Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Psion]

I'll admit, I don't own a copy of the HERO core rules (yet), nor have I ever GMed the system. As a player, though, I've used and observed many powers and seen basically all of them follow the same core mechanic. They don't have their own rules.

Perhaps when I've gotten the core book and had a chance to really look through it, I'll change my mind.

Well, a lot of them use variations of a theme. Like mind control, illusions, etc. use Xd6 to beat stat, stat + 10, etc. Some use the offense/defense mechanic. And some are their own beasts, like just about every power or advantage with a stop sign on it. Some use the feat-like "you can do this" (breathe in space, etc.)

But really, that's not so different from the way 3e is, especially if you contrast it with 2e and before. For example, it would used to be that armor enchantment gave you bonuses, but the shield spell gave you a straight up AC, which was different depending upon what you were defending against. In 3e, it's just a typed bonus. Shield of faith is a typed bonus. Magical vestement is a typed bonus. And they follow the standardized mechanic of typed bonuses of the same name don't stack.

Similarly, many spells rely on standardized effects. All fear effects are standardized. Helpless is standardized. Stun is standardized. Entangle is standardized. They all use the same rules regardless of which spell caused them.

So, as I see it, the cheif difference between HERO and D&D spell-wise is that D&D spells are like end product constructed powers in HERO.

 

[buzz]

Converting for battlemat scale of 1 square = 5' (and it was, or you could never stand side by side in a 10' square)

So you played on half-inch squares? IIRC, 1e is all 1" = 10'. And all your characters were unencumbered humans? Doing nothing but moving each 10-secoond round? And you never had to use segments?

No tacticial movement rules, period.

If positioning matters, you're talking tactical. 1e had both positioning and facing, ergo, tactical (IMO).

 

[Psion]

I don't understand this. Why describe it as a 'rash'? Why not simply admit that there is an *established* segment of the market that prefers 'rules light' (or, more precisely, 'lighter-than-3e') games?

Sure the segment might be a 'minority'. But if it is there, why dismiss it as a 'rash'?

Sorry. Would you prefer a "flurry"?

I've got nothing against people who like rules-heavy games. But I don't get the dismissivenes of those gamers who prefer 'lighter' games.

I'm not dismissive of those who PLAY rules light games. Those who spend time prostelyzing the evils of the chains of rules heavy games, on the other hand, I must confess annoy me.

 

[Mallus]

The GM comes up with a situation. Players come up with a plan. The rules and dice decide how well it works.

Do I need to specify that I'm talking about situations the rules don't cover? Complex situations like framing a noble, undermining a rival nations ecomony, forming a alliance of free kingdoms against an empire, heck, even something as simple as breaking into an estate or storming a castle...

Players come up with a plan. The GM decides what sorts of situations their characters will face. The rules and dice decide how well it works.

That's precisely what I meant by 'the DM decides how well the plan will work'. I assume that the difficulty of those situations will somehow relate to what the DM thought --oh so subjectively-- of the players plan(s).

(EDIT: I suppose I should add that I've actually played GMless role-playing games using published rules.)

See now I haven't. They sound really interesting, and I have at least two friends who'd love that sort of game environment. But I speaking strictly out of my experience playing D&D...

 

[Akrasia]

...
I am also of the opinion that younger gamers (12 to say 24 maybe) want and need more rules. Not only do they often have (in case of the kids anyway) less social maturity and dispute resolution skills the type of game they need is different

Younger kids want and need conflict resolution driven games like most D&D -- kick in the door-- kill the critter-- take stuff -- power up-- repeat is nearly an ideal set up for them. They also often have more time to play and prep so the rules help them

Gamers as their tastes change often find this model less satisfactory.

Older gamers in particular (30+ ) often have less time or interest in the mechanical set up of games and many are able to handle a more complex social contract.

The rules become an impediment to the FEEL of the desired game and sometimes the actual play as well

This is an excellent point, and certainly conforms to my own experience.

 

[JohnSnow]

Since people have been picking on Castles and Crusades, I'll do the same. I think it comes down to the fact that the difference is what sort of guidelines the rulebooks give to the CK/DM in deciding how to set the TN/DC.

In 3e D&D, the DC is a number that can either be "ballparked" as easy (DC 5), average (DC 10), tough (DC 15), challenging (DC 20), formidable (DC 25), heroic (DC 30), nearly impossible (DC 40) or whatever or SPECIFICALLY figured out. The 3.5 rules then give a lot of suggestions for adding up modifiers, by way of explaining to the DM the combination of factors which might result in a "heroic" task difficulty.

What the C&C book does is give a much looser interpretation. The guideline C&C gives FIRST is that a "level-appropriate" challenge is one in which the TN equals the base TN (12 or 18) + the character's level. Alternatively, it retains the rough difficulty levels, but ignores the easy stuff as just "routine," and recommends circumstance modifiers of (I believe) +5 (tough), +10 (challenging), +20 (Heroic), +30 (nearly impossible). Sound familiar? So the systems are the same, but C&C's emphasizes first the world as it subjectively applies to the PCs, whereas the "alternate" D&D method is careful calculation based on some kind of "objective reality." In both cases, 20th level PCs have a roughly 50/50 shot at accomplishing "heroic" tasks.

Oh, for the record, the 3.5 DMG (page 30) does say, "For extremely favorable or unfavorable circumstances, you can use modifiers greater than +2 and less than -2. For example, you can decide that a task is practically impossible and modify the roll or the DC by 20. Feel free to modify these numbers as you see fit, using modifiers from 2 to 20." So it is a bit handwavey, but there are so many examples presented that two DMs who actually read the 3e rules are likely to be in the same ballpark.

This gets to what I was saying above. D&D 3e spends a lot of time trying to teach DMs how to fairly present a consistent world. C&C spends its time focusing on "presenting" level-appropriate challenges. Personally, I hate the concept of "level-appropriate" challenges - it's one beef I have with D&D's CR system. Although I understand why it exists - more of that "teaching DMs how to be fair."

And if you use your D&D experience to guide your C&C rulings, then D&D did its job, you're just ungrateful.

 

[buzz]

But I'm not talking about ignoring rules, in any system. My point is that a DM is required to set DCs in D&D just as CKs are required to set TNs in C&C.

It's important to note that it's not just the DM setting the DCs, though. Most DCs, in at least a basic way, are set by rules that all players have access to.

A D&D player who assumes he knows which modifiers apply in any given situation is just as likely to run into problems as a C&C player who fails to communicate with his CK about the difficulty of a task before attempting it.

I'm not saying that a D&D player can go in blind; of course they need to communicate with the DM. However, a D&D player can look at a 20' chasm drawn on a battlemat (i.e., info from the DM) at at least know a basic DC for a jump before the DM says anything. If the DC is set wholly by fiat, I don't know anything wihtout asking the DM.

 

[buzz]

You guys have gotten me jonesing to run HERO again.

My work here is done.

 

[Akrasia]

Sorry. Would you prefer a "flurry"?

I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to make with terms like 'rash' and 'flurry'. IME there are plenty of fans of 'rules light' (or 'lighter-than-3') games around. Why view them as a 'rash' or 'flurry'? Why not just recognize them as an established segment of the RPG community?

I'm not dismissive of those who PLAY rules light games. Those who spend time prostelyzing the evils of the chains of rules heavy games, on the other hand, I must confess annoy me.

Well, they could just be expressing their frustrations concerning rules heavy games, and do not mean to refer to them as 'evil'.

I suspect that this is simply a matter of perception. Your own comments in favour of 'rules heavy' games could be interpreted as 'prostelyzing the evils of the arbitrariness of rules light games', even though I do not think that that is your intent.

 

[buzz]

It's obvious you have no trust of Game Masters. They are impartial participants, referees of the action.

It's not a trust issue. It's not wanting to pay money to play "Mother, may I?"