Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[mearls]

Yeah, my experience has been the same. Rules that you don't use and that get forgotten about are not successful interfaces -- they fall by the wayside. Likewise, rules that take too long to use, increase the distance between player and game, and also get trotted out as "bad fun." Too many choices with different mechanics, and some people do get overwhelmed, and then go looking for something simpler, with less choices, with similar mechanics.

Precisely! Each player or group has a different threshold for options or complexity in the decisions - some people like Settlers, some people like Puerto Rico. The interesting thing is when you look at how complex a rule *should* be. In D&D, it makes sense that combat has a number of options - it's an important part of the game. But is a trip attack more complicated than it should be? What about attacks of opportunity?

Your thoughts on choice are dead on, particularly in relation to meaning. To rewind a little, the difference between attempting a trip and a normal attack should have meaning - one should not always be better than the other. However, D&D adds an added layer of meaning to this choice in that I can make one option better by building my character in a certain way. One choice might be better in most circumstances for a specific character, but I have to spend my "resources" (attributes, feats, and so on) to create that situation.

 

[Psion]

. . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.

Gee, prejudicial language much?

Anywhosier, I see where he is coming from, but would put forth that different people relate to the game in different ways. My wife can totally not relate to the "in character interactions" aspect of RPGs -- she just can't make the transition, picture the action. But the battlemat, she likes, because it helps her picture the situation.

Me, I find the battlemat a facilitation to be dispensed with when not needed -- I much prefer to describe the action. I don't like that 3.5 pushed the game towards being more about the battlemat than having the battlemat be a mere facilitation.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Hmm. I agree with most of what you say, but "regresses" just casts a negative light on an aspect of gaming a lot of people enjoy. Not too many brownie points for that one.

What else would you call basically taking "D&D" back to the Chainmail man-to-man fantasy supplement (circa 1972)?

 

[eyebeams]

For being irrelevant to the thread, lots of people sure seem interested in it.

And they too are questioning what choosing a smattering of spells has to do with :making spellcasting characters," which is more than that.

Of course, considering up thread you decide that people are "playing suckier games than they admit", you appear to be in the habit of speaking for others, which you really need not do. I am sure people can make their own decisions. If you find it irrelevant to you, feel free to not comment.

Yes yes, I'm sure everyone is a unqiue snowflake. Unfortunately, we all need to make assumptions to have a basis to communicate at all. I myself find my conclusions less than palatable, but I still think they're accurate.

The topic/sentence being addressed was that making spellcasting characters takes lots more time than non-spellcasting characters. I addressed that statement directly with some real proof.

No, real proof would involve making a spellcasting character.

Do you dislike the actual results of the experiment so much you feel the need to wave it off?

No, because an experiment would involve making both a spellcasting and a nonspellcasting character, not just picking a load of spells.

 

[diaglo]

What else would you call basically taking "D&D" back to the Chainmail man-to-man fantasy supplement (circa 1972)?

like i said. it never left

diaglo "still playing with Chainmail rules in OD&D" Ooi

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Precisely! Each player or group has a different threshold for options or complexity in the decisions - some people like Settlers, some people like Puerto Rico. The interesting thing is when you look at how complex a rule *should* be. In D&D, it makes sense that combat has a number of options - it's an important part of the game. But is a trip attack more complicated than it should be? What about attacks of opportunity?

The 'should' in this case means targeting the broadest possible appeal, no? Or at least the broadest appeal within the subset of the gaming community the product is targeted to?

So, for example, if most superhero RPG fans prefer lighter rules, then the complexity *should* be lower for superhero RPGs. And the inverse for sci-fi, if the majority of sci-fi RPG fans (we few, we unhappy few!) prefer more complex rules.

Your thoughts on choice are dead on, particularly in relation to meaning. To rewind a little, the difference between attempting a trip and a normal attack should have meaning - one should not always be better than the other. However, D&D adds an added layer of meaning to this choice in that I can make one option better by building my character in a certain way. One choice might be better in most circumstances for a specific character, but I have to spend my "resources" (attributes, feats, and so on) to create that situation.

Yeah, tripping is always better unless you specifically build a character to deal monstrously large amounts of damage. Seriously, I can't say how many trip attacks NPCs have used to deadly effect... some of the players have even started to catch on...

 

[The Shaman]

You mean fredramsey's?

I didn't really have anyone in particular in mind - swing it as you see fit.

 

[fredramsey]

What else would you call basically taking "D&D" back to the Chainmail man-to-man fantasy supplement (circa 1972)?

"I feel that all the focus on miniatures and battlemats takes away from the role-playing aspects of the game (which I like) and puts too much emphasis on tactics, which makes it seem too much like a wargame."

While I am FAR from being the least inflammatory in my word choice, it does affect the way people take what you are saying...

 

[rabindranath72]

Sweet, I graduated that class!



Yeah, my experience has been the same. Rules that you don't use and that get forgotten about are not successful interfaces -- they fall by the wayside. Likewise, rules that take too long to use, increase the distance between player and game, and also get trotted out as "bad fun." Too many choices with different mechanics, and some people do get overwhelmed, and then go looking for something simpler, with less choices, with similar mechanics.

I would, however, say that the essence of playing a game is making a choice, given random limitations on what you can choose. The game is in the random limitations and trying to make the best out of them -- drawing cards, rolling dice, "passing the torch" in a more narrative RPG -- the choice should have meaning within the limitations that random chance and previous choices have set up.

Fact is, that Role Playing being the goal (and not simply "playing a game", in which there must be clear-cut rules to define who wins and who doesn't), I "found" that the same goal could be reached with other systems other than 3e.
I play D&D in all its forms since the first 80's. And I played all along until 3e came out. It seemed like a good system (where for good I mean: a system which satisfies my expectations). But after using it for about two years, I realized that I was not going much further in my RPG experience than when I played Classic D&D. There were tons of choices, but those choices had a cost: time.
Time spent on the rules, not on the game. Some people like it, I too like "rules heavy" simulations game (like World in Flames, where a single game can last 30 or 40 hours), the problem is that World in Flames is not an RPG.
For me (and many others) the objective of an RPG is to Roleplay, not to get lost in tons of details, tactics and so on. Some may like it, some not. But considering that an RPG is mostly a social interaction game, where some sort of "interpretation" of the Real World (or similar) must be assessed, it turns out that the tons of rules to define a game system, can also be "decided" on the spot. Our view of the Real World helps us. So, can I decide that a normal person cannot lift an horse on his head without consulting a table?

In the end, to everyone its own.
For me, I decided that the goal of RolePlaying, I could achieve by playing Basic D&D. And with it, in 10 minutes I create an NPC: 3 minutes for the rules, 7 minutes for an interesting story.

Best regards,
Antonio

 

[Psion]

Yes yes, I'm sure everyone is a unqiue snowflake. Unfortunately, we all need to make assumptions to have a basis to communicate at all. I myself find my conclusions less than palatable, but I still think they're accurate.

Of course you do.

No, real proof would involve making a spellcasting character.

And why would that be? The activity that was posited to take time was selecting spells. I was illustrating that. If you think that's somehow irrelevant, then I posit to you that the burden is on you to tell me why that is not significant. What factor am I missing that is going to bloat the time up so?

Edit: I'll even go so far to assert that activities-other-than-spell-selection, the creation of a spellcaster is less time intensive. A spellcaster has less in the way of stacking and tabulation of bonuses than a fighter type, and excepting bards have less in the way of skill point allotment than a rogue, bard, or ranger.