Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Nine Hands]

From Mike Mearls' blog:

This has not been my observation. I've played FUDGE and its not an arguement, its just up to the GM to come up with things on the fly (maybe they selected a bunch of spineless GMs). A very robust rules lite system can support these things easier than a klunky rules system. I wonder if they tried using a rules lite version of d20. I doubt d20 could easily be reduced to less than a 20 pages without needing a major rewrite (ala C&C), its just not robust enough.

Also someone observing my RPG game through a two way mirror just seems wrong in some way, maybe the gamers had a feeling they were being watched?

 

[fredramsey]

But here's the key: an individual gamer can like whatever he wants, and buy whatever games he buys, and hate whatever games he hates. The problem arises when "professional" game designers take those attitudes with them when they cross the pro v. hobbyist line. The automatic link between "rules light" and "good game" that some people bear is a major hindrance on the development, innovation, and improvement of the basic form of RPGs.

Amen.

And when it comes down to it, game systems are like @#$holes. Everyone has one, and everyone else's stinks.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, I can see your point, but there are just so many other little things in 3rd edition that don't exist in say C&C, or OD&D - the myriad spells, and things like DR, or counterspelling which can complicate combat.

And not everyone knows all these rules. I'm not a walking rules encyclopedia. To avoid confrontation with my players after the fact, I want to make sure I have the precise rule at the moment in which the event happens. So, rather than guessing that the Resilient Sphere is large enough, I'm probably going to look up how big a Slaad is, and then I might ask the player (whom I expect to know) how big his sphere is. He might have to look that up as well. So, that takes time away from play. And some rules like "can you D-door into an anti-life shell" don't exist in the game, so despite the argument that 3rd edition is rules-heavy, it *still* doesn't cover every situation (and I don't expect it to), but the fact that it tries really hard to do so, leads me to believe that there might be some discussion about it somewhere, so in that situation, I'm inclined to look that one up as well. Those were actual situations that came up in my game, btw. And we had to stop and look all of them up because no one at the table knew off hand what the answer was, and this was a group that had probably been gaming collectively for 50 years or more.

I still couldn't tell you what the result of 22 is on the pummeling table is, or how much XP a balor is worth, and I've played 2e for 10 years. No one should know all the rules.

I'm not a walking encyclopedia also. Neither is my group. But everyone owns a PH in our group and we're adept at locating rules when needed. I'm one of the better (toot, toot)

If you have the slaad page open, its height is there. (if not, its size catagory is L, making it 8-15 ft) the caster SHOULD know his spell perimeters before casting, usually we have the page OPEN to said spell. If not, tut tut.

D-Door into a A-L-S is the kinda ad hoc rules Rules-Lite DMs LOVE to make, right?

Mirror Image is IN THE SPELL DESCRIPTION. Last paragraph.

Knowing a shield does 1d4 is a quick glance at the weapons table (theres one on my DM screen). Shouldn't be too hard to determine the rest, esp the one size larger = one die higher common sense rule.

I did have to look them up, but it wouldn't have broken my flow. As a DM, I'm constantly telling another player to look up X while I'm adjunctating other actions. 3-4 people usually find what I need quickly.

 

[Desdichado]

Since you admit to never have prepared an high level character, please add to that 18 minutes the time to:

No, I never admitted that -- I admitted to not doing it often, and no I won't add those times because in my experience that's just you making a hyperbolic case and being indecisive as a player.

Oh, Mr. Analytic here has a PhD in Statistics. So, when I speak about numbers, I know what I am speaking about, on the contrary of some others.

That's completely beside the point, though, isn't it? Or did you read my response to your post? Your problem is amply illustrated in the other part of what I quoted. You make connections and conclusions that aren't there and aren't true, stir in ridiculous hyperbolic statements and anecdotal evidence, and then try to make some point about your statistical credentials. Since your entire argument is based on non-statistical anecdotes and hyperbole, I don't care if you're a freakin' mentat -- it has no bearing on the conversation at hand.

 

[Psion]

I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval.

Yup. Too many people are out there seeking validation for their choices in gaming, and when they are outnumbered, feel a need to "prove their way better" by loudly making cases about how thier game is better.

But I would not call it theoretical at all. Right now we are in a rash of rules-light-validators, but at one time I saw an equivalent rash of rules-realistic-validators making the same case for GURPS.

(I suspect that the real issue at work is a question of good v. bad interface design. That's a very real issue, and something I've been meaning to write about for a long time now.)

Not sure I know what you are getting at, but I'd be interested in what you have to say.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The real question is, "Why does the rules light bring out such emotional responses, why do people get so defensive about it, why is there a knee jerk reaction towards it?" That's the question you need to ask, and that's where the path to figuring out why the "industry" is so messed up begins.

Here is the answer, for the purpose of this specific thread:

My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.

Dancey claimed he scientifically dismissed "rules lite" as being "simpler and better." He then opined that the only reason that "most people" think so is because "they desperately want them to be," impeaching their judgment.

That's why "emotional and defensive" responses have been given. There has been nothing knee jerk about it.

 

[Remathilis]

I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval.

DING DING DING!

I remember hearing arguements about how GURPS or ROLEMASTER is better than D&D because "combat is more realistic and there are tables to handle critical hits, wounds to body parts, and random elements on the battlefield" D&D's attack/AC, Damage/HP system is simplisitc and outdated.

Can't Win for Losing.

 

[rabindranath72]

Mr. Epistomological here would call this an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

I am not trying to enforce any "ipse dixit" attitude. But since, it seems, numbers are also what we are speaking about, then to everyone its own

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri

 

[mcrow]

This is the most creative definition of "lite" I have yet seen in this thread. Even classifying HARP as "lite" would be a massive stretch.

Yeah, Rolemaster (chartmaster) being rules lite is waaaaay out there. Now Harp is a very good system, but not a light system. Harp light though comes close to fitting in the light rules description, but not quite.

 

[fredramsey]

Man. It's getting hard to remember which site I'm on: enworld or rpg.net...