Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[The Shaman]

I'm afraid I have to say that I'm on-board with those who question the validity of Mr. Dancey's research methods. My first impression on reading the quote above is that a study population consisting entirely of twelve year-olds may tend to skew the results somewhat. :\

This is one of the key problems of corporate research: the results, and quite often the methods, are 'proprietary' and therefore there is no way to objectively examine the sampling methods and data analysis for rigor. Any claim to insight is, and should be treated as, highly suspect.

The point was made earlier, and bears repeating, that the entire subject of sales and market share as a measure of success ignores the fact that the rules-bloated 3e system benefits from decades of branding that the current rules did nothing to create. The question I would like to hear answered some time is this: would d20 have been as successful in terms of sales if it didn't come with the D&D brand name attached to the flagship product? What if there was no "3e" but rather "d20 Fantasy Roleplay" instead, without the D&D moniker? Would it occupy the same market segment that 3e D&D does?

That would be an interesting market research question actually: present 3e D&D and generic d20 "fantasy roleplaying" to a study population of novice gamers - how much does branding affect rules acceptance by new gamers?

Another issue affecting market share is the OGL - all those products out there, regardless of genre, that include the words "Requires the use of..." affect sales as well. If I purchased Sidewinder: Wild West Adventures and the 3.0 core rulebook, am I really weighing in on the success of the d20 system or am I just buying a book I need to run a game, a game that doesn't require any of the rest of the rules-bloated 3e/d20 system?

On an entirely personal and subjective note, I'm switching to C&C specifically because character creation is simpler and takes less time - I'd be happy to join a focus group to prove that, if Messrs. Dancey and Mearls are interested.

 

[Campbell]

Huh. :\

This claim demonstrates a *failure* to understand the whole point behind 'rule light' systems IMO -- viz. a good 'rules light' system does not require 'tools' (i.e. additional rules) in order to introduce novel and interesting new situations/encounters in the game.

Your counterclaim also demonstrates a *failure* to understand the advantage of the tools that are available with a good rules heavy system. The ability to make stuff up is not an advantage that rules heavy systems hold a monopoly over. The advantage of a rules heavy system is that you do not *have* to make stuff up if you do not want to. It is relatively easy to simply discard rules that lessen the fun there is to be had during a game session. the advantage of a rules heavy system is that the rules are there if you need them to be there.

Addendum
I do not mean to be overly snarky here. Still my intentions were pure. Failing to draw the same conclusions from similar experiences does not neccesarily indicate myopic attitudes. I throughly see the point of rules light systems, I simply have not drawn the same conclusions as you have from the experience of playing and running rules light games. None of which invalidates either of our experiences. My distaste for running rules light games has nothing to do with a lack of vision, as I'm sure your distaste for running rules heavy games does not infer that you are mentally incapable of grasping some hidden truth. I do not feel constrained by D&D's rules, whereas you do feel constrained by them. Honestly, I am happy that you have chosen to the sort of game that is within your comfort zone as a GM.

 

[Akrasia]

Your counterclaim also demonstrates a *failure* to understand the advantage of the tools that are available with a good rules heavy system. The ability to make stuff up is not an advantage that rules heavy systems hold a monopoly over. The advantage of a rules heavy system is that you do not *have* to make stuff up if you do not want to. It is relatively easy to simply discard rules that lessen the fun there is to be had during a game session. the advantage of a rules heavy system is that the rules are there if you need them to be there.

Sorry, but you *failed* to understand my point.

A good rules light system provides *all* the necessary rules the GM needs to model new and interesting situations. This is because the rules in question are *more general* in nature. A good rules light system does *not* require a GM to 'invent' new rules, because the general rules the game *does* have are adequate and flexible.

My example contrasting the BtVS game and d20 Modern stands.

 

[scadgrad]

...
The point was made earlier, and bears repeating, that the entire subject of sales and market share as a measure of success ignores the fact that the rules-bloated 3e system benefits from decades of branding that the current rules did nothing to create. The question I would like to hear answered some time is this: would d20 have been as successful in terms of sales if it didn't come with the D&D brand name attached to the flagship product? What if there was no "3e" but rather "d20 Fantasy Roleplay" instead, without the D&D moniker? Would it occupy the same market segment that 3e D&D does? ...

Dear Lord, could is be that someone else on this board actually agrees that all of that branding effort had as much or more to do with the success of 3.X as the asserted complexity of its rules? Shocking.

...On an entirely personal and subjective note, I'm switching to C&C specifically because character creation is simpler and takes less time - I'd be happy to join a focus group to prove that, if Messrs. Dancey and Mearls are interested.

For the record, I volunteer to DM/CK those sessions.



Welcome to the Crusade Shaman.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

A good rules light system provides *all* the necessary rules the GM needs to model new and interesting situations. This is because the rules in question are *more general* in nature. A good rules light system does *not* require a GM to 'invent' new rules, because the general rules the game *does* have are adequate and flexible.

My example contrasting the BtVS game and d20 Modern stands.

Interestingly enough, however, this not requiring of inventing rules I've found can be most easily seen in the rules heavy/bloated/more-so-than-some-other-games/whatever d20 rules.

If you don't know how to do something...GM decides on a DC based on its difficulty(and there's a chart in the DMG to help determine this. Roll d20 against it.

Easy as that. Its something I'd honestly expected from a rules-lite game rather than d20.

And for a completely different spin, would anyone else like to see a whole month(or maybe even two!) where we don't have to go through this whole rules lite/rules heavy system debate? Its always the same people on both sides and no opinions ever, ever change. Instead, they just get heated, angry, and closed.

 

[BluSponge]

True - I only meant relative to 3e that C&C is rules lite. Even at rules-medium, it confounds the assertion that's being made ...

True dat. There are days when I think Rolemaster is rules lite compared to 3e. But that's probably a little extreme on my part.

Tom

 

[Campbell]

Sorry, but you *failed* to understand my point.

A good rules light system provides *all* the necessary rules the GM needs to model new and interesting situations. This is because the rules in question are *more general* in nature. A good rules light system does *not* require a GM to 'invent' new rules, because the general rules the game *does* have are adequate and flexible.

My example contrasting the BtVS game and d20 Modern stands.

I did not fail to see your point. I am simply not impressed by it, nor do I see how this phenomenon is unique to good rules light systems. A good rules heavy system also retains a more general core that can be used to model new and interesting situations. It also includes additional tools that may be used to model complicated situations that come up during play. Rules heavy systems also allow GMs to present a more detailed simulation without having to remember how he or she handled the same situation last week. In fact most of the rules that I can find within the core rules are either extensions of existing principles, or exceptions that allow you to model situations that completely unified mechanics may not. Remove these elements, and you would have a good rules light system. There are of course some exceptions that need to die (Turning Undead and death at -10 hit points for instance).

While I admit rules light games do indeed play faster, they do not allow me to model both consistancy and detail. Some sacrifices are not worth it for everyone.

 

[BluSponge]

Folks, is slamming people you don't even know really necessary?

Absolutely! People who wear their hearts on their sleeves deserve to get bruised now and then.

KIDDING! Sorry, but I didn't see my comment as a hard core slam.

Now if I said, "Your mom doesn't think outside the box," I could see your point.

Really, people.

Tom

 

[BluSponge]

First, I'd claim that both your examples have a lot more to do with the rigidity of RPGA more than anything else. Particularly the first, the second is more a matter of a player getting hung up on semantics.....

No doubt. My issues with the RPGA are a large reason why I won't touch 3e as a GM anymore. I'm happy to play, but that's as far as it goes.

However, if the GM doesn't have a rule for setting the target number then you will result in inconsistent rulings, which are unsatisfying and can, in many people's experience, lead to disputes that are at least as disruptive as getting hung up on rules. And again, if you do rule consistently, then that is simply a rule that hasn't been put on paper. If you got the rules, then it isn't rules lite.

I see your point, but disagree. Certainly a level of trust has to exist between the GM and players, and the GM has to strive for a certain level of consistancy. You can't really hold the game system responsible for bad GMs -- they'll ruin a rules heavy game as quickly as a rules lite one. In the end, it does all come down to a matter of personal taste. I gravitate towards games that let me craft my campaign in a manner that suits me, as I'm sure others do. What I find constrictive, I'm sure others find liberating.

But the complaints I'm hearing from most people around here have to do with bad GMing, not bad game mechanics.

Tom

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Meanwhile, back in the Real World, there is a large amount of research going on about the relative merits of regulating complex subjects to achieve maximum social benefit through the application of high-level principles rather than micro-regulating specific behaviours. This represents very well the dichotomy of "rules-lite" and "rules-heavy" gaming systems; which in truth is not a dichotomy but a continuum between extremes. "Rules-lite" or "principles-based" regulation of a subject is more efficient and effective at achieving the desired social outcome than "rules-heavy" or specific behaviour regulation where:
- the regulated entities are willing to take responsibility and exercise professional judgement in their compliance with the rules;
- there is mutual trust and respect between the regulator and the regulated entities;
- there is a willingness by the regulator and the regulated entities to build a shared understanding of how the rules apply in practice.

The measure of success of a principles-based ("rules-lite") system of regulation is the consistency of the views of the regulator and regulated entities about how a given principle will apply in a particular factual circumstance.

I suspect this is at the heart of why some people prefer rules-lite games to rules-heavy games and vice-versa.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar