Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2390431" data-attributes="member: 20239"><p>The rules (as far as D&D goes) specifically tell a DM to apply modifiers he deems are appropriate. The DM decides which of the codified ones to use and whether to add any non-codified ones. Those <strong>ARE</strong> the RAW. So the DM and players still need to share a common "assessment of reality" for things to click.</p><p></p><p>When that happens, it doesn't matter whether the codified modifiers are there or not. A rules-lite game where the DM and players share a similar "assessment of reality" is not noticeably different to the participants than a rules-heavy game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you approach it from the perspective of asking the DM "I would like to do X, what are my chances of success?" then the two are not noticeably different.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're putting words in my mouth that are going to obfuscate the argument. I'm not using D&D as an example based on running it rules-lite. I'm saying that both rules-lite and rules-heavy systems require DM judgement calls at some level. D&D and C&C both require them, but they tend to occur at different systemic levels. I'm not asserting that the two systems are similar, I'm saying that the differences in the systems don't really seem (to me) to make a difference in the level of DM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling in most cases.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I don't understand why this is the base-line assumption. The GM in a rules-lite game is just as capable of setting up a situation with pre-determined conditions and sticking to them throughout the encounter as the GM in a rules-heavy game. I maintain that anyone who runs D&D in a consistent and fair manner, with good judgement is also capable of and likely to run C&C in exactly the same way. The only <u>real</u> differences I see are that 1 - the rules-lite system lets the player know from the start that communicating with the DM is an important aspect of knowing all the relevant details; and 2 - some players feel safer when DM judgement calls are hidden behind a layer of codified rules (i.e. - when the DM makes judgements about what codified modifiers apply or don't apply, rather than simply making judgements about what the overall modifier is).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This isn't what I'm talking about. D&D without fudging and by the RAW still requires as much DM adjudication as a rules-lite game, it just occurs on a different level in D&D.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I'm really not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What you're talking about is the group coming to a consensus about what the norm is for their game. Which is exactly my point. This process occurs both in rules-heavy (we accept that it's the norm that the modifiers in the books are the only ones that will apply) and in rules-lite systems (we come to expect a certain range of target numbers for the tasks we perform) for every group. The D&D RAW don't require that the DC modifiers in the books be the only ones applied. If that's the way the DM chooses to approach the game it is just as much a judgement call as a CK setting a TN based on the suggestions in the rulebook and his own personal interpretation of what modifiers the situational factors contribute.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's just not true. C&C provides a baseline for all checks (12 or 18). What it doesn't do is provide codified modifiers to that baseline. However, that doesn't negate the need for or prevent the formulation of consensus amongst the group as to what those modifiers should be.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I've seen different DMs running 3e D&D assign different situational modifiers to the same task, resulting in wildly different DCs. Both were playing by the rules, they were simply using their personal judgement to determine which modifiers did and did not apply.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, and given that the D&D RAW put the DM in the position of arbitrating which situational modifiers do and do not apply in a large number of circumstances, the game has just as much of a reuqirement for consensus as a rules-lite system would.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would expect someone who <u>wanted</u> to be consistent and predictable to be so when running C&C with no other RPG experience. I would also expect someone who did not want or did not care about being consistent and predictable to fail to be those things when running D&D with no other RPG experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 2390431, member: 20239"] The rules (as far as D&D goes) specifically tell a DM to apply modifiers he deems are appropriate. The DM decides which of the codified ones to use and whether to add any non-codified ones. Those [b]ARE[/b] the RAW. So the DM and players still need to share a common "assessment of reality" for things to click. When that happens, it doesn't matter whether the codified modifiers are there or not. A rules-lite game where the DM and players share a similar "assessment of reality" is not noticeably different to the participants than a rules-heavy game. If you approach it from the perspective of asking the DM "I would like to do X, what are my chances of success?" then the two are not noticeably different. You're putting words in my mouth that are going to obfuscate the argument. I'm not using D&D as an example based on running it rules-lite. I'm saying that both rules-lite and rules-heavy systems require DM judgement calls at some level. D&D and C&C both require them, but they tend to occur at different systemic levels. I'm not asserting that the two systems are similar, I'm saying that the differences in the systems don't really seem (to me) to make a difference in the level of DM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling in most cases. See, I don't understand why this is the base-line assumption. The GM in a rules-lite game is just as capable of setting up a situation with pre-determined conditions and sticking to them throughout the encounter as the GM in a rules-heavy game. I maintain that anyone who runs D&D in a consistent and fair manner, with good judgement is also capable of and likely to run C&C in exactly the same way. The only [u]real[/u] differences I see are that 1 - the rules-lite system lets the player know from the start that communicating with the DM is an important aspect of knowing all the relevant details; and 2 - some players feel safer when DM judgement calls are hidden behind a layer of codified rules (i.e. - when the DM makes judgements about what codified modifiers apply or don't apply, rather than simply making judgements about what the overall modifier is). This isn't what I'm talking about. D&D without fudging and by the RAW still requires as much DM adjudication as a rules-lite game, it just occurs on a different level in D&D. Again, I'm really not. What you're talking about is the group coming to a consensus about what the norm is for their game. Which is exactly my point. This process occurs both in rules-heavy (we accept that it's the norm that the modifiers in the books are the only ones that will apply) and in rules-lite systems (we come to expect a certain range of target numbers for the tasks we perform) for every group. The D&D RAW don't require that the DC modifiers in the books be the only ones applied. If that's the way the DM chooses to approach the game it is just as much a judgement call as a CK setting a TN based on the suggestions in the rulebook and his own personal interpretation of what modifiers the situational factors contribute. That's just not true. C&C provides a baseline for all checks (12 or 18). What it doesn't do is provide codified modifiers to that baseline. However, that doesn't negate the need for or prevent the formulation of consensus amongst the group as to what those modifiers should be. And I've seen different DMs running 3e D&D assign different situational modifiers to the same task, resulting in wildly different DCs. Both were playing by the rules, they were simply using their personal judgement to determine which modifiers did and did not apply. Exactly, and given that the D&D RAW put the DM in the position of arbitrating which situational modifiers do and do not apply in a large number of circumstances, the game has just as much of a reuqirement for consensus as a rules-lite system would. I would expect someone who [u]wanted[/u] to be consistent and predictable to be so when running C&C with no other RPG experience. I would also expect someone who did not want or did not care about being consistent and predictable to fail to be those things when running D&D with no other RPG experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
Top