Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[DaveMage]

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.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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.

 

[reveal]

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.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

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.

 

[mcrow]

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.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

 

[fredramsey]

You know, the more I read about this guy, the more I think he is a total boob.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

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":

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:

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.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[fredramsey]

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.