Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[James Heard]

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

Thats exactly what I was thinking when I read it too. Some systems (any system, not just roleplaying games) can work without clear rules and procedures thanks to artful management (or GMing) but in the absence of that art they fall flat. And a lot of people mistake themselves when they state things like "I don't want people telling me what to do" or mistake their own expertness when applying knowledge they're familiar with to people completely unfamiliar with a subject.

To put it another way, I don't need clear instructions on how to do basic math but I might need clear instructions on how to perform brain surgery. Just because a bunch of brain surgeons don't want people telling them how to do cuts and clearly understand the implications of sawing into someone's noggin doesn't mean that the man on the street that you're supposed to be teaching brain surgery to does. I assume we're all more than a little familiar with roleplaying just by our presence here on the boards, but my not-quite-teenaged daughter marvelled at me when she was starting her very first roleplaying experience (in a game I'd never played before) and I was able to provide "expert assistance" on her game without even reading the rules. Most of us have more than a little bit of training in the "artful management" side of GMing and tons of experience with the basics of roleplaying games, I'd venture that everyone here would need precise instructions on how to assemble death rayguns even if a bunch of dudes well familiar with death rayguns said that "rules lite" instructions were fine for assembling antimatter powerpacks.

And really, some people just like less instruction and less rules in everything - and they look for artful management in all things rather than what might be seen as arbitrary restrictions. Once everyone knows what they're doing, there's nothing wrong with that - I'd be interested in a study with children though, on rules lite system morphing compared with rules heavy system compatibility. I know for a fact I stopped playing VtM because half the time the rules changed because of bad weather and car trouble, or astounding things could be accomplished with similar die rolls and a little bit of cleavage.

 

[Turanil]

I'm saying that the rules-lite system makes me fiat the game more than I would like. If there is no resoultion system for a particular scenario, then the system has forced the GM to railroad the PCs whether he wants to or not. He can say that they get a 50/50 chance to see the assassin, but still, that's fiat. In D&D, you will build the rogue/assassin, determine ranks in Move Silently, the PCs will have ranks in Listen if they put points in it, they can cast spells like see invisibility, and personally, I find this more enjoyable than a simple 50/50 chance of hearing the assassin (or whatever I decide that day).

My point of contention with you is not that RL is better than RH or vice-versa, my point is that the DM determines the adventure, and even if he must abide by a strict set of rules, he has control over the story, so it's DM's fiat the same, even if more subtle and within game mechanics.

Despite you claim the contrary, in the rule heavy system it's still DM's fiat as whether the PC has 50% chance spotting the assassin: I am the DM, I know the PC has Listen and Spot at +15, so in giving the assassin Stealth at +15, the PC has 50% chance of detecting him. Simple as that and pure DM's fiat, and it has nothing to do between rule-light / rule-heavy. The only difference is that it was pre planned instead of improvised. So tell me about planned adventures versus winding the game; but that's another debate.

Otherwise I am like you, if the DM doesn't have a preexisting rule for something he will have to come up with an arbitrary decision, which is something I don't like too.

In fact the real question is probably not rule-light vs rule heavy but system that allows a fast game vs system that makes for a slow game. And there I will just point out to my first post in this thread (page 1).

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Okay, maybe you guys can help me out here. I'll describe the mode of play in the rules-light session we played tonight, using a slight variant to Primetime Adventures. Hopefully I can get some feedback on this. (I fully expect "That's not a RPG" as one possible response, so I won't be offended.)

For reference, we played about two and a half hours (with an hour of social time and dinner before that, and a half hour of discussing future games after). We played eight to ten scenes and covered the half-dozen plot points outstanding from last session, as well as introducing several new ones.

Character sheets have a list of traits. In this game, they're usually exceptional skill or supernatural ability.

We go around the table. If it's your turn, you frame a scene, and state the conflict involved, and the stakes of that conflict.

We play for a while as usual, mixing third-person narration with first-person dialog. Various players throw in additional material, either in-character (if they have a PC in the scene), or out of character suggestions.

We reach the crux of the conflict, and we roll. One die per party in the conflict, plus one die per relevant trait involved. Winner narrates the result (what happens) and we play out the remainder of the scene (how it happens). The narration should include things like the logical consequences of the actions, of course.

Finish scene, and cut to the next scene.

As far as realism and fairness go:

Whether or not a trait is relevant to the conflict is adjudicated by the GM, but I've never had to say no. (Traits are broad, and winning a conflict through use of your Underwater Basket-weaving trait would require you to narrate how that happened, so it doesn't come up.) The rules cover all possible conflicts that could come up (albeit using the same mechanism in all cases). The players don't feel at the whim of GM fiat, because they have as many opportunities to narrate as I do.

Comments? Sound truly awful? I fully recognize that we're not attempting to simulate anything, except perhaps the plot structure of a TV show or movie. (Scenes tend to build in importance, with some climactic scenes near the end of the session.) But for us, it's neither arbitrary nor unrealistic.

I think what I'm finally realizing is how different my unstated assumptions for what a roleplaying game is than those of some other posters. It's probably a bigger issue than rules-light or rules-heavy.

 

[ThirdWizard]

My point of contention with you is not that RL is better than RH or vice-versa, my point is that the DM determines the adventure, and even if he must abide by a strict set of rules, he has control over the story, so it's DM's fiat the same, even if more subtle and within game mechanics.

Except that you're wrong. Just because I can game at a rules-heavy system does not mean that it uses the same amount of fiat at a rules lite game.

As an example, a PC turned to stone should weigh about 3x as much as they normally weigh. In a rules-heavy game you can look it up on a table to find out if the PCs can carry the character back to town. In a rules-lite system that doesn't have encumberance tables, the GM just decides based on how they feel at the time.

In D&D you can determine run speeds based on character race/class, encumberance, and feats taken. You can then cross reference these run speeds and make ability checks to see if you can catch the person trying to run away. In a rules-lite system without chasing rules, the GM will make up a rule or decide if the chasing is successful.

In D&D, you have a mechanic to see who goes first in a round. In a rules-lite system without this mechanic the GM has to make it up.

In D&D you know how long it is going to take to craft something based on the character's skill in Craft. In a rules-lite system without this mechanic the GM makes it up.

In D&D I know the resolution mechnic for sundering, grappling, tripping, disarming, overruning, bull rushing, and other modes of attack. In a rules-lite system the GM would make these things up.

Now tell me again that a rules-heavy system is made up of just as much GM fiat as a rules-lite system.

 

[Campbell]

Okay, maybe you guys can help me out here. I'll describe the mode of play in the rules-light session we played tonight, using a slight variant to Primetime Adventures. Hopefully I can get some feedback on this. (I fully expect "That's not a RPG" as one possible response, so I won't be offended.)

For reference, we played about two and a half hours (with an hour of social time and dinner before that, and a half hour of discussing future games after). We played eight to ten scenes and covered the half-dozen plot points outstanding from last session, as well as introducing several new ones.

Character sheets have a list of traits. In this game, they're usually exceptional skill or supernatural ability.

We go around the table. If it's your turn, you frame a scene, and state the conflict involved, and the stakes of that conflict.

We play for a while as usual, mixing third-person narration with first-person dialog. Various players throw in additional material, either in-character (if they have a PC in the scene), or out of character suggestions.

We reach the crux of the conflict, and we roll. One die per party in the conflict, plus one die per relevant trait involved. Winner narrates the result (what happens) and we play out the remainder of the scene (how it happens). The narration should include things like the logical consequences of the actions, of course.

Finish scene, and cut to the next scene.

As far as realism and fairness go:

Whether or not a trait is relevant to the conflict is adjudicated by the GM, but I've never had to say no. (Traits are broad, and winning a conflict through use of your Underwater Basket-weaving trait would require you to narrate how that happened, so it doesn't come up.) The rules cover all possible conflicts that could come up (albeit using the same mechanism in all cases). The players don't feel at the whim of GM fiat, because they have as many opportunities to narrate as I do.

Comments? Sound truly awful? I fully recognize that we're not attempting to simulate anything, except perhaps the plot structure of a TV show or movie. (Scenes tend to build in importance, with some climactic scenes near the end of the session.) But for us, it's neither arbitrary nor unrealistic.

I think what I'm finally realizing is how different my unstated assumptions for what a roleplaying game is than those of some other posters. It's probably a bigger issue than rules-light or rules-heavy.

It sounds like a cool experience. I'd actually love to play in a game like that. It's generally not what I think of when I think about roleplaying games. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable running that type of game however.

 

[Akrasia]

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.

Ummmm ... it's not, and I never claimed that it was.

My point was merely that a good rules light system doesn't *need* "new things for its toolkit". By relying on a smaller number of more general rules, the tool kit is already complete.

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.

Yes, whatever. I was in no way disputing that. My point was merely that a complete, good rules light system can cover *all* the same situations that a rules heavy system does, but simply with less detail.

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.

Okay, you're missing the point of 'rules light' systems here. Rules light system are *not* 'simulationist' in nature, and people who want simulationist games are better off using rules heavy systems.

(Of course, the fact that we are talking about games for worlds in which barbarians clad in loinclothes fight giant flying lizards that breath fire makes the whole talk of 'realistic simulation' a bit strange IMO, but that is a different matter.)

In short: there is no problem with 'remembering how the situation was handled last week' with a rules light system because ... gasp ... the rules are LIGHT. There is only a problem if you are trying to bend a rules light system into a simulationist mold. But that is a silly thing to do.

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.

Fine. You have a different set of desiderata for your games that people who like rules light systems do. Big surprise.

None of this invalidates my original point -- viz. that Mearls' comment that rules heavy systems give GMs more 'tools' for their 'kits' entirely misses the raison d'etre for rules light systems in the first place.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Okay, maybe you guys can help me out here. I'll describe the mode of play in the rules-light session we played tonight, using a slight variant to Primetime Adventures. Hopefully I can get some feedback on this. (I fully expect "That's not a RPG" as one possible response, so I won't be offended.)

Now this game is rules-lite! All you C&C people out there, take note.
Sounds reminicent of FUDGE.

It's an RPG, you have PCs and a conflict resolution system.

I'm curious what genre you were playing.

I can't say its totally different than my experiences. I play in a rules-heavy system in which 75% the game is spent dice-less or near dice-less (usually running 6-8 hour sessions). Mostly roleplaying character interactions, building plot, introducing NPCs.

It does sound very different in its narrative form, however, much more involving with the players outside the scope of their own PC. That's probably the largest difference. Now I see what you meant by handing over control of the gaming world to the players. That's way out of the bounds of traditional play, as far as I know.

I could probably play it once, but that would most likely be enough for me. And, I would think of it as a completely different experience to what I am used to in roleplaying. I would probably liken it more to back in Boy Scouts passing a single story around the campfire, where everyone got to add in something before passing it onto the next person. Fun, in itself, but not satisfying what I'm looking for in a roleplaying game every other week.

 

[Campbell]

Akrasia,

I find it interesting that despite our obvious differences on this issue we can both appreciate Buffy/Angel, although probably from different vantage points. For instance, my appreciation for the game stems from my experiences with being quite able to run a fairly detailed simulation of the Buffyverse through the game. Specifically, I appreciate how Drama Points can be used to represent how seemingly average individuals adjust to the harsh reality of the Buffyverse. For me it's not about simulating any reasonable sort of model of reality. i want to simulate settings that hold together while allowing my players to create their own stories within the confines of those settings.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

ThirdWizard and others,

Hey, feedback! Thanks kindly.

The setting is something I devised from the setting creation rules in Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards. It's the modern day, in a small college town. The PCs are otherwise ordinary people (a professor, a bartender, and a bouncer who dreams of being a pro wrestler, among others. It sounds odd but it works) who control "demons" (basically djinii). These things give them supernatural powers, for various costs. They've alternated between dealing with their everyday lives (which now include avoiding being held for "study" by the government) with uncovering and dealing with the source of their powers.

We were running the system with Sorcerer, which is also rules-light but constructed much more like a traditional experience (pretty similar to the sessions you describe, actually). We've been adding player narration rights gradually, and finally decided to work with a system where they're explicitly part of the rules. (Basically, we were getting pretty close to "freeform with five dice rolls a sesion", and so I thought PTA would better suit our playstyle.)

I admit that we're pretty "out there", although interestingly enough we've been that way long before we adopted the system. I remember a time two years ago, in a different campaign using D20 Modern, when a player spent an Action Point on their Drive roll and I said, "Okay, you've cut off your pursuers and turned onto a side street. What's it like?"

We've ranged from games with a traditional party structure to those with parallel and intersecting stories. (Heck, in this campaign, it was the fourth session before any of the PCs met.) We cut quickly between scenes and offer up NPCs for players to run to keep everyone engaged. (Several of those NPCs have become recurring semi-PCs.) We make no attempt to keep player knowledge separate from character knowledge, and interestingly enough the only way that ever gets used is to have a player arrange to have their character get into trouble, never out of it.

I can totally understand that this doesn't sound like most people's cup of tea, although I'd love to hear specifics on why. One argument I've heard is that it doesn't seem like player narration rights can coexist with tactical challenges. That's probably true, but it's not an emphasis for our group. Two of our players play weekly D&D, one as DM, so maybe they get that satisfaction elsewhere. Another argument is the unrealism, which as I totally failed to get across in my posts a few pages back, I think boils down to narration anyway. (If people aren't on the same page in how they imagine a scene, it'll feel "off" regardless of rules level.)

One more thing about the challenge, or "gaming" aspect: There's not a tactical challenge in engaging the rules per se, but there's certainly a challenge. You've got to maneuver your character into conflicts that allow them to use their traits, limit opposing traits, and come up with compelling actions that "grab" the group. (The latter's true because if you've presented a great idea, and someone else wins narration rights, they may decide you succeed with complications, instead of failing.) It's not crunchy, but it does leave us brain-fried after a few hours.

 

[rabindranath72]

Here's a simple test:

Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.

I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.

In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.

What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).

Mr. Mearls,
first, let us put some hypthesis:
For "rules-lite" system I mean a system that:
1) allows me short preparation time for creating NPCs, "monsters" and encounters
2) allows fast character creation
3) does not need reference to volumes just to adjudicate an action so that players won't throw the books at your face
in the above, for "short" I mean a fuzzy definition which can be roughly translated in the order of tens of minutes, not going over the hour (or more as in The Other System).

THEN, given the above, I can cite at least four systems:
1) Silhouette by Dream Pod 9. A FAST, realistic system which is used for anything from fantasy to science fiction
2) Interlock by R. Talsorian (Cyberpunk, Mekton et al.)
3) Unisystem by Eden Studios
4) BRP by Chaosium (Cthulhu et al...I do not think I need say more)
5) Amber

So, as you can see, there are lots of rules lite systems which do not need 1 PHB, 2 DMG, N (for N large) Monster manuals, 1 Dummy Guide and what not.

Furthermore, please, pay attention when hosting people like Mr. Dancey who SEEM to talk about science and experiments without obviously knowing what they are speaking about. I speak from a professional viewpoint, being an Associate Researcher in Statistics. And what Mr. Dancey made to pass as an experiment, is, plainly put, ludicrous.

I understand that you both are on the payroll of WotC, but there is no need to say blatantly wrong things. You are free to say your opinion, but NOT to pass it for science.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri