Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Desdichado]

Wow, Rasyr. That's a heaping lot of conspiracy theory you're propogating there.

 

[der_kluge]

1) I've never spent more than an hour tops preparing for monsters and encounters for an adventure that will take me through 4-6 evenings of gameplay. And an hour is a strong outlier -- half an hour or less is more normal. And much of that time is not preparing mechanics either.
2) With decisive players, d20 character creation can take 5 minutes or less for any character you can think of. If I've spent more time on it than that, it's been because I've been sweating non-mechanical things like being wishy-washy on character concept or background.

I keep seeing comments like this, and all I want is to smoke what you guys are smoking. I made an 18th level cleric for a pick-up game at Gen Con several years ago, and it took me well into the game before I finally decided on what all my spells were going to be that I had memorized. That was 2nd edition! It would be worse now, since I'd also have to figure out which feats I wanted, how to allocate my skill points, and which domains I wanted to take. The total time was at least an hour and a half.

I like character creation to be fast when it's necessitated, but I find it extremely difficult to slap together a high level spellcaster in 3rd edition in a short amount of time. It just can't be done.

If you're spending an hour developing 4-6 sessions worth of games you're either running a very low-level game, or you're primarily using monsters right out of the book for enemies. Because you certainly can't stat out several high level BBEGs in that amount of time.

 

[Desdichado]

I keep seeing comments like this, and all I want is to smoke what you guys are smoking. I made an 18th level cleric for a pick-up game at Gen Con several years ago, and it took me well into the game before I finally decided on what all my spells were going to be that I had memorized.

OK, I admit high level spellcasters are the exception.

But honestly--how many times are you creating high level spellcasters from scratch?

 

[Psion]

Technically, Dancey is not on WotC's payroll as he stopped working for them a number of years ago, however, he continues to espouse propaganda and theories, and suggestions all meant to further his own private agenda of supporting the OGL and/or WotC. (This is born out by watching his actions and reading his statements over the past couple of years).

I'm not seeing anything "sinister" here. It was his theory to begin with. This doesn't diverge greatly in obviousness from "Ryan is expressing his opinion."

In regards to Mr. Mearls' opinion about rules-lite games, all I can say about that is that it appears that he is or has been heavily influenced by Dancey. The Prediction blog, in which the quoted Dancey remark was a comment, seems (at least to me) to have been coached, or influenced by Dancey's own opinions on the matter. That prediction almost sounds like Dancey's wishlist of events to happen to the gaming market (as it would of course aid him in his agenda of advancing WotC).

Once again, eh. It's obvious that Mearls is one individual whose entire current livelihood was born from the OGL. It's a little hard to argue that doesn't influence him. But I think it's a little off the wall to suggest he was "coached" by Dancey. Mearls has been a source of bold predictions and analysis for some time. It's not at all suspicious or out of character for him to post this himself.

 

[der_kluge]

OK, I admit high level spellcasters are the exception.

But honestly--how many times are you creating high level spellcasters from scratch?

Well, not very often, admittedly, but if you're playing in a high level 3rd edition campaign, the GM has to spend a lot of time if he's statting out lots of high level spellcasters as opponents. 3rd edition becomes an exponential amount of work the higher the level becomes, unless the game is just completely fluff/story driven.

My last campaign ended at 15th level, and it was heavy combat, with lots of creatures like necromancers and Slaad, some with multiple templates. I had sheets and sheets of monsters statistics, most of whom had inate spellcasting abilities, different levels of immunity like lightning, fire, etc damage reduction, and other things. Combats took an excessive amount of time. It drove me insane. All kinds of "fuzzy" rules came up all the time.

- Is a Slaad big enough to fit inside of an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere?
- Can I dimension Door into an anti-life shell?
- Do mirror images work in the dark?
- how much damage does a large shield, shield bash incur? What are the bonuses to hit?

ad nauseum. After that campaign, I decided that I never wanted to run a high level 3rd edition game again.

 

[Psion]

OK, I admit high level spellcasters are the exception.

But honestly--how many times are you creating high level spellcasters from scratch?

As I DM, I do it all the time.

Of course, I use the immortal advice of Dungeoncraft on the issue, which players can't get away with. Still, as often as not, there is a "pat" set of spells for a given class that I have any experience playing that I could jot down fairly quickly.

Just for fun, let's try it. I'll pull up the SRD, hit reply, pick spells for an 18th level cleric, and see how long it takes me.

 

[Desdichado]

ad nauseum. After that campaign, I decided that I never wanted to run a high level 3rd edition game again.

I have to admit--my opinions are based on fairly little experience with high level gameplay in d20. For a variety of reasons--escalating rule complexity only being one of them, and not necessarily the most important--I've avoided it.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I think alot of people are forgetting what D&D 3.0 was trying to fix. Over the years, AD&D varied wildly based on HR, supplements, and DM perrogative. I might use just standard AD&D pummeling, but Bob uses the OA martial arts and Luke uses Combat and Tactics Unarmed Strikes, etc. There WAS no guideline to where a ghoul was an appropriate challenge for a 1st level PC, or that a giant was appropriate for a 10th. Or that +5 swords are for 16th level PCs. Or the cleric's power varied from nil (complete priests) to vastly (faiths and avatars). Or that the RPGA had a houserule and ban list miles long. Or that by design flaw thieves were weak and wizards ruled all at high levels. Or that elves WERE the best racial choice.

D&D 3.0 tried to put everything on a level playing field that a rule had existed for for 20 YEARS! They tied as much as they could to a common mechanic. They retooled everything and provided an option to handle (nearly) everything. Why? Cuz thats what players (most of em) WANTED from D&D, a unified system. The downside was having hundreds of rules to cover obscure scenarios (overrun anyone?)

They also made everything balanced, to the joy of some and the chargin of others. By taking into account Conan's +1 sword into the CR, they made his sword necessary. by assuming a traditional mixed party, the made it almost necessary.

D&D rules "bloat" was in response to what players wanted in the late 90's, more unified structure and easy resolution. With that came the bloat of having hundreds of rules to stop powergaming, adjuncate wealth, and balance weapon damage. Not every DM wants (or needs) this kind of hand-holding, but there are some that DO. A good DM can make a game work with a detailed combat system or with paper-rock-scissors. A poor DM could use every shred of help they can find.

When we were younger, we had 16 people beat up on a giant. 16! In MELEE! A battlemat would have made that impossible. Was my DM a bad DM? No, just young and inexperienced. Would the battlemat shown him that was impossible! Probably! A battlemat would have solved a lot of fireball disputes (I wasn't within 20 feet! Yes you were!) We can get through a combat in quickly even counting squares, making 5' steps and using tactical manuvers (grappls still slow down the game though).

As many have said, the biggest fault I have with Rules Lite is the "mother may I" syndrome. Mother, may I move and attack? (nah, he's too far). What about me (yeah, your closer, go ahead). Can I swing from the chandeleer? What about knock him off the balcony? Catch the falling phial? Without a rule to fall back on, the DM decides on the spot.

As both a player and a DM, I'd rather have a cushy rule-set that I can tweak than having to adjuncate rules on the fly. YMMV.

 

[Desdichado]

Just for fun, let's try it. I'll pull up the SRD, hit reply, pick spells for an 18th level cleric, and see how long it takes me.

I'd like to see that. In my experience, the myth of hours and hours of prep time is just that--a myth. Either that or inefficent use of time.

 

[diaglo]

I think alot of people are forgetting what D&D 3.0 was trying to fix.

i think you are confusing the words fix and neuter.

it didn't fix anything. it did neuter D&D.