Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Psion]

While I understand what you're saying, at some level doesn't it always come down to that?
Players come up with a plan, DM decides how well it will work. No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up...

True enough.

But, getting into the dreaded dice versus diceless debate, I think that having the chance of failure actually gives the DM more options, since he can presnt the players with more possibilities that "that will work" or "that won't work", and give the players a satisfaction of "having a chance". That become more meaningful yet if the players not only feel that they had a chance, but it wasn't arbitrary.

IMO, natch.

 

[Psion]

For me, rules-sufficient (I'm going to stop saying "heavy" here) is more fun,

I prefer "robust", myself. But perhaps that's the software engineer in me speaking.

 

[Akrasia]

Spells are probably the primary source of complexity in D&D and its derivatives. Each spell is its own little subset of rules. Saying that C&C has 60 pages of "mere" spell descriptions does nothing to convince me that it is rules-light. That's 60 more pages of rules, and that alone is proably more rule information than is contained in the entire Buffy core book.

A "lite" spell system, IMO, is, e.g., Tri-Stat being able to cover those 60 pages with "Dynamic Magic - Rank 3: PC can create any magical effect with a max power of Rank 3."

So, personally, I don't buy it.

'
Well whatever. I really don't care whether you 'buy it' or not.

My *experience* with *both* systems has demonstrated to me that they are equivalent in terms of 'rules heaviness'. They both have simple resolution mechanicisms capable of handling most situations, and can be grasped by players in under 10 minutes.

Maybe BtVS is slightly 'lighter' than C&C, or vice versa. Whatever. They both have similar learning curves, are easy to learn, and easy to prep. Having actually played both games, I would put them in the same category (much 'lighter' than 3e).

 

[Campbell]

You guys have gotten me jonesing to run HERO again.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

So does almost every power, advantage, and disadvantage in HERO. I'm not seenig the distinction, other that in HERO you would be building the spells and attacks. But still, there's a book full of 'em.

I'll admit, I don't own a copy of the HERO core rules (yet), nor have I ever GMed the system. As a player, though, I've used and observed many powers and seen basically all of them follow the same core mechanic. They don't have their own rules.

Perhaps when I've gotten the core book and had a chance to really look through it, I'll change my mind.

 

[Gentlegamer]

In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed.

It's obvious you have no trust of Game Masters. They are impartial participants, referees of the action.

 

[John Morrow]

Players come up with a plan, DM decides how well it will work. No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up...

What about:

The GM comes up with a situation. Players come up with a plan. The rules and dice decide how well it works.

...or...

Players come up with a plan. The GM decides what sorts of situations their characters will face. The rules and dice decide how well it works.


???

(EDIT: I suppose I should add that I've actually played GMless role-playing games using published rules.)

 

[Akrasia]

... Right now we are in a rash of rules-light-validators ...

I don't understand this. Why describe it as a 'rash'? Why not simply admit that there is an *established* segment of the market that prefers 'rules light' (or, more precisely, 'lighter-than-3e') games?

Sure the segment might be a 'minority'. But if it is there, why dismiss it as a 'rash'?

I've got nothing against people who like rules-heavy games. But I don't get the dismissivenes of those gamers who prefer 'lighter' games.

 

[Mallus]

I think that having the chance of failure actually gives the DM more options, since he can presnt the players with more possibilities that "that will work" or "that won't work", and give the players a satisfaction of "having a chance".IMO, natch.

Sure. I wasn't talking about a DM deciding if the plan succeeded or failed. I was describing a DM assessing the players plan and deciding how tough/what specific challenges the PC's would face in light of it.

I'd just like to say --again, probably-- that no rules system can insulate a player against a bad DM. Not while still offering a robust amount of player choice. Does anyone here think 3.5 does? Think about CR and its reliance on the 'typical balanced party' (Hey, there goes player choice... if you want to play all fighters, then you're on your own...)

 

[buzz]

Why do you assume that in C&C the player cannot ask the CK how difficult the jump would be before making the role, or even deciding to act? Why do you assume that the number picked is "arbitrary", rather than based on the same type of situational modifiers that might apply in a more rules-heavy system?

Because you described the C&C process as:

In C&C, the CK picks a target number and has the PC make an ability check. Almost no guidance is provided for what the target number should be (outside the base target numbers of 12 and 18). The modifiers are left to the discretion of the DM.

I'm nto saing the player can't ask, I'm saying that ti sounds liek the player has to ask, becasue otherwise they have no idea whether their PC is capable of making the jump, as "no guidance is provided" in the rules.

The modifiers for terrain are in the book, but the status of the terrain and the space available for a running start at the point of the jump is completely up to the DM.

No it isn't. I can look at the battlemap and know exactly what the distance is, whether there's room for a running start, and (with most DMs I play with, including me) see where hindered terrain is marked. There may be other mods that I need to ask the DM about, but at least I'm in the ballpark.

Again, you're not on the same page until you know what modifiers apply. If the pit is actually a shaft with a strong updraft and the DM has decided this provides a +5 modifier to Jump checks across the pit, you won't know that until 1 - A description of the updraft comes up in actual play; 2 - You ask the DM about the specific environment of the pit; or 3 - You ask the DM about the difficulty of a Jump check to cross the pit. All three of which would also be necessary in C&C to get that information.

If the DM is adding a +5 because of a draft, she's totally making up a rule, and picking a modifier that's way beyond the +2/-2 "DM's buddy".

As do the ability scores on a C&C character's sheet. They determine how good or bad things are on your end. They don't do anything to inform you about how likely you are to succeed or fail until you have all of the information about the difficulty of a specific task.

The total bonus for my barbarian's Jump check tells me exactly the minimum long and high jumps he can make: 1+Jump in feet for long w/ 20' running start, half that for no run, one-quarter that for the high jump. Start with 10+Jump, and I know the average. I also know exactly what the effects of hindering terrain are, and can look up exact info about how slippery floors will require a balance check, and so on.

Sure, I need info about the surroundings from the DM, but at least that info has meaning in rules terms. Your description of C&C makes it sound like the numbers on the sheet don't really tell me anything, because the guidelines for the jump's TN exist solely in the GM's head.

How is setting a DC or TN railroading? How is saying "The jump requires a Str check TN=15" any different than saying "The pit is 10ft wide, the roughness of the floor in this area makes a running start impossible, a strong updraft provides a +5 bonus to Jump checks across the pit. Resulting DC = 15."?

Because the DM isn't deciding right then and there that 1' = +1 DC, or that the lack of a run doubles the DC. The only thing that's arbitrary is the updraft (and that would liekly have no effect on the jump DC in the RAW).

If the player asks the CK, "If I try to jump the pit, how difficult will it be?" and the CK says, "It's a TN=15 Str check" where is the discernable difference between D&D and C&C?

Because in the C&C you describe, the player knows absolutely nothing about their chances to make the jump until they ask the GM. One GM may think the updraft merits a bonus, another a penalty. One GM might be playing things "gritty" and set a really high TN for a 10' jump, while another might be going for wire-fu and set it really low. One may get really anal about the texture of the floor, and another may not care. As a player, all I can do is ask permission. "My Str is 14. Can I make the jump?"

From my perspective, the numbers on my sheet don't really seem to mean squat.

The circumstances aren't accounted for until the player communicates to the DM and makes sure he knows all the facts about the situation. In both systems, the DM sets the difficulty based on certain criteria. If a player assumes he knows all the criteria before communicating with the DM, he's just as likely to run into unexpected consequences in D&D as he is in C&C. I agree that consensus leads to a better play experience, but I don't think you automatically reach consensus with preset difficulty modifiers and I don't think consistency is the only way to reach consensus.

I'm not sure I see how having a set formula for jump checks can lead to equal or less consistency than not having one. The instances where there will be situational modifiers where the DC varies wildy from the RAW are few and far between.

That's absolutely untrue. You're either misreading my original post or I wasn't clear enough. Either way, this has nothing to do with the DM fudging the roll for a specific result.

Well, you said:

In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished.

The point is that there is a system being used, and as a player, I can see how the DC was arrived at, i.e., there's a codified rationale.

But D&D doesn't provide you with a rule that says a chasm Xft wide = DC Y.

Actually, that's pretty much how the jump rules work.

It provides you with a system that sets a base DC according to the width of the jump, then modifies it according to several factors. Whether those modifiers apply is up to the DM and should (in a fair game with a reasonable and impartial DM) be either available to the player by asking the DM or discoverable by the player through in-game actions. This is not, from the players perspective, measurably different than how things work in C&C.

But the modifiers are pertty much codified, and will generally not vary because, say, the GM has had a bad day, or feels like going easy on me, or has bad spatial skills, or doesn't buy my argument as to why my PC should succeed.