Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[fredramsey]

You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.

And that irritates me. Those guys are on the top. They won't gain more customers or improve their market share by marginalizing other game systems. They should, instead, paint WOTC as the "gamer's friend" who believes in the idea that we all share a common interest.

Am I the only one who sees their statements as juvenile and pointless?

 

[GMSkarka]

...the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.

Only if you change the yard markers. Remember that back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming. It certainly has endured, for more than the Dancey-Mearls-requisite 5 years....

 

[Nighthawk]

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.

This is something I very much agree with. It is true for me as well and will continue to remain that way, I think.

 

[Psion]

Only if you change the yard markers. Remember than back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming.

Not by me.

(And, as I recall, Rolemaster was in print back then. )

 

[Crothian]

Only if you change the yard markers. Remember that back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming. It certainly has endured, for more than the Dancey-Mearls-requisite 5 years....

Ya, but Vampire didn't stay Ruules lite for long if it every was.

 

[scadgrad]

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.


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.

I wasn't trying to be "snarky" (good word by the way), just taking a stab at being humorous which as usual is exceedingly difficult on the web.

I have played The Window and liked it very much actually. Everway didn't do much for me though. My definition for rules lite happens to be "those games which are significantly less complex than 3.5" which is essentially the touchstone game for not only this thread, but the entire site. To that end, I consider games either lite on rules or heavy on them. It would seem to me that considering only games such as Buffy (w/ its 256 pages of rules by-the-by, hole in your logic perhaps?) and The Window as being the hallmarks of "rules-liteism" as perhaps a bit too narrow, though again, I don't go in for the rules-medium definition. YMMV.

 

[EricNoah]

It occurs to me that "amount of time" is only one measure... what about "quality of experience" -- i.e. if I spend the same amount of time generating a character in system X and system Y, but I enjoyed myself more in system X, then system X wins. If the time and enjoyment of character creation are equal, but then I have a better time playing the game with system Y, then Y wins. If I'm the DM and prepping system Y is a chore, then X wins. Etc.

There are many other measures, and it depends on whether you're the company or the gamer: am I more likely to buy future products with X or Y? Am I more likely to recruit other players with X or Y? And other questions I posed a couple of posts back.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I have to keep repeating to myself that Mearls and Dancy are concerned with what keeps selling product. That keeps me from going "Man, they don't get it."

Really, I'm the one that doesn't get it, not from their perspective. I've run two campaigns in the past two years, and am starting another one soon. One system was free, another was $50 (including two supplements), and the third was $15. None of my players have had to buy more than pencils and paper.

I spend plenty of money in search of ideas -- it's just that I buy novels and DVDs, and watch movies and television. I have enough rules, so I get creative fodder from sources that are 100% "fluff". Heck, some of my best inspiration has been free, talking with people about the nature of human relationships.

I am sooooo not their target market. From their perspective, it makes no difference whether I exist or not.

Rather than get miffed, I just need to extend them the same courtesy of indifference. They're not relevant to me, I'm not relevant to them, it's all good. No offense given or taken.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light)

You don't say?

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?

Well, what's to add?

I can think of setting and adventures. With setting you run the risk of turning the game into a travelogue. Besides Buffy: The Dayton Chronicles doesn't sound like it would be any more or less different than adventures in Sunnydale.

Adventures I can see. But adventures don't sell that well. 2nd edition Paranoia manged a bunch of them, but a lot of those were joke books for the DM. Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues was a hillarious read, but it was kind of a dud to play. So those weren't really adventures so much as they were fiction designed to torture the PCs. And if I'm going to torture my players, I'm going to do it with a cheese grater, like Mom always did.

 

[buzz]

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.

FWIW, Dancey states explciitly that this is his opinion, and presents the anecdotal evidence that led him to form said opinion. I'm willing to give his opinion some weight simply based on his experience, and the test situation he describes is more formal than any observation I've been abel to make.

While his opinion may not be 100% irrefutable, I think there's a germ of some kind of truth in there.

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.

Perhaps, but haven't we also been told many times that it's the sales of core books that really provide most companys' meat and potatoes? If a truly "lite" RPG had really connected with an audience, isn't it possible that it would have sustained itself even wihtout a barraeg of supplements?

I mean, most boardgames are just a single product, right? If Monopoly or Risk can sustain itself for decades with basically a single product (keeping in mind the theme sets are a pretty recent thing), why couldn't an RPG?

I think the closest exmples we can find of rules-lighter games that have sustained themselves are Vampire and Call of Cthulhu. The latter could possibly be considered "lite", but the former is still somewhere in the middle. Their product lines also seem to focus less on crunch and more on adventures and setting material. Granted, CoC isn't really a big player anymore...

Ultimately, I think that truly "lite" RPGs simply appeal to a very limited audience. Contrary to popular belief, it's really the experienced gamer that is drawn to system that let them rely less on rules and more on their own years of experience. Yes, it may be that "lite" games are easier for newbies to learn, but, IMO, only when aided by the guidance of an experienced gamer (barring an exceptionally-written rulebook). Give something like Everway to a group of nothing but newbies and you'll see a lot of head-scratching. Give them something like the Basic Set (a focused version of a complex game that provide clear goals for gameplay), and you give birth to a hobby.