Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Ourph]

I'm saying that it sounds like the player has to ask, becasue otherwise they have no idea whether their PC is capable of making the jump.

And I'm saying that, despite the fact that there are codified modifiers in the RAW, the fact that the RAW also leaves the final DC ultimately in the hands of the DM means that a D&D player also has to ask, otherwise he has no idea whether his PC is capable of making the jump. The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs. They do not, in fact, keep crappy GMs from screwing up the game - because the GM is empowered to decide which modifiers come into play and is also empowered to provide his own situational "circumstance" modifiers.

I can look at the battlemap and know exactly what the distance is, whether there's room for a running start, and (with most DMs I play with, including me) see where hindered terrain is marked.

Does your DM draw out hindered terrain your player can't see? Does your DM draw out wind currents? Does your DM draw out invisible barriers? There is always the possibility you know less than you think you do. Interaction with the DM is the only sure way to know what modifiers apply and even then you may not be entitled to know some of them until the action is attempted.

If the DM is adding a +5 because of a draft, she's totally making up a rule, and picking a modifier that's way beyond the +2/-2 "DM's buddy".

The "DM's buddy" is not a rule, it is a suggested guideline (it describes itself as such). The same exact section of the rules makes it quite clear that the DM can set modifiers beyond +/-2 and/or may set multiple +/-2 modifiers. It's obvious from the RAW that the enumerated modifiers are concrete but that those are not the only modifiers allowed and that the DM is ultimately in charge of setting the DC for any task.

Sure, I need info about the surroundings from the DM, but at least that info has meaning in rules terms. Your description of C&C makes it sound like the numbers on the sheet don't really tell me anything, because the guidelines for the jump's TN exist solely in the GM's head.

My point is, so does the DC in a D&D game. The guidelines may be concrete, but the ultimate number is still based on a DM judgement call.

Because in the C&C you describe, the player knows absolutely nothing about their chances to make the jump until they ask the GM.

I think you keep making the mistake that I'm saying C&C isn't arbitrary. I'm not. C&C is arbitrary; and (despite the facade of enumerated modifiers in the rulebooks) so is D&D by the RAW. The DM sets the DC, whatever modifiers pertain to a situation, pertain because he has decided that the situation includes the factors that trigger those modifiers.

The point is that there is a system being used, and as a player, I can see how the DC was arrived at, i.e., there's a codified rationale.

Yes, the DM can tell you X, Y and Z situation exists and you can look in the rulebook and see that X,Y and Z situations give certain modifiers. The DM is still making the decision about which situations exist. The process is no less "arbitrary" than C&C, it just takes a more obscure form that gives the illusion that the DM is somehow constrained and that the players are somehow empowered. It may very well make some players feel more comfortable, but it really changes nothing.

Actually, that's pretty much how the jump rules work.

As I said, the formula sets the base DC, it doesn't set the final DC. The DM sets the final DC by deciding which modifiers apply and which don't. If the DM decides no modifiers apply and that the DC set forth in the formula is the one he will use, it's still the DM making the decision - not the formula in the rulebooks. Deciding not to change the base DC is still making a decision. The point being, until a player consults the DM, he doesn't know whether the base DC supplied by the rules is valid or not.

But the modifiers are pertty much codified, and will generally not vary because, say, the GM has had a bad day, or feels like going easy on me, or has bad spatial skills, or doesn't buy my argument as to why my PC should succeed.

The modifiers may not vary because your GM has had a bad day or because your GM feels like going easy on you, but I don't believe for a minute that the final DC won't vary depending on those variables if it would vary according to those things in a rules-lite system where the modifiers aren't spelled out.

If you've got a GM who cares about being impartial, fair and consistent, he's going to be so whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system. If you've got a GM who is out to screw you or create his story independent of what the dice roll, he's going to do it whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system. I know it may feel that way, but the rules cannot protect you from bad GMing.

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.

What I'm saying is, I don't see a discernable difference between the two. Both require the player to communicate with the DM and (with any kind of a decent DM) asking should get both players to the same place (i.e. - having a reasonable idea of how likely he is to succeed at a specific task). With a lousy DM, both players still end up in the same place as well.

What I'm getting from you is that you think the guidelines provided by D&D will take a bad GM, who would normally make arbitrary and unfair judgements during the game, and turn him into a decent GM; and that, conversely, a GM who runs a fair, reasonable D&D game will suddenly become unfair and arbitrary if he starts using a rules-lite system like C&C. I disagree that system can fix a lousy DM or ruin a good one.

 

[Akrasia]

...
How are these two systems significantly different in the level of DM judgement required to resolve the situation? I suggest all of the extra rules and numbers are simply a screen that gives players the illusion that the DM is constrained in setting the difficulty. There's no real benefit in terms of how likely a player is to know his chances of success.

Exactly. Great point!

The claim that 3e somehow 'empowers' players has always struck me as bogus.

...
I have no proof and this is merely my opinion, but I suspect if you took the same DM and had him run a game with both rulesets and the same exact situation came up, the Target Number for the C&C game would not deviate significantly from the modified DC required to succeed in the D&D game. In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished. In D&D, the DM does so one level removed from the difficulty (by manipulating the environment in which the modifiers are applied) and in C&C the CK does so by directly modifying the difficulty, but the end result as far as the player is concerned is the same.

CORRECT (IME).

I have DM'ed 3e and CK'ed C&C. I can say that the way in which I assigned DCs/TNs in both games is exactly the same.

 

[Psion]

I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to make with terms like 'rash' and 'flurry'.

Flurry:
n. 2: A sudden burst or commotion; a stir: a flurry of interest in the new product; a flurry of activity when the plane landed.

I'm not sure what you are after here.

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.

You may see it that way, but I don't. I feel as if I am on the defensive. And I feel as if I have been sensitive to the fact that different people have different needs and values in games. And if what gets you upset is the term "rash", then I think by an large I am succeeding.

I have a confession to make: I was a prostelyzer. Not an anti-rules light prostelyzer or anti-C&C prostelyzer. But an anti-GURPS prostelyzer. I would not hesitate in raising my voice whenever someone recommended GURPS for something, expressing how I felt the game was SOOOO inadequate. It was only in hindsight that I realized what a goob I was being.

But I see a few argumentative C&C fans that pop up here and can't but restrain themselves but launch all assault on my choices in game. And I see in them the me of the past.

Those that don't do this -- those I am not including in the term "validators" -- I have no beef with.

 

[BryonD]

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.

You know, I really don't see that much interpreting was required to get the attack tone of Ace's comment which just a few posts prior you quoting expressing your complete agreement. I don't see the equivalent coming from Psion without the support of radical interpretation.

FWIW I found the comment to be laughably at odds with multiple personal experiences. It is the kids games that tend to be Attack Kill Take Repeat, what more rules do I need? It's only once you get the FEEL of more complex aspects of the game that more robust rules become rewarding. That isn't to say that rule lite is at all an automatic non-comple game matter. It is much more complex than that. But the opposite claim is pattently absurd.

 

[John Morrow]

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...

I would argue that at least some of those complex situations will play very differently if the players have a good grasp, going in, of how things will be mechanically resolved instead of having to rely more on a GM's subjective assessment. Having played both rule-heavy and rule-light games, it is my experience that it's much easier for a player to make their own assessment of the situation without asking the GM "20 question" to find out how the GM thinks various situations might be resolved. I've never had a, "But I thought I could use X!" or "I though this would be handled by rolling against Y!" happen in a d20 or Hero game but I've seen that happen using Fudge.

To give you a more detailed example, suppose the PCs are trying to sneak into a keep and rescue the kidnapped noble. The players decide to scale the walls, follow a narrow ledge around to an open window, and then slip inside. As they move along the ledge, the GM requires a Reflex check but doesn't let one player use the much better Acrobatics skill he was expecting to roll against because the GM decided that balancing on a ledge isn't "acrobatic". The player falls. Further, the GM decides that the 40 foot fall has a good chance of being fatal and sets the damage accordingly. This surprises the players, who assumed that their PCs would likely survive a 40 foot fall.

The excuse of incomplete PC information and the possibility of a malicious GM aside, this wouldn't happen using a system like Hero or d20, which would allow the players to know which skill they'll roll against to keep their balance and tell them exactly how much damage they'll take from a 40 foot fall. And the only way to bridge that gap in information is for the players to spend time grilling the GM about what happens if they try to do the plan.

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).

And I don't assume that. In fact, I think the GM subjectively assessing the players' plans can create quite a few very real problems. There was a thread on rec.games.frp.advocacy a few years ago discussing "GM Biases" and how they can ruin games for players. Each of these examples reflects a pattern in how actual GMs decided challenges for PCs that ruined their games for their players. Among them:

"Fair Play" - If the players try their best, then everything will turn out OK in the end.

"Creativity Rewards" - The GM rewards players who come up with plans that entertain the GM with success.

"Interesting Times" - Nothing is ever simple and no matter how well the players plan, things will always be complicated and messy.

"No Free Lunch" - The PCs must earn or pay for anything good that they get.

"Appropriate Challenge" - Every encounter the PCs deal with is just the right power level to challenge them.

"Speed is Life" - The PCs shouldn't be given time to think or plan because doing so can be fatal.

"He Who Lives By The Sword..." - Violent solutions to problems never work.

"Nice Guys Finish Last" - No good deed or act of mercy by the PCs goes unpunished.

All of these problems are caused by the GMs subjective assessment of the challenge being based on things other than the setting and situation. (And, yes, I know there are people here who will probably call some selection of those biases "Good GMing".)

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...

To be fair, you said, "No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up..." I don't think it's a matter of rule systems but GMing style.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Of course you do. The poster you responded to just said "rules-light games are for mature players; rules-heavy games are for immature players."

It appeals to your inner snob (which we all have).

 

[buzz]

The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs.

This seems to be the crux of many a pro-rules-lite argument, and I don't know if I buy it. A crappy GM can ruin any game, regardless of system. But in talking system, I think we have to assume that the GM in question is using the RAW (otherwise we're critiquing the GM, not the system).

Using the D&D RAW, the players and DM share a frame of reference. The frame of reference doesn't preclude communication, and, yes, the player can't necessarily know everything about a given situation (e.g., an invisible barrier their PC can't see*), so this communication is necessary. I don't see that this communication is tantamount to fiat, though.

It may simply come down to play styles. In the games I play, none of the GMs are playing so fast and loose with the rules that every assessment of a situation I make is a crapshoot.


* Which, BTW, would not affect a jump DC; the PC would smack into it before they even got to make the jump.

 

[Ourph]

Of course you do. The poster you responded to just said "rules-light games are for mature players; rules-heavy games are for immature players."

Excuse me. Where exactly did I say that in the text that Akrasia quoted?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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

I don't know what they 'are' - any more than sports referees are only theoretically impartial - but in principle, I certainly think this is what they should aspire to be.

Aside from deciding in-character (that is, NPC) actions or comments (and that using in-character knowledge), that's exactly what I try to be while GMing. I can't imagine why I would want to do otherwise, still less why anyone would want to play under someone who wasn't attempting to be impartial!

 

[Psion]

The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs.

The codified modifiers are a tool for participants who realize that GMs are human, too.