Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Akrasia]

I confess I do not have my book with me at work. I read it last night and the edition bashing was pretty clear. I'll quote the paragraph if I can find it, but I'll come back to this later.

Well I just read it again, and did not detect any 'edition bashing' at all. There *is* a claim that rules should be 'easy to learn' (take less than 15 minutes), and a statement to avoid 'a glut of rules' (which might 'restrict the flow of the game'). But there is no reference to the 'current edition' of the game, or even an attribution of 'rules glut' to any other game.

However, the mere fact that Primes lower the target number, rather than raising the skill roll is THAC0-ish.

I *think* I understand your point, but don't get what the big deal is, since there is no mathematical difference between lowering the target number and giving a bonus to the ability. (Also, I've completely internalized the +6 way of understanding the prime system.) Most criticisms of THAC0 tend to focus on its awkwardness, and the SIEGE system doesn't strike me as awkward.

FWIW, the THAC0 crack was intended as a friendly jab between us, in an effort to keep this thread light...

Fair enough.

Those are things it DOES by virtue of what it takes away from the Core rules of the game (as presented in the OGL that C&C is published under). I specifically asked what it "added" to the game.

As a 'rules light' version of D&D, the whole point of the game is to 'take away' (albeit in a way that keeps the game playable -- simply taking things out of the SRD will tend to produce a horrible, unplayable game).

That's a subjective value judgement ...

Well, the fact that it C&C cuts down on my prep time and lets me use pre-3e material with little conversion work is pretty 'objective' IMO.

Taking out feats is a simplification of the Core Rules. So is removing attacks of opportunity from combat.

Yes, but removing core features like feats and AoOs from the SRD will have all kinds of "unintended consequences" for the game as a whole. It is *not* an easy thing to do. TLG has done this work for me, and for that I'm grateful. (So has Green Ronin with True 20, albeit in a very different way -- and I'm grateful to GR as well, as I very much like True 20 as well.)

C&C, for all its assertions, is 3e stripped of its skill and feat systems, and one of its more complex combat rules (attacks of opportunity). That's it.

Actually the combat system is quite different, as are *many* of the spells. The power scale is also quite different. The SIEGE system (including its saving throw system) is very different. I could go on. Suffice to say, I think you are grossly overstating things here.

The designers then looked at C&C's classes and realized that without those 3e elements, they were out of whack. So they borrowed the XP progression tables from AD&D and claimed that those somehow brought the classes back into balance. Or more accurately, that even though they were out of balance, the differerent XP progressions somehow "compensated" for that.

I didn't realize that you were part of the rules design and playtest process, John.

It would be more correct to say that the designers started with pre-3e D&D, and modified it by drawing on the SRD, rather than simply "taking away" things from the SRD.

I don't need C&C to play rules light D&D. I can do that without buying it.

IME simply yanking things out of the SRD is *not* as easy as you might think. Without serious work, you will end up with an unplayable game. 3e is a complex game with many interdependent rules and variables.

I'm willing to pay money ($20) to TLG to save me that headache -- as well as achieve compatibility with pre-3e products. (Similarly, I am willing to pay $12 to GR for their True 20 system.)

I freely admit and give credit to the Trolls for inventive marketing. Wizards of the Coast couldn't make money selling rules-light D&D, which is why they give the rules away for FREE (the SRD).

I'm amazed (and impressed) that Troll Lord Games can.

Again, I think you're seriously underestimating what a headache it is to remold the SRD into a 'rules light' system.

I also think you are grossly *understating* the differences between 3e and C&C.

And the ad hominem attacks on TLG seem unnecessary.

 

[scadgrad]

The difference between a lighter system and a heavier system is that the heavier system provides a baseline....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.

Well, I'd certainly hope so. It's there in black and white in the C&C PHB. While tumbling past isn't covered by the rules, the DC certainly is. It's whatever the creature's HD is added to either 12/18 depending on the PC's Prime. Of course the DM/CK can add more levels of difficulty, but you can pretty much do that in any RPG.

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.

The game actually has a tighter mechanic than what you seem to think. The examples given for using the SIEGE engine should certainly be enough for anyone who's ever played a RPG at all to pick it up pretty easily.

 

[Akrasia]

...
I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval. To a chunk of gamers, there's a suite of positive traits inherently linked to rules light. In many cases, "rules light" simply means "a game I like." It also means, "Not D&D." There's an element of rebellion at work there, like the guy who hates pop music and collects records from obscure, late 70s bands that no one else has heard of....

What a load of patronizing *crap*.

Believe it or not, some people form their tastes in RPGs completely independent of any "element of rebellion".

Some of us are mature people who "know what we like". Not everyone who plays RPGs is in middle school.

...
Half of the act of RPG design is hacking through all the misconceptions, malformed conventional wisdom, and backwards thinking that clogs the "industry's" arteries.
...

Please enlighten us, oh sage.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Great, I'm understanding you.

Your first consequence deals with the idea that some things in the environment should just exist, and I could see how wanting to simulate a living world would lead one to include things like that. My disconnect was that I couldn't see why on Earth someone would want to include a pit for its own sake, without thought as to the relative challenge it provides. If there's a focus on exploring pre-prepared environments, then it adds immersion to have things that are "just there".

Well, this is mostly a theoretical example. I really don't use dungeon environments when I GM, and exploration isn't a theme I've often used. The only man-made (or at least sentient-made) pits a PC in my campaigns is likely to encounter are on a battlefield or outside a fortress.

Let me give you an example of something I'd actually use, rather than a pure hypothetical: a fortress assault.

The thing is, I don't care how the PCs, say, get into a fortress. I make the fortress based on the capabilities of the creatures inside and let the players figure out how to assail it.

If the inhabitants are hobgoblins, their fortress is likely to be well-maintained, well-constructed, and placed in a defensible position. The walls will be a wooden palisade (because the hobs don't go in for that manual labor stuff required to get lots of stone), but of sturdy wood treated to be as flame resistant as possible, 20 ft. high. A dry moat surrounds the palisade, 10 ft. wide to prevent easy leaps, and comes within 5 ft. of the walls to keep cavalry from easily crossing. Cunningly, the hobs have put a second, 5 ft. moat outside that one to keep attackers from getting a running start as they cross.

Offhand, I don't know the DCs for climbing, jumping, talking, burning or bashing into this fortress, and what's more, I would try not to consider them in making it.

Our group doesn't really use setting-based immersion, but then again we don't do much exploring of dangerous uncharted territory. (Unless you count New Orleans during Mardi Gras.)

Neither does mine, actually.

I can understand the second consequence in terms of player autonomy. You find "GM draws map, player consults it, determines difficulty" more efficient than "GM describes environment, player asks GM difficulty". I can see that for two reasons: One, the GM was going to draw the map anyway, so it's not considered a separate instance of communication. Two, you can consult the rules and determine several things from the diagram, not just the difficulty.

Two is more important, because the existence of the map shouldn't be assumed. IMO, this is a benefit of the map even outside of a tactical combat game, and one of the uses I put a battlemat to in RPGs that don't include tactical movement.

I can see the pit on the map and know that it's x wide, and that gives me a wealth of information beyond what I would ever get from querying the GM. Visual aids also help most people interact with and remember something, so it's probably better even than the GM just telling the width of the pit.

I get it, I really do. Thanks!

You're welcome.

I'm still curious about how and if these techniques are applied to other situations, such as social interactions. My guess (and please help me out here) is that while a roleplayed persuasion attempt sounds a lot like "Gm describes, player asks (or intuits) difficulty", it's appealing despite a lack of rules because that describe/ask transaction is done through first-person dialog, which serves to provide immersion in much the way a battlemap does for combat. (I know some people don't use social conflict rules at all, in which case this still applies, but the difficulty becomes "how persuasive the IC dialog must be" rather than "how high the roll must be".)

Social rules, how to adjudicate them, how many (if any) there should be, and what their role in a campaign is, are the biggest headache in RPGdom.

I have no idea how they should work, even after trying every extreme, from no-rules-pure-dialogue to extensive 'diplomatic combat' houserules with (in 3e terms) their own feats, PrCs and a multitude of modifiers.

Neither satisfied me, nor have I found a happy medium.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

What a load of patronizing *crap*.

Believe it or not, some people form their tastes in RPGs completely independent of any "element of rebellion".

Some of us are mature people who "know what we like". Not everyone who plays RPGs is in middle school.

Please enlighten us, oh sage.

Well, I'm not the sage in question, but I'll say this: unless you were raised with as much separation as possible from your broader cultural surroundings, you are more than 50 years old, or you didn't grow up in a Western first-world country - the latter pair, at least, are possible, and I'll take back the following comment if it's true - you were raised in a popular culture that glorified rebellion and denigrated authority.

If you were part of "geek" and more specifically "gamer" culture during your formative years, you were also immersed in a subculture that not only often shares both traits but is also generally distrustful of popularity.

"What one likes" is not an in-a-vacuum choice by a perfect rational actor. It's indelibly linked to one's formative experience and enculturation.

Unless one is me, of course.

But I digress. That's not to say that you like rules-lite, or dislike D&D, because of those aspects of your enculturation - or that Mearls was referring to you personally. Your "some" leaves room for his "chunk of gamers."

 

[Mythmere1]

Wow, when I last left this thread it wasn't a festival of C&C bashing. Scadgrad, Akrasia, let the Knights of Wrongfun pontificate, and just ignore it. When you see someone state that changing a game by removing rules is subjective, but adding rules is objective, you've just got someone who's a rules junkie. He certainly wouldn't enjoy C&C, from what I've read of his posts he doesn't understand the rules, and he's just trolling.

The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems. If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.

 

[JohnSnow]

What a load of patronizing *crap*.

Believe it or not, some people form their tastes in RPGs completely independent of any "element of rebellion".

Some of us are mature people who "know what we like". Not everyone who plays RPGs is in middle school.

Not that Mike needs me to defend him but this one is out of line.

He said there's "an element" of rebellion at work. In some cases, he's right. So, basically, I'd say you agree.

Patronizing is labelling all gamers who like more complex rules as having, how did Ace put it, "less social maturity and dispute resolution skills" and not being able to "handle a more complex social contract." Given that, I think it's fair to say that the patronizing attitude has been flying both ways on this thread.

I'm pleased to see that Moogle and Todd's exchange has proved fruitful. And I retract any derogatory comments about the folks at Troll Lord Games that don't have to do with them calling my preferred style of game "immature," "boring," "dull," or "in conflict with the basic idea of the game." Just because they can't incorporate the rules and play an immersive game doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with those rules.

My two cents.

EDIT: and better and more succinctly put by Moogle while I was writing this..

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Wow, when I last left this thread it wasn't a festival of C&C bashing. Scadgrad, Akrasia, let the Knights of Wrongfun pontificate, and just ignore it. When you see someone state that changing a game by removing rules is subjective, but adding rules is objective, you've just got someone who's a rules junkie. He certainly wouldn't enjoy C&C, from what I've read of his posts he doesn't understand the rules, and he's just trolling.

The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems. If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.

JD and I don't get to be Knights of Wrongfun?

'Cause that sounds like a seriously kick-arse Prestige Class, or maybe a feat chain, and I know how much Every Single Person In The World likes feats and PrCs, except neener-heads.

 

[Akrasia]

Well, I'm not the sage in question, but I'll say this: unless you were raised with as much separation as possible from your broader cultural surroundings, you are more than 50 years old, or you didn't grow up in a Western first-world country - the latter pair, at least, are possible, and I'll take back the following comment if it's true - you were raised in a popular culture that glorified rebellion and denigrated authority.

If you were part of "geek" and more specifically "gamer" culture during your formative years, you were also immersed in a subculture that not only often shares both traits but is also generally distrustful of popularity.

"What one likes" is not an in-a-vacuum choice by a perfect rational actor. It's indelibly linked to one's formative experience and enculturation.

Yeah, whatever.

Armchair pop psychology and sociology is pretty uninteresting IMO.

My own tastes in RPGs have nothing to do with "sticking it to the Man", and I dislike knee-jerk "rebellion" more generally.

 

[Mythmere1]

JD and I don't get to be Knights of Wrongfun?

'Cause that sounds like a seriously kick-arse Prestige Class, or maybe a feat chain, and I know how much Every Single Person In The World likes feats and PrCs, except neener-heads.

There you go! You can now join the ranks of the Knights of Wrongfun and wield a +2 sword of superiority!