Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[SweeneyTodd]

Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).

Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.

But why are there boulders there in the first place?

Why are there kobolds in the dungeon that first level PCs go to?

Complex rules justify GM's whim. Seriously. They don't replace it. When people spend lots of time preparing stat blocks for enemies, do you really believe that their first thought is "What is Zyaxx the wizard really like?" The first thought is how they can provide a challenge.

There is a heck of a lot of GMing information out there (including many of the threads on this forum) about how to come up with objective rules information that justifies GM whim. Even "I want to make an adventure" falls into this.

If you're saying that you prefer this stuff to be better hidden, so that it's easier to immerse yourself in the world and the character, okay. If you're saying you want all the numbers crunched up front because then you can enjoy defeating a set, objective challenge, okay. (I do this, too, only in my GM prep I have difficulty, and not the weight.)

But do realize that those boulders are only there because the GM invented them.

 

[Breakdaddy]

On the other hand, what I see are two of the biggest names in gaming making an comment based on some observed phenomena (whether or not you agree with the rigor of their data collection methodology*), and those people who are the supporters of "smaller games" - the underdogs, if you will - are just aching to be insulted so that they can point to the big guys and say, with injured nerd-pride, "We're better than them; see?"

* - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.

"Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.

In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.

Wow, your smugness is amazing dude. I mean, really, I thought *I* was arrogant. Instead of grabbing the first 80 pounds worth of gaming material you use per session (because its "consistent", of course!) and beating them over the head with it, try to listen sometimes. And just so you dont categorically dismiss my commentary as sour grapes or the shrill cry of another rules-lite emmisary, I can tell you right now I am running a D20 Star Wars game right now and loving it. My point is, just because you don't get what they are trying to say or disagree with it doesn't give your affectation of superiority any validity as concerns the topic. I recently ran a C&C game and found it to be much faster than my 3.5e game. Doesnt mean I've sworn off 3.5e. But it DOES prove (to me, at least), that The almighty WOTC crew *MIGHT* be spinning just a WEE bit because um, THEY WROTE THE STUFF. Of COURSE they like it.

 

[Jupp]

There's one key issue here that I think you're overlooking.

Only one person has to learn a rules heavy game. You can play D&D without owning a PH, or learning any of the rules, as long as someone else at the table can tell you what's going on.
The same thing is true with a rules light game.

Just that its much easier for both sides (DM and players) if the rulebooks are not 300+ pages and still cover everything that needs to be known to have a good game.

The question becomes, which game is worth the time it takes to study and learn? They both take some amount of time. The more complex game probably takes more time, but it's also more rewarding in that you have more tools in your kit to deal with the game.

I always thought the reward comes from having a good game, not from having lots of tools, books, whatever. I cannot speak for others but I certainly do not feel better just because I have to learn alot of rules and because I have alot of source material to draw my ideas from. What makes me happy as a player is when we had alot of fun at the game table with my fellow gamers. What makes me happy as a DM is when my group had a fun afternoon.

IMO, light v. heavy is only an issue in competitive games where every player has to learn the rules to enjoy the game. That isn't the case in RPGs.

Oh man, I just cannot say something nice smart to that..... :\

 

[Desdichado]

The latter does not follow from the former - rules light games almost always trade detail in favour of consistency.

I don't think that it has to, and I'm not sure that Psion phrased it in such a way to necessarily imply as much. The undervaluation of consistency and the overvaluation of simplicity are often paired in the same individuals, but they are two discrete data points, and are not necessarily correlated.

 

[ThirdWizard]

But do realize that those boulders are only there because the GM invented them.

Of course. But, that's going into railroading. Most people on these boards hate railroading, and you are indirectly advocating it through your scenario. What the GM determines is the best solution, whether or not the PCs have spent resources (points in Strength) or not (points in something else) is irrelevant. The situation is taken out of the PCs hands and put into that of the GM, making their abilities and actions largely irrelevant.

This is perfectly valid, but not my playstyle.

 

[WizarDru]

From what I gathered, the point Dancey was making was simply this: (presumably pre-3E) marketing tests indicated taht when it comes to starting up a game, being a system that emphasized less-rules did not translate into a more rapid adoption of the system for gameplay purposes. In other words, just because one was using Risus versus Rolemaster, their test groups did not suddenly experience a marked up-tick the proportion of gaming time, simply by merit of using a simpler ruleset. I may be wrong, but that was the impression I was left with.

Now, it's a valid criticism to say that he didn't back that data up in any meaningful way, either with numbers or methodology. It's certainly valid to say that there wasn't enough detail from that data to judge the veracity of that comment. Dancey is also something of a lightning rod for people's ire, for various reasons, a factor which shouldn't be discounted.

I'm willing to bet that the test groups were either pure neophytes, seasoned gamers or both. In both cases, I can see character creation taking a longer time in either system. For the former group, just learning the ropes is a challenge; for the latter group, feeling out the system is another one.

To wit: my group of experienced gamers of some years ago (a bunch well-versed in GURPS lore) agreed to try a Castle Falkenstein game that I wanted to run. I personally would label the original CF as a pretty darn rules-light system: and it drove us to distraction. The lack of specificity made it hard to imagine characters within the system. One character wanted to create a Hercule Poirot-esque character...but most of his unique factors were purely descriptive fluff. The rules system doesn't allow for specific archetypes. You can't be Monk or Spenser, you can only be Sherlock Holmes. You can't be Constantine or Howl, you can only be Merlin. And so on.

One thing that is often overlooked in lighter systems is that a lack of options also can be interepted as a lack of individuality. My group switched to GURPS from AD&D back in the day because we got tired of every 3rd level fighter being like every other 3rd level fighter, except for his equipment and maybe his strength score being a point higher or lower. Some gamers see this as a strength, and a way to make rules secondary to player's ideas....and some of us don't.

I think that Dancey's market research prior to 3E was probably flawed...but it was also the ONLY MARKET RESEARCH EVER DONE in the RPG field. That counts for something, surely.

 

[fredramsey]

Noted and filed. :\

You're not actually making a point as near as I can tell, you seem to be getting defensive and lashing out. When it's been pointed out to you that you were actually mistaken about one of the most crucial elements of your claim, you've rather stubbornly clung to it anyway. I must be misunderstanding something, but I can't see what you're even trying to say anymore.

 

[fredramsey]

The lack of specificity made it hard to imagine characters within the system. One character wanted to create a Hercule Poirot-esque character...but most of his unique factors were purely descriptive fluff.

And the rules lite fans would respond, "So what?"

It's funny, but I had this same discussion when 1st Edition D&D came out, about the Paladin, Ranger, etc. I said at the time, is it really necessary to have rules about a specific kind of Fighter, when you could just play your Fighter as a noble knight instead of a mercenary?

Granted, the Paladin and the Ranger had spells (and why the Ranger had spells is still a head scratcher, but I digress). But the point still stands: Do you really need rules for every aspect of a character? There was nothing stopping you in Basic D&D from playing a noble knight or an outdoorsman ranger. It did require imagination...

If you do, fine, there are systems out there that codify damn near everything. But if you are more interested in faster play, and (arguably) greater fun, then there are systems out there that allow that as well.

And any GM worth his salt will find a way to incorporate your "vision" into his rules lite game. How? Because the game doesn't dictate every single aspect. Now if you're wanting to play a diety in a low-magic, gritty game, then that's going beyond what is reasonable. But if confronted with that request, I would say, "That's a cool concept. How about a son of a diety, so I can better fit you in the story?"

It all comes down to style, in the end.

 

[Psion]

The latter does not follow from the former

Hence the use of the conjunction "and" instead of "therefore."

I merely pointed them out because they were points brought up in the livejournal that I agree with, even though I find some other aspects of Ryan's post to not quite match my experience.

 

[SWBaxter]

I don't think that it has to, and I'm not sure that Psion phrased it in such a way to necessarily imply as much.

Well, they were two clauses of the same sentence. If he didn't actually mean them to have any particular relation to each other, I'm sure he'll let me know.

Edit - and now he has, fair enough.