Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Faraer]

More generally, I *do* think that it takes experienced players to enjoy a 'rules lighter' game. Inexperienced players simply need more structure.

I don't agree with that at all. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs as souped-up boardgames or videogames expect structure, and are frequently put off roleplaying when it comes in 300-page books which have no precedent in their experience. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs in a roleplaying-over-rules way have no such expectation, and usually, in my experience, no such problem.

 

[painandgreed]

Speaking of "rules lite", does anybody else remember Dinky Dungeons? Little xeroxed book with rules involving three stats that all came in a little 3"X5" bag with some little dice. All for $1. That's what I think of when I hear "rules lite'.

 

[John Morrow]

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.

It's not simply an issue of crappy GMs but GMs who have a different assessment of reality than the players. A GM using a rule-heavy game that substitutes their own assessment of the situation rather than what the rules say is basically using a rule-heavy game like a rule-light game and it shouldn't be surprising that you get the same problems. But a GM using a rule-heavy system that uses the rules as written for players who understand the rules as written will avoid a lot of situations where the GMs assessment of a situation differs from a player's assessment. And all of the deference to the GM's final judgement in the world is not going to make a player really like a judgement that they don't agree with that's entirely subjective.

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.

Having fairly extensive experience with both rule-heavy systems (Hero and d20) and rule-light systems (homebrews and Fudge), I require a lot less interaction with the GM to decide what my character is doing and to handle large parts of teh resolution myself. Why? Because the basic groundwork is provided by the rules. With a sufficiently rules light system, there is no basic groundwork. For example, if I want to tumble through some enemies to avoid attacks in D&D, I know what the DCs are going to be and can decide if it's a good idea or not without GM intervention. In a Fudge game, I have to ask the GM how it would be handled to even seriously consider the action. In other words, in a rule-light system, I not only have to ask the GM how to resolve the things my character does but I have to ask the GM how they might resolve all sorts of things my character might do simply to consider all my options for that round.

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.

And unless the GM likes changing the numbers, the guidelines will cover a great many common situations or come darned close. Yes, you can run D&D like a rule-light game with freeform DCs. I sometimes do that when I'm lazy. Heck, I sometimes don't even have a DC in mind and evaluate the result numbers like I might evaluate a result in Fudge. But I don't get the impression that d20 was designed to be run that way and all you are really saying is that running d20 like a rule-light system has all the same problems as a rule-light system. But what about the places where d20 doesn't run like a rule-light system or isn't used like a rule-light system? For example, what about figuring out falling damage onto a known simple surface in d20 vs. Fudge (which has no official falling damage rules on purpose)?

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.

There is a very big difference between how players view GM fiat with respect to a set-up and during play (the same is true in fiction, by the way). What's different is that once the GM has established the area, number of combatants, etc., most of the subjectivity has ended in a rule-heavy game but it keeps on going in a rule-light game, making the outcome much more subjective and subjet to GM fiat. Yes, it's possible for a D&D GM to start fudging and adjust abilities and hit points and such in the middle of a rule-heavy encounter but that's not how many players expect their GM to run an encounter in D&D. That a GM can run D&D like a rule-light game, producing all the same problems as a rule-light game, does not mean that's how many players want D&D to be run or that D&D GMs normally run D&D that way.

Again, all you are really doing is saying that D&D can be run like a rule-light game. D&D can also be run very differently, in a much more objective way. And that's something that you can't do with a rule-light game.

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.

If the GM makes a habit of not changing the DC (either explicitly or understood), then the players can depend on the DCs being reasonably close to what's in the book unless there are modifiers their characters are not aware of. In my experience, that's the norm. Whether it really is or isn't the norm. that option does not exist for a rule-light game unless the GM makes it up.

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 liter system where the modifiers aren't spelled out.

The difference between a lighter system and a heavier system is that the heavier system provides a baseline. Yes, an experienced D&D GM might use similar DCs in C&C because they've learned what's "right" from playing D&D. But what if the C&C GM hasn't played D&D. Do you really think that every GM who is given C&C but has never seen D&D will automatically come up with the same DC for tumbling past an enemy in combat as D&D 3e? I don't. Heck, I've seen different GMs who have played together for a decade or more come up with wildly different difficulty assessments for the same tasks using many rule-light systems like Fudge.

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. They just can't.

It's not an issue of being impartial, fair, and consistent. It's a matter of objectivity and the GM being on the same page as the players concerning difficulty and probability. Given absolutely no guidelines about how much damage a character might take after falling 40 feet or how hard it might be to tumble past an enemy (both of which are true in Fudge), any two GMs and any players might come up with wildly different assessments depending on a variety of factors (e.g., whether they assume the game is cinematic or realistic, etc.). Having specific difficulties and rules for common situations helps mitigate that problem.

And, yes, I'm sure many D&D GMs, when given C&C, will run C&C very much like D&D because D&D has trained them to think a certain way. But what would happen if a role-player picked up C&C who had never played D&D 3e? Would they really be as consistent and predictable as you expect them to be? From my own experience with subjective GM assessments, in many cases, I doubt it.

 

[Silverleaf]

The "mother may I" problem that my group has (and we've played plenty of rules-light games using homebrew rules and Fudge) isn't so much a matter of permission but achieving a common understanding about what's likely to happen. If the GM thinks that jumping from the balcony, swinging from the chandelier, and kicking the BBEG is really hard and likely to fail while the player thinks it's really easy and likely to succeed, there can be a big problem when the player player states the action and then the GM resolves in a very different way than expected. The solution, in my experience, is for the player to play what I call "20 questions" with the GM to evaluate their options and make sure the see things eye-to-eye with the GM.

It's really very simple... You tell the player what his odds are before actually resolving the action. You also tell him why you came up with those odds, in case there is a "reality mismatch" at play (maybe the DM forgot something?). Frex: "Okay DEX check at -2 to jump and grab the chandelier (there isn't much running room) and a straight to-hit roll to nail Bargle while he's busy twirling his mustache."
And in any event, the player will ask questions no matter how heavy/light the game is. In the above scenario he'll probably want to know how far up the balcony is, and how far away the chandelier is. He needs that data to get a feel for how plausible swinging accross the room might be, possibly before even thinking of such an action. Or alternately, he could simply ask "What are my odds (or the DC) to swing from the chandelier?". It's not like the game is going to have hard data and preset odds for that kind of scenario. Unless of course you're playing Rolemaster Standard System, and you use the skill Athletics->Swing->Chandelier.
Once he comes up with a course of action, you tell him his odds, just like you would tell him the DC in 3e. Then he makes his decision, and dice are rolled, or not. It's effectively the same thing, except rules heavy systems give you an illusion of realism/consistency at the expense of "standardizing" certain actions (which is something some people like, and others don't).

 

[Campbell]

It's threads like these that make me miss Hong's presence.

Campbell "You Miss Him Too" Ooi

 

[John Morrow]

Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs in a roleplaying-over-rules way have no such expectation, and usually, in my experience, no such problem.

Have you ever seen an entire group of inexperienced gamers pick up and successfully use a rule-light system without an experienced gamer to tell them what to do or to GM?

 

[Faraer]

Have you ever seen an entire group of inexperienced gamers pick up and successfully use a rule-light system without an experienced gamer to tell them what to do or to GM?

No, but then I've never seen that (stood by and let it happen) with a more complex system, either. Philosophically, though, storytelling is a basic human function -- stories are integral to every human culture. Complex skirmish wargames with dice are not. But my point was just as much to do with the central importance in all this of expectations, environment, and social relations -- of set and setting.

 

[Akrasia]

And of course the primary activity of Castles & Crusades fans is to be not Pro-C&C, but anti-3e. In other words, they crop up and throw out their two cents about how the game "should be."

Well, people who like C&C want to explain *why* they like the game -- and this inevitably involves comparisons with 3e. The games are quite similar, and they have a common source, so comparisons are inevitable. This might be perceived as 'bashing' 3e, even when it is not intended as such (though, to be fair, I am sure that many people *do* want to bash games they don't like -- whether it be C&C or 3e).

Since the intro to that game's player's handbook contains some of this derogatory language about the "current edition," it's clear that C&C's creators feel that bashing 3e is necessary to sell C&C.

Sorry, John, but this is a 'creative interpretation' on your part.

There is *no* reference to the "current edition" in the intro. There *is* a comment that "a glut of rules" is an impediment to a fun game, but at no place is there a reference to 3e (explicit or implicit). The comments in the intro have to do with explaining the design goals of C&C, not "bashing" any particular other system.

Let me repharse that: the SYSTEM (if correctly followed) will provide logical and consistent rulings.

And this is NOT a difference between rules-heavy(ish) systems and rules-light(ish) systems. The latter games merely provide more general mechanisms to provide consistent rulings (i.e. mechanisms that have less detail).

If you want a 'simulationist' game, rules light is not the way to go.

Seriously, other than its pseudo-THAC0 skill system

Huh? You keep making this bizarre claim. I have yet to understand the relation between the SIEGE system and THACO.

SIEGE: A character rolls 1d20, adds level (if appropriate), and tries to beat 18 (if nonprime) or 12 (if prime) +/- difficulty modifiers. How is that THAC0?

 

[John Morrow]

It's really very simple... You tell the player what his odds are before actually resolving the action. You also tell him why you came up with those odds, in case there is a "reality mismatch" at play (maybe the DM forgot something?). Frex: "Okay DEX check at -2 to jump and grab the chandelier (there isn't much running room) and a straight to-hit roll to nail Bargle while he's busy twirling his mustache."

OK. I'm the player. I'm deciding what my character might do. I'm a fairly creative person and the chandelier swing is only one of about 20 things I can think of, thus I must repeat this excercise maybe 20 times before I can decide what my character does, and I have to wait for the GM to become available so that I can play the 20 questions game before making my final decision. And that's not even taking into account what happens if someone at the table wants to take issue with the GMs assessment.

And in any event, the player will ask questions no matter how heavy/light the game is. In the above scenario he'll probably want to know how far up the balcony is, and how far away the chandelier is. He needs that data to get a feel for how plausible swinging accross the room might be, possibly before even thinking of such an action.

It's not a matter of asking questions but how many questions must be asked. Having to ask 20 questions before deciding what do to involves a lot more overhead and game disruption than asking 2 questions to clarify the scene. And If the GM has drawn out the room on the battle mat and I have a marker with my character, I can figure out on my own how far away the chandelier is, how far up the balcony is, etc.

Or alternately, he could simply ask "What are my odds (or the DC) to swing from the chandelier?". It's not like the game is going to have hard data and preset odds for that kind of scenario. Unless of course you're playing Rolemaster Standard System, and you use the skill Athletics->Swing->Chandelier.

No, but I'm more likely to know which skill or attribute I'll be using in a rule-heavy game than a rule-light game (and note that I'm not sure that I'd consider C&C "rule-light" -- I'm thinking more Risus or Fudge). I'm also more likely to know how much damage my character might take if they fall off the chandelier, what it might mean if they find themself standing between 4 opponents if they fall, etc. Remember, I've played both rule-heavy and rule-light games and like rule-light games quite a bit. This is not a hypothetical problem for me. It's a very real problem, one that's driving half the people I role-play with to want more rule-heavy systems like d20 and Hero.

Once he comes up with a course of action, you tell him his odds, just like you would tell him the DC in 3e. Then he makes his decision, and dice are rolled, or not. It's effectively the same thing, except rules heavy systems give you an illusion of realism/consistency at the expense of "standardizing" certain actions (which is something some people like, and others don't).

In the rule-heavy system, I mentally assess the odds for dozens of possible scenarios while the GM is resolving some other player's actions. And it's not the illusion of consistency. In my experience, it really does create a level of consistency and common understanding that you won't find in rule-light games. YMMV. As for "standardizing", rule-light games have their own problems.

I'm not trying to say that rule-light games aren't awful. I'm trying to say that rules have their purposes and they aren't all simply illusions.

 

[Akrasia]

I don't agree with that at all. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs as souped-up boardgames or videogames expect structure, and are frequently put off roleplaying when it comes in 300-page books which have no precedent in their experience. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs in a roleplaying-over-rules way have no such expectation, and usually, in my experience, no such problem.

I don't think your observation here contradicts my claim. My point is that ONCE people have decided to play RPGs, it takes an experienced GM (and players who trust each other) to run a good 'rules light' game. In contrast, an inexperienced GM, and players who view the game in a more 'competitive' manner, need lots of rules and guidelines (the GM in order to run the game in a satisfactory manner, the players in order to resolve disputes).

Note that my observation here is perfectly compatible with experienced players and GMs ALSO liking rules heavy games.

As for getting people to try RPGs in the FIRST place, your observation looks spot on (and hence the new 3e Basic Set).