Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Turanil]

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.

Are you kidding? In BOTH cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Imagine a game with so many rules that the Players are completely paralyzed and unable to play at all. Reading the rules sucks all the imagination out of the reader's brain, and he is left an automaton.



Quasqueton

The problem lies in expectations. People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can. The system isn't going to change what kind of person you are. Thus far, I've never had my imagination sucked out by a book, but if I ever run into it, I'll let you know.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Are you kidding? In BOTH cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.

In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.

In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.

If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.

EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

OD&D 1974 - 1979+ a little over 5 years.

I don't know if I'd call a game with rules scattered over 4 rule books (over 120 pages total) with at least 5 different combat resolution systems Lite. ( Chainmail, chain mail man-vs-man, fantasy combat matrix, aerial combat and the "new" optional combat system )

 

[EricNoah]

The problem lies in expectations. People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can. The system isn't going to change what kind of person you are. Thus far, I've never had my imagination sucked out by a book, but if I ever run into it, I'll let you know.

Quotable and true!

I remember playing 2E and feeling that combat was pretty boring. There was little you could do to increase tactical advantage, and so there was little reason to do so -- unless you had a DM who encouraged things that were outside of the scope of the rules (winging it on a case-by-case basis). One thing I like about more elaborate combat rules is that it makes combats more interesting, at least in my games. On the other hand, when the rules state that you can do X, Y, and Z, does it mean you can't do A, B or C unless explicitly stated? I think that's what some rules-lite proponents believe. I personally don't.

 

[Quasqueton]

People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can.

Yeah, that is kind of funny isn't it. I just don't understand how some folks read something like:

Actions you can do: attack.

...and they can be all creative and imaginative with their game. "I can do all kinds of stuff, and attacking is just one option."

But if they read:

Actions you can do: attack, grapple, charge, disarm, trip, bullrush.

...and they suddenly get all restricted and limited. "I can only do 6 things? That's terribly limiting."


Quasqueton

 

[fredramsey]

I was saying that what RD and MM have been saying gives the appearance of d20 not only being more popular (which it is), but feels the need to put down so-called "rules lite" systems. This paints them with the Microsoft vs. the world brush (as an aside, I don't view MS as the big, bad evil thing Linux people make it out to be).

And my point was, why? Could D&D really exist totally in a vacuum? In my opinion, no. Nor is D&D threatened by *any* other company. So why engage in such talk to begin with.

Again, even though Dancy is no longer in the d20 business, his words obviously carry weight, or this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. So, I made an incorrect assumption about one of the two speakers. I was wrong. But, the impression they give, which is what my point was, does not change. And I consider their exclusionary talk and practices not only in bad taste, but not good business sense, in the long run.

How much would WOTC suffer if Dragon magazine contained stories dealing with other systems, like it did long ago? Would that suddenly make D&D less popular? I seriously doubt it.

So, I got a little hot under the collar when you seemed to imply that RD's employment was the total underpinning of my post. It wasn't. So I have strived here to make it clearer, which is hopefully the course I will endeavor to take in the future. Doing so will help me avoid having to chew Tums...

OK. :\ It would have been nice if you could have addressed my questions though--y'know, in the interest of promoting better communication and understanding or something. It seems you made a claim based on some information which was shown to be faulty, but you stuck to your claim anyway. I don't know what you're trying to say--or perhaps more accurately, I don't see any evidence of anything you're trying to say. I'm still trying to reach some understanding here of what you're getting at, though. It's quite possible that I'm just not seeing something obvious--it happens to me all the time.

 

[Desdichado]

when the rules state that you can do X, Y, and Z, does it mean you can't do A, B or C unless explicitly stated? I think that's what some rules-lite proponents believe. I personally don't.

Me neither, and ironically, with d20's relatively robust skill system, you've got a great set of tools in place to adjudicate all those things that aren't specifically called out. I don't know how many times I've called for Balance, Jump, Tumble or other checks to cover some cool action my PCs have attempted to do in combat.

 

[der_kluge]

I think the kind of rules system you prefer greatly depends on what kind of game you want to play. I feel like I've matured quite a bit when I say that one system is not better than the other. There is a time and a place for both systems.

I think that's what I was trying to say with my earlier post, but in a less elegant way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yeah, that is kind of funny isn't it. I just don't understand how some folks read something like:

Actions you can do: attack.

...and they can be all creative and imaginative with their game. "I can do all kinds of stuff, and attacking is just one option."

But if they read:

Actions you can do: attack, grapple, charge, disarm, trip, bullrush.

...and they suddenly get all restricted and limited. "I can only do 6 things? That's terribly limiting."


Quasqueton

Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.

Edit: I remember clearly a GM (who was an old school AD&D veteran) telling me I couldn't charge an enemy because the movement had to be in a straight line. His reason: my character didn't line up so that it could charge a straight line going by the battle grid. I had to remind him that the battle grid doesn't exist and straight line is the shortest distance between two points. d20 had contracted his ability to conceptialize actions during the game.