Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Remathilis]

Out of the two games, I prefer C&C, but I can completely understand when people prefer 3e. It's just about whether people prefer GM adjudication or referencing a comprehensive rule-set. There are advantages to both sides.

And thats the lesson for today kids.

 

[Remathilis]

Not for your post. Too fair. You have to say that people who play C&C are playing the game wrong before you get the prestige class and the sword. Or pick any game, really. Rifts is a popular avenue to the Citadel of the Knights of Wrongfun. (That's how I got my wrongfun sword - Rifts. I couldn't help myself).

Rifts, not THATS wrongfun I can get behind. I'd rather sit at home doing nothing than play a session of Rifts with my friends. (and I DID for about a month)

Now do I get my sword?

 

[Mythmere1]

Rifts, not THATS wrongfun I can get behind. I'd rather sit at home doing nothing than play a session of Rifts with my friends. (and I DID for about a month)

Now do I get my sword?

"Rather do nothing than play" is good for a +3 sword of superiority.
You've got to get up to the "poke in te eye with a sharp stick" region for a +4 vorpal sword of superiority, though. Nevertheless, you are hereby knighted into the Order of the Knights of Wrongfun, and recieve your sword! May your sneer never falter and your pen never run free of poison!

 

[Psion]

I don't know. Are you bashing on C&C?

I don't know. Am I? I wasn't one of the exceptional non-bashers you pointed to in your post.

Sometimes when you fail to name a target, everyone feels like a target. (shrug).

The posts I saw from you were along the lines of "some people prefer rules-lite, some people don't, and there's not an objective answer," which is basically the same position I take.

Well then you are cool by me.

 

[Campbell]

I will say that mature gamers can like either rules light or rules heavy games. However, I think mature and experienced gamers are more likely to be *able* to enjoy rules light games -- simply because it takes experience and trust to make such games work.

That's a statement I can get behind, although I believe the same could be said for a setting focused play experience, rather than an entirely gamist one. Of course, I admit I am somewhat of a setting focused snob.

I apologize if my remarks down thread were rather abrasive.

 

[Mythmere1]

I don't know. Am I? I wasn't one of the exceptional non-bashers you pointed to in your post.

Sometimes when you fail to name a target, everyone feels like a target. (shrug).

True about everyone feeling like a target. I mentioned JD and MoogleEmpMog because they frequently take the 3e side in debates about C&C on the OGL boards, so they're particularly familiar as the ones who don't make ad hominem attacks and are relatively objective.

I think most people aren't Knights of Wrongfun, but the wrongfun crowd is vocal. Sort of the same thing people say about us C&C fans - few but vocal.

When two games are as similar as D&D and C&C, many innocently meant statements of preference sound like insults, too. You can't mention C&C on a general board without attracting an instant war.

 

[Mallus]

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.

While that's true, consider that every NPC in the game chooses to act, essentially, by GM fiat. So that leaves a huge portion of the game in a kind of mechanics-free space that relies on a GM's judgement, rather than on any codified system of task resolution (and on an open line of communication between players and GM).

To varying degrees the rules system can describe what a GM can do with NPC's (or any form of obstacle/encounter), but not what they do. And in that there's no escaping a reliance on the GM's subjective judgement calls.

In light of that, quibbling about an extra +2 circumstance bonus applied to a Jump check seems, well, to miss the point.

In fact, I think the GM subjectively assessing the players' plans can create quite a few very real problems.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but can you suggest another way for GM's to assess things, other then subjectively? I'm not a robot or an algorithm. While I try for a degree of objectivity, I have to be honest with myself and admit I fall pretty short. I'm only human.

All of these problems are caused by the GMs subjective assessment of the challenge being based on things other than the setting and situation.

I don't accept that. Most of what you list aren't problems (level-appropriate challenges?? rewards for creativity?!) unless taken to an extreme. And even a GM who limits their assessment to 'the setting and the situation' are making subjective judgements. How can they not be? How did they obtain an objective frame of reference?

 

[Psion]

Good lord, where's the hate people!?

What's all this... apologizing?

 

[Akrasia]

...
I apologize if my remarks down thread were rather abrasive.

No worries.

 

[Akrasia]

Good lord, where's the hate people!?

What's all this... apologizing?

I am sure that some hate will break out again soon ...