rules in the first session whether rules lite or d20.
The type of system makes no difference in ease of solving rules disputes. The players are either rules lawyers or they are not.
Some people can't play rules-lite easily. Take someone who loves their rules-heavy system and put a rules-lite system in front of them and the game will slow down because it goes against their gaming style. Take someone who loves rules-lite systems and give them a rules-heavy system and they'll slow down because now they have all this extra information to use that they arn't used to.
To thine own RPG be true.
__________________ "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
I backed up that thread a bit to see where the discussion had originated, and it's interesting. Here's Dancy's original comment, about "20 minutes of game in 4 hours":
Quote:
Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions.
Dave Wise, who was one of my Brand Managers at WotC, and was a talented writer and editor for TSR, is married to the person who first made the observation, after watching his gaming group, that D&D seemed like 20 minutes of fun packed into four hours - which was her way of saying "shouldn't this game be more fun, considering the work and time everyone seems to be putting into it?"
I agree with her. It should be more fun.
We suffer the inefficiencies of the current RPG systems becuase they're better than other options: cops & robbers, playing house, or improv theater. But that doesn't mean that we should be satisfied. A lot of the work that went into 3E was focused on making the game more consistent because consistency is a hallmark of efficiency. 3E is just demonstrably easier to play than 2E because of this level of consistency. Even so, we may have produced a net effect of subtracting 5 minutes of "non fun" and adding four minutes of "fun" at best. That still leaves a massive gap for improvement.
To which someone responded:
Quote:
The 4 hours/20 minutes issue is the first one a lot of gamers who've switched to lighter systems cite, and one that is certainly not as ubiquitous to gaming as it is to D&D (Except insofar as D&D is ubiquitous in gaming)
This is certainly not a lightness uber alles assertion, but I think it's unreasonable to consider the only solution to the time compression is to go all the way to house/(Cops&Robbers)/improv.
And that's when Dancy made the point that started this thread.
I found that very interesting. And I think it means Dancy's really missed the mark here. If your group spends 80% of their time doing non-gaming related things, that's a social issue, and one that rules of any complexity are utterly unsuited to resolve. (He pretty much admits that the quote above -- saying if they removed 5 minutes of arguing in favor of 4 minutes of rules consulting, it was a net win)
Personally, I think this is all social contract stuff. Our group sets aside the first half hour of a session for pizza and socializing, and we wait till we have all the kibitzing out of our system before we get down to business. (We also regularly get together for non-gaming related activities.) And we just plain *don't* fight over rules, because, not to be too blunt, but we don't have friends who use argument to get what they want.
You can't adjudicate that everybody gets along and focuses on the game, but designers could make some attempt to discuss the social side of gaming. Even things like advice on how to keep people focused and hold their attention would help. But I think that the fact that Ryan's pretty much saying rules-heavy is their preferred way to deal with non-rules issues is extremely telling.
Last edited by SweeneyTodd; 6th July 2005 at 05:28 PM..
The quote implies that the groups had not used the specific rules-lite systems before he observed them. Rules-lite systems rarely show their benefits in the very first session, but in the 3rd, 4th, 5th sessions.
Additionally, I think Mr. Dancey ignores a major benefit of most rules-lite systems: less prep time for the GM. I remember being able to stat out dozens of encounters in 1E in the same time it takes me to stat out a handful in 3E. In fact, the suggestion I hear most often to speed up prep time is to ignore most of the rules about characters/creatures and just stat out the most important pieces - in other words, create one's own rules-lite version of 3E.
GM prep time was big reason I recently switched from 3.5 to Savage Worlds. With D&D, I had to spend two evenings, use E-Tools, a word processor, several books, etc. to get ready for a session.
With Savage Worlds, I lie in bed with a pencil and a spiral notebook, most often with only one book, and it takes me about an hour.
There are things that speed up play as well, but GM time is the most important reason for me.
__________________ ===================================
But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime. - Andre
), combat is about twice as fast (and twice as fun, but that's subjective) in the rules-lite systems.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
