Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Nikosandros]

Look again, for a moment, and Mearls' original post - it isn't about lite/heavy at all. It is about business - what companies are succeeding or failing. His statements weren't about what sort of rules are best, but simply about who is strong in the market. Do you dispute his claims?

I've had the luck to play a non-d20 game, rules light, run by Mearls. I saw no sign of the bias you attribute to him.

It is certainly possible that I've missread the original post, so that I failed to understand Mearls opinion on Mongoose redoing RQ...

However, regarding the rules light argument, I was commenting on Dancey statements that such games are not actually faster to run... something that has not been my experience at all. This has nothing to do with what sells well...

In any case, I lumped to different things in one post and probably did quite a poor job of it...

 

[Mark]

From Ryan Dancey via Mike Mearls' blog:

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.

It's all hot air, he's just trying to model a "study" after a premeditated conclusion.

Dancey has lost a great deal of his credibility since the GAMA fiasco. There was a time when I would have bought into such a claim as true. Fact of the matter is that there is no way that such experimentation could be conducted on a large enough scale and in the manner in which he claims to glean believable results. How would you remove enough of the variables to allow you to make such a judgment? Common sense simply doesn't allow me to believe what Ryan Dancey is putting forth here.

What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences.

Well, I've been observing for more than 30 years and I doubt that anything but a rules-heavy system could generate enough product to bring in enough profit to justify an expenditure on marketing that would sustain it for a long time. If a rules-light system managed this I would consider it a fluke. There are only a few rules-heavy systems that have truly done it and they have been revised and supported with a vast array of peripheral rules supplement books.

For the record, I don't advocate rules-heavy or rules-light systems, in particular, I mostly play D&D (since 1974) because it has always afforded me the best chance to find players. It's a simple matter of swimming in the biggest pool for me.

 

[eyebeams]

Rules heavy games are for gamers. Rules light games are for gamers who are friends.

 

[buzz]

Well Buzz, do enlighten the Great Unwashed.

There is absolutely no reason for you to get snarky nor try to intimate that I'm being some sort of gaming snob. Your tone is uncalled for.

If you're asserting that C&C is rules heavy for instance, what would you call 3.X and Rolemaster?

I didn't assert that C&C is rules heavy. I'm simply making a case for it not being "rules lite". 256pp of core rules (PH and M&T, which the TLG site states are the required minimum) isn't really all that "lite" in my estimation. And I would deifnitely not put AD&D1e in that category. OD&D might slip by...

"Lite" is Buffy, or Sorcerer, or Risus. C&C is in a middle-ground, nearby the early editions of D&D that eventually birthed "rules heavy".

IMO.

If you want to do some testing with "lite" RPGs, you give test subjects Everway or The Window.

 

[scadgrad]

False dichotomy. Just because those aren't qualifiably light compared to the likes of true rules light games like Over The Edge, doesn't mean he was calling them rules heavy.

Perhaps not, but that's certainly what I inferred, especially given the fact that he included C&C in the same group w/ 1st ed AD&D which was decidedly complex by most reasonable standards of measurement. Or at least those standards of measurment other than the ones that Diaglo might use.

 

[BryonD]

The ultimate rules lite role playing is played by children everywhere. It goes like this:
"Bang! I got you!"
"No you didn't!"
"Yes I did!"

Most rules lite market RPGs tend to be a bit more elaborate, but ultimately the same at heart.

There is of course one way to avoid this matter, that being to have a GM who everyone agrees to accept the ruling of.
This goes one of two ways:
Either the GM rules on whim from one event to the next, which leads to inconsistency and is really more a cooperative drama session than a game

OR

the GM rules consistently, which means that the GM uses the same rules each time, therefore the game isn't really rules lite, it is just lots of rules that happen to not be written down anywhere.

I don't have any problem with free-form cooperative drama role playing. But I happen to prefer to keep the game in with my role playing.

 

[EricNoah]

There are probably at least two stripes of RPG player: those who find more rules "liberating" in the sense that they outline the things you're allowed to do and they remove the burden of on-the-spot judgement calls; and those who find fewer rules "liberating" in the sense that they don't limit what you can do and give the GM power to make on-the-spot judgement calls. There's certainly room in this world for both kinds of players, though I can certainly see why there might be some tension between the two camps.

The questions in my mind are:
can an RPG company make more money by creating resources for one type over the other, or should they cater to both types?
Can one RPG product satisfy both types enough to make it worth the "fluff/crunch" balancing act?
Is one style of play more or less likely to draw new players to the hobby?
Is one style of play more or less likely to encourage players to take on the DM's mantle?
Is one style of play more or less likely to help sell not only books but gaming "hardware" such as miniatures?
Is one style of play more or less likely to lead to future purchases from the company creating the game?
Is one style of material likely to lend itself more or less to those who like to create homebrewed rules material (i.e. is one or the other likely to lead to the DM developing new subsystems or add-ons by desire as opposed to necessity; is one or the othery more "toolkit-ish" in approach, etc.)?
Does the presence of a lot of crunch necessarily squash creativity?
(I believe the prevailing SENTIMENT is that it does, but is there a way to measure it -- or is sentiment/perception the only valid concern -- i.e. if you THINK it squashes your creativity, then you're less satisfied with it.)
Does the absence of crunch lead to the perception of decreased value (i.e. the "any chump can come up with fluff, it takes professionals to design functional rules" argument)?
If you publish rules-lite material, do you have less material that will sell to players? I.e. are players the primary consumers of crunch?
Is there a point at which "fewer rules" makes the DM's job very burdensome? Is there a point at which "more rules" lead to a situation so complex that it is actually easier to just fly by the seat of your pants?

I think we can deduce WotC's answers to these questions by their business practices, but it is an ever-changing thing -- we've seen books that were more rules-heavy, some that were less rules-heavy, some that better integrated the rules into the other parts of the book, etc. They're still probably seeking the ideal mix and there's a good chance that there is NO ideal mix...

 

[jmucchiello]

It also had less of a learning curse for the players.

This is such a great typo.

I find prep time for rules lite games just as long as for rules heavy games. But only because a session of each type of game of equal length will include far more "adventure" in the rules lite game.

But I also consider just about every game mentioned in this thread rules heavy. Risus (6 pages) and similar games are rules lite. Any game where rules (and non-setting material) take up 100+ pages is not rules light.

 

[Mythmere1]

Wow, what a bizarre assertion...was Mr. Dancey using humans or lab rats in his experiment?
Anyone who thinks Savage Worlds or Castles & Crusades don't play faster or create characters faster is using some weird control group.

I can see some people not LIKING Castles & Crusades, for example, but jeez, it's Alice in Wonderland to say it isn't faster than D&D. Speed of GM prep is one of my favorite parts of C&C. Yes, rules lite games require more GM adjudication (which is why a more gamist player might not like them), but adjudication is still way faster than rules-lookup.

 

[Psion]

I doubt that anything but a rules-heavy system could generate enough product to bring in enough profit to justify an expenditure on marketing that would sustain it for a long time. If a rules-light system managed this I would consider it a fluke.

I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of sales than popularity. But what about persistence? Perhaps it's the case that it's fresh product that keeps a game alive, something oft asserted elsewhere, and it's more than rules heavy games lend themselves to this model than rules light games moreso than any enduring appeal of the rules which leads to the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.

In fact, I'd go so far to say I beleive that is the case.

That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light) consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?

Or is it just that none have?