JohnSnow
Hero
Interesting interactive experience. I would certainly classify it as roleplaying. Obviously, it's incredibly "rules-light" and highly interactive.
I think the point here is that all this "rules-light," "rules-medium," "rules-heavy" stuff is a continuum where everyone's "sweet spot" is different. Clearly, some people prefer to handle their games in different ways. For myself, I can totally understand the desire of many people (especially GMs) to have a game that's easier to prepare. That makes all kinds of sense. Personally, I find that a dichotomy exists between "easy to prepare" and "customizable characters."
For the record, I do not consider Castles & Crusades to be a truly "rules-light" system. I would rate it more on the level of "rules-simple." Like D&D, C&C has a relatively simple resolution mechanic. D&D has, over the years, accumulated a number of "situation-specific" rulings that were, with the publication of 3e, codified into the "official system." The official system has been tested to be "balanced" with all of those add-ons taken into account. I'm not sure the game is necessarily balanced if you start pulling things out, but I don't think you could balance the game for a lot fewer rules and then start adding things in without jeopardizing its "balance" either.
The points Ryan Dancey has been making since he advocated the OGL are primarily basic marketing ones. Now, since roleplaying games are a hobby, they don't necessarily follow the paradigm he's using, but it isn't fair to ignore his point completely. Any complicated system benefits, in the long-term, from what marketing people call "network effects." Basically, the theory runs like this: if everybody's got the same "interface," their experience is more portable. And the more people that use it, the more value it has to people. And the more value it has, the more people use it, and so on.
This means that there's a reduced learning curve in the long run. Rules-light vs. rules-heavy inadvertently treads on these network effect issues. If everyone's playing the same "rules-heavy" game, then the learning curve is drastically reduced if you switch gaming groups. If everyone's playing the same "rules-light" game, but each group has a pool of "house rules," then the network effects only apply to the rules-light aspect of the game. For the record, many games (like C&C) benefit from (and exist because of) the network effects created by Dancey's brainchild - the Open Gaming License.
And the simple fact is that the Core mechanic of the Open Gaming License is the same as the core mechanic of the Original D&D Game. That's why C&C can be published under the OGL and be recognizable as the original game. D&D's true genius (mechanics-wise) was always its combat resolution system. Skills were definitely a secondary consideration. The smart thing Wizards did when they made 3e was to standardize the d20 as THE conflict resolution mechanic for the game. They took the mechanics for combat resolution that made D&D so popular and applied them across the board. C&C actually copied that "univeral mechanic" from 3e (tweaked slightly - the SIEGE engine).
Where the Third Edition designers MAY have been overzealous is in their attempts to balance out EVERYTHING. It can fairly be argued that they could have left some things less defined. IMO, some of the weird "too far" mechanics include the rules for types of bonuses, stacking and so forth. The "character wealth by level" guidelines are another example. The designers took a perceived problem - Monty Haul characters - and decided to address it by stating what level of wealth was "reasonable." The net result was that the ramp-up of character's abilities became officially defined by their treasure. I don't regard any of these things as "core aspects" of third edition. They were more inadvertent side effects of attempts to address areas that caused a headache for some DMs.
And that is, I think, the key. How do you teach someone to be a good DM? That's a MAJOR "network effect" problem that confronts our hobby. To have more gamers, there need to be more gaming groups. More gaming groups means you need more GMs. So how can you teach someone to be a good GM? In a rules-light game, you can only give "guidelines." If you have to play with someone who's already good at it, and it require a certain amount of "native talent," there will only ever be so many gaming groups. That's a significant "barrier to entry" to anybody considering taking up our hobby.
However, in a rules-heavy game, you can point to the rules and say, "okay, this is what you need to do when you referee." That won't necessarily produce great GMs, but it does allow someone to make an attempt at being a fair and good GM without having to spend an apprenticeship gaming with Gary Gygax, Monte Cook or any other GM who already GETS it. So now we have GMs that can grasp the bare minimums and run a reasonably fair game, even if they still need practice to be really "good" at it. The roleplaying/narrator side is something that ONLY comes with practice, although obviously some people will have more natural talent than others. Obviously, an experienced Gamemaster can adjudicate the game fairly without resorting to extensive rules. But if an enjoyable game requires an experienced GM, then the limiting factor of the RPG hobby is not the availability of gaming materials...it's the availability of good-quality, experienced GMs. That's another issue where a single gaming system helps in the long-run - the more portable one's RPG experience is, the more likely it is that any given gaming group will be able to find/produce a qualified Gamemaster.
Obviously, no business model that says "our market size is dependent on the availability of a resource we can't control, produce or aid in the development of" is sustainable in the long-term. You can disagree with Dancey on specifics, and disagree with Mearls' assertions about how good D&D's game mechanics are, but they do have some very good solid points to make.
I think the point here is that all this "rules-light," "rules-medium," "rules-heavy" stuff is a continuum where everyone's "sweet spot" is different. Clearly, some people prefer to handle their games in different ways. For myself, I can totally understand the desire of many people (especially GMs) to have a game that's easier to prepare. That makes all kinds of sense. Personally, I find that a dichotomy exists between "easy to prepare" and "customizable characters."
For the record, I do not consider Castles & Crusades to be a truly "rules-light" system. I would rate it more on the level of "rules-simple." Like D&D, C&C has a relatively simple resolution mechanic. D&D has, over the years, accumulated a number of "situation-specific" rulings that were, with the publication of 3e, codified into the "official system." The official system has been tested to be "balanced" with all of those add-ons taken into account. I'm not sure the game is necessarily balanced if you start pulling things out, but I don't think you could balance the game for a lot fewer rules and then start adding things in without jeopardizing its "balance" either.
The points Ryan Dancey has been making since he advocated the OGL are primarily basic marketing ones. Now, since roleplaying games are a hobby, they don't necessarily follow the paradigm he's using, but it isn't fair to ignore his point completely. Any complicated system benefits, in the long-term, from what marketing people call "network effects." Basically, the theory runs like this: if everybody's got the same "interface," their experience is more portable. And the more people that use it, the more value it has to people. And the more value it has, the more people use it, and so on.
This means that there's a reduced learning curve in the long run. Rules-light vs. rules-heavy inadvertently treads on these network effect issues. If everyone's playing the same "rules-heavy" game, then the learning curve is drastically reduced if you switch gaming groups. If everyone's playing the same "rules-light" game, but each group has a pool of "house rules," then the network effects only apply to the rules-light aspect of the game. For the record, many games (like C&C) benefit from (and exist because of) the network effects created by Dancey's brainchild - the Open Gaming License.
And the simple fact is that the Core mechanic of the Open Gaming License is the same as the core mechanic of the Original D&D Game. That's why C&C can be published under the OGL and be recognizable as the original game. D&D's true genius (mechanics-wise) was always its combat resolution system. Skills were definitely a secondary consideration. The smart thing Wizards did when they made 3e was to standardize the d20 as THE conflict resolution mechanic for the game. They took the mechanics for combat resolution that made D&D so popular and applied them across the board. C&C actually copied that "univeral mechanic" from 3e (tweaked slightly - the SIEGE engine).
Where the Third Edition designers MAY have been overzealous is in their attempts to balance out EVERYTHING. It can fairly be argued that they could have left some things less defined. IMO, some of the weird "too far" mechanics include the rules for types of bonuses, stacking and so forth. The "character wealth by level" guidelines are another example. The designers took a perceived problem - Monty Haul characters - and decided to address it by stating what level of wealth was "reasonable." The net result was that the ramp-up of character's abilities became officially defined by their treasure. I don't regard any of these things as "core aspects" of third edition. They were more inadvertent side effects of attempts to address areas that caused a headache for some DMs.
And that is, I think, the key. How do you teach someone to be a good DM? That's a MAJOR "network effect" problem that confronts our hobby. To have more gamers, there need to be more gaming groups. More gaming groups means you need more GMs. So how can you teach someone to be a good GM? In a rules-light game, you can only give "guidelines." If you have to play with someone who's already good at it, and it require a certain amount of "native talent," there will only ever be so many gaming groups. That's a significant "barrier to entry" to anybody considering taking up our hobby.
However, in a rules-heavy game, you can point to the rules and say, "okay, this is what you need to do when you referee." That won't necessarily produce great GMs, but it does allow someone to make an attempt at being a fair and good GM without having to spend an apprenticeship gaming with Gary Gygax, Monte Cook or any other GM who already GETS it. So now we have GMs that can grasp the bare minimums and run a reasonably fair game, even if they still need practice to be really "good" at it. The roleplaying/narrator side is something that ONLY comes with practice, although obviously some people will have more natural talent than others. Obviously, an experienced Gamemaster can adjudicate the game fairly without resorting to extensive rules. But if an enjoyable game requires an experienced GM, then the limiting factor of the RPG hobby is not the availability of gaming materials...it's the availability of good-quality, experienced GMs. That's another issue where a single gaming system helps in the long-run - the more portable one's RPG experience is, the more likely it is that any given gaming group will be able to find/produce a qualified Gamemaster.
Obviously, no business model that says "our market size is dependent on the availability of a resource we can't control, produce or aid in the development of" is sustainable in the long-term. You can disagree with Dancey on specifics, and disagree with Mearls' assertions about how good D&D's game mechanics are, but they do have some very good solid points to make.
Last edited:
