Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[MoogleEmpMog]

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

Sadly, I've never played the original Chainmail.

However, I'm willing to bet that it was a heck of a lot simpler than D&D - as basically all miniatures wargames, from Warhammer to War Gods to Warmachine to Confrontation to the short-lived New Chainmail to the assorted clicky games are.

In fact, many of those games would make find rules-lite combat systems for an RPG.

Either way, becoming more of a tabletop wargame is in no way 'taking D&D back to Chainmail.' Nor does the presence of tactics and strategy imply that the game is, in fact, a tabletop wargame.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Wait, Wait. This... Is... A... Bad... Thing...?

Remathilis "I don't need minis to role-play a shopkeeper" Ooi.

 

[rabindranath72]

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.

WotC had to sell more minis, do not forget
Luckily for them, they have lots of clients.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri

 

[The Shaman]

ISo I think the pertinent question isn't "Is rules light or heavy better?" - the answer there is "No." The real question is, "Why does the rules bloated 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. Half of the act of RPG design is hacking through all the misconceptions, malformed conventional wisdom, and backwards thinking that clogs the "industry's" arteries.

Fixed that for you.

The people I know who collect records by obscure bands generally don't collect them because they're obscure, or to buck a trend - they buy them because the albums speak to their personal muse. I would say that something similar is at work in gaming.

Speaking of these people in a dismissive or pejorative tone, as if they somehow "don't get it," does nothing to enhance the credibility of your argument.

 

[Remathilis]

You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.

Well jeez, I don't even need a CHARACTER SHEET to role-play, except of the possiblity of combat breaking out...

 

[Desdichado]

My whole point was simply to respond to the seemingly "scientific" answer of Mr. Dancey. As my (and tons of others) experiences prove the contrary, then something is amiss. And since we were speaking about "scientific" answers, I reported my experience on the field, which I had the "luck" of assessing statistically. And, I repeat, since I am not the only one who has thrown 3e out of the window, something is amiss with the system.

No, you haven't assessed anything scientifically. You've said that his experiments are not scientific, which while likely true, you can't actually know because very little of his experimental methods have been described. You then proceeded to add in your own anecdotal evidence, and seemingly claim that your experience is a valid sample size to extrapoliate for the entire population--which as a statistician you should know better than to do--and said, "trust me, I'm a statistician." All this despite the fact that no evidence of any statistical or experimental studies or analysis you've done have been at all forthcoming.

You're own posts have been considerably less scientific than anything Dancey has said, so you've done a very poor job of convincing anyone that your "credentials" have any bearing on anything, or that your "arguments" are any more compelling that anything anyone else has said on the topic.

 

[rabindranath72]

Of course you do.



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?

More or less yours was an indirect answer to my statement that creating an high level character takes "a bit" of time. If you set out to prove that this is not true, you were only half way. Choosing spells is just the tip of the iceberg. I guess this is what the other posters are saying.

 

[Psion]

WotC had to sell more minis, do not forget

Trust me, I didn't.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well jeez, I don't even need a CHARACTER SHEET to role-play, except of the possiblity of combat breaking out...

Do you know what tactical combat is? Combat is part of fantasy role-playing. Tactical combat is not required.