Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

buzz · Jul 6, 2005

From Mike Mearls' blog:

Ryan Dancey said:
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.

Gentlegamer · Jul 6, 2005

And who comprised these "test groups" . . . ?

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.

BiggusGeekus · Jul 6, 2005

I'll buy this.

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.

Desdichado · Jul 6, 2005

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.

SWBaxter · Jul 6, 2005

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.

Turanil · Jul 6, 2005

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.

reveal · Jul 6, 2005

Joshua Dyal said:
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!"

Glyfair · Jul 6, 2005

Joshua Dyal said:
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 :

Ryan Dancey said:
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.

reveal · Jul 6, 2005

Turanil said:
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.

Crothian · Jul 6, 2005

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.