Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Turanil]

In any case, nobody can deny that this thread is extremely post-heavy. Not sure the debate has improve a lot because of this abundance of heavy posts though...

 

[John Morrow]

No, but then I've never seen that (stood by and let it happen) with a more complex system, either.

I learned D&D and Traveller from the books. Noboby taught me how to use a role-play system. I taught myself. In many ways, I think it was a good thing because I never picked up a lot of the trauma or biases that others seem to have picked up from the people who taught them how to play a certain way.

Philosophically, though, storytelling is a basic human function -- stories are integral to every human culture. Complex skirmish wargames with dice are not. But my point was just as much to do with the central importance in all this of expectations, environment, and social relations -- of set and setting.

In many ways, my earliest role-playing games were an extension of the creative games I had been playing up until that point with action figures and toy cars. It added in the features of specialized record keeping and character definition (character sheets), procedures for objectively resolving actions (rules), ways to surprise the participants with uncertainty (random rolls and random tables), and lists of abilities, skills, equipment, and such to generate ideas. As such, I have a pretty good idea of what attracted me to role-playing rules over two decades ago as a beginner. Yes, beginners can learn with a system lighter than 3e but I suspect the really light systems like Fudge or Risus would leave a lot of beginners feeling lost.

 

[Akrasia]

I would argue that a good DM and their, presumably, intelligent players learn the rules and don't have to keep looking things up.

It is a lot easier to learn the rules if they are succinct.

This DM ad-hoccing can be accomplished without a new game system. Of course, that wouldn't give people any incentive to buy books from Troll Lord Games.

I don't understand what this means.

Seriously, other than its pseudo-THAC0 skill system and its very elegant saving throw system (which I hope D&D adopts), what does C&C ADD to the d20 experience?

Just curious.

Speaking from experience as a CK, C&C does three things:

(a.) Makes my prep time more manageable and even enjoyable;
(b.) Lets me fit a lot more 'adventuring' into limited 3-4 hour long sessions (since combat takes *much* less time); and
(c.) Lets me use all my pre-3e D&D stuff with little/no conversion work.

During our games together, John, I noticed that we got through at least 50 percent more 'adventuring' after we switched over to C&C for my second campaign. (The last few 3e sessions also covered a fair bit of territory, but that was mainly because I designed them so that they had very little combat.)

 

[Faraer]

You know, I taught myself as well, and I guess Basic D&D counts as 'rules-light' here (it isn't in my personal spectrum).

Picking up any medium from scratch is hard -- and the fact that the medium of roleplaying is new to most people (though much of what it consists of is not) is itself an unusual and extremely biasing factor. 'Both' types of games have real and someone different difficulties in learning, no doubt. But given that it's the D&D model that has the brand-awareness, and that RPGs have always been introduced to young new players as super-boardgames, the people who play them -- and who are discussing them now -- are inevitably skewed towards those who think that way whether by outlook or training.

 

[Ourph]

It's not simply an issue of crappy GMs but GMs who have a different assessment of reality than the players. A GM using a rule-heavy game that substitutes their own assessment of the situation rather than what the rules say is basically using a rule-heavy game like a rule-light game and it shouldn't be surprising that you get the same problems.

The rules (as far as D&D goes) specifically tell a DM to apply modifiers he deems are appropriate. The DM decides which of the codified ones to use and whether to add any non-codified ones. Those ARE the RAW. So the DM and players still need to share a common "assessment of reality" for things to click.

When that happens, it doesn't matter whether the codified modifiers are there or not. A rules-lite game where the DM and players share a similar "assessment of reality" is not noticeably different to the participants than a rules-heavy game.

In other words, in a rule-light system, I not only have to ask the GM how to resolve the things my character does but I have to ask the GM how they might resolve all sorts of things my character might do simply to consider all my options for that round.

If you approach it from the perspective of asking the DM "I would like to do X, what are my chances of success?" then the two are not noticeably different.

all you are really saying is that running d20 like a rule-light system has all the same problems as a rule-light system.

You're putting words in my mouth that are going to obfuscate the argument. I'm not using D&D as an example based on running it rules-lite. I'm saying that both rules-lite and rules-heavy systems require DM judgement calls at some level. D&D and C&C both require them, but they tend to occur at different systemic levels. I'm not asserting that the two systems are similar, I'm saying that the differences in the systems don't really seem (to me) to make a difference in the level of DM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling in most cases.

What's different is that once the GM has established the area, number of combatants, etc., most of the subjectivity has ended in a rule-heavy game but it keeps on going in a rule-light game

See, I don't understand why this is the base-line assumption. The GM in a rules-lite game is just as capable of setting up a situation with pre-determined conditions and sticking to them throughout the encounter as the GM in a rules-heavy game. I maintain that anyone who runs D&D in a consistent and fair manner, with good judgement is also capable of and likely to run C&C in exactly the same way. The only real differences I see are that 1 - the rules-lite system lets the player know from the start that communicating with the DM is an important aspect of knowing all the relevant details; and 2 - some players feel safer when DM judgement calls are hidden behind a layer of codified rules (i.e. - when the DM makes judgements about what codified modifiers apply or don't apply, rather than simply making judgements about what the overall modifier is).

Yes, it's possible for a D&D GM to start fudging and adjust abilities and hit points and such in the middle of a rule-heavy encounter but that's not how many players expect their GM to run an encounter in D&D.

This isn't what I'm talking about. D&D without fudging and by the RAW still requires as much DM adjudication as a rules-lite game, it just occurs on a different level in D&D.

Again, all you are really doing is saying that D&D can be run like a rule-light game.

Again, I'm really not.

If the GM makes a habit of not changing the DC (either explicitly or understood), then the players can depend on the DCs being reasonably close to what's in the book unless there are modifiers their characters are not aware of. In my experience, that's the norm. Whether it really is or isn't the norm. that option does not exist for a rule-light game unless the GM makes it up.

What you're talking about is the group coming to a consensus about what the norm is for their game. Which is exactly my point. This process occurs both in rules-heavy (we accept that it's the norm that the modifiers in the books are the only ones that will apply) and in rules-lite systems (we come to expect a certain range of target numbers for the tasks we perform) for every group. The D&D RAW don't require that the DC modifiers in the books be the only ones applied. If that's the way the DM chooses to approach the game it is just as much a judgement call as a CK setting a TN based on the suggestions in the rulebook and his own personal interpretation of what modifiers the situational factors contribute.

The difference between a lighter system and a heavier system is that the heavier system provides a baseline.

That's just not true. C&C provides a baseline for all checks (12 or 18). What it doesn't do is provide codified modifiers to that baseline. However, that doesn't negate the need for or prevent the formulation of consensus amongst the group as to what those modifiers should be.

Heck, I've seen different GMs who have played together for a decade or more come up with wildly different difficulty assessments for the same tasks using many rule-light systems like Fudge.

And I've seen different DMs running 3e D&D assign different situational modifiers to the same task, resulting in wildly different DCs. Both were playing by the rules, they were simply using their personal judgement to determine which modifiers did and did not apply.

It's not an issue of being impartial, fair, and consistent. It's a matter of objectivity and the GM being on the same page as the players concerning difficulty and probability.

Exactly, and given that the D&D RAW put the DM in the position of arbitrating which situational modifiers do and do not apply in a large number of circumstances, the game has just as much of a reuqirement for consensus as a rules-lite system would.

But what would happen if a role-player picked up C&C who had never played D&D 3e? Would they really be as consistent and predictable as you expect them to be? From my own experience with subjective GM assessments, in many cases, I doubt it.

I would expect someone who wanted to be consistent and predictable to be so when running C&C with no other RPG experience. I would also expect someone who did not want or did not care about being consistent and predictable to fail to be those things when running D&D with no other RPG experience.

 

[Silverleaf]

Have you ever seen an entire group of inexperienced gamers pick up and successfully use a rule-light system without an experienced gamer to tell them what to do or to GM?

I have, because it's how we started gaming in the early 80's. There was nobody experienced to serve as a teacher. A couple of us had played the solo Fighting Fantasy books, and we started using those (very light) rules to run multiplayer games. Then we moved on to DSA (the basic book), and later Basic D&D. And while there were plenty of fights, much time was spent in non-combat situations (mysteries, sneaking around, exploring, outsmarting, convincing, or just plain old chit-chat).

 

[Psion]

I am not 'after' anything. I just think that the community of gamers who prefer games that are 'ighter' than 3e is pretty well established, and is not a 'flurry' or a 'new' phenomenon. (The fact that there are now more products catering to this segment of the market is perhaps 'new'.) By using terms like 'rash' or 'flurry', you appear to imply that the interest in such games is some kind of 'fad'.

And I never implied that it was. I think you need to read a little more carefully:

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.

As near as I can tell, you plucked out one word and chose to take offense at it. Having thorougly read and understood the rest of the paragraph or even sentence that you plucked the one word out of would have enhanced your understanding of what I was actually saying. I was not referring to rules-light gamers in general as a market segment, but in particular, those that have shown up here and railed loudly against 3e (or, thrown snarky zingers around about it), something that has, indeed, been on the rise in the last month or two.

Unless you are saying that all rules-light gamers are by definition validators. I certainly don't think they are, nor did I imply such a thing.

 

[Ourph]

Well, people who like C&C want to explain *why* they like the game -- and this inevitably involves comparisons with 3e. The games are quite similar, and they have a common source, so comparisons are inevitable.

To be fair, I don't like either game, but in this discussion they both make reasonably convenient examples of their respective rule-density categories. While C&C makes a convenient example in that it's 1) known by quite a few people involved in the discussion; 2) close to D&D in many respects, which makes the games easier to compare; and 3) the first rules-lite game brought up by name in the thread; it is (IMO) not a very elegant execution of a rules-lite game and suffers from bouts of rules-heavyness and rules-awkwardness in several places.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It is great that this thread has proceeded for 15 pages without breaking down into factional in-fighting (just about!), but having got bleary-eyed from reading through it all just in case I've noticed that some people are becoming a little more heated or accusatory at the moment.

Nobody wants a nice, productive discussion to be closed down, so everyone will continue to be polite, according each other the respect they would like to recieve for their own views, yes?

Thanks very much!

Cheers

 

[SweeneyTodd]

It's important to note that it's not just the DM setting the DCs, though. Most DCs, in at least a basic way, are set by rules that all players have access to.

I'm not saying that a D&D player can go in blind; of course they need to communicate with the DM. However, a D&D player can look at a 20' chasm drawn on a battlemat (i.e., info from the DM) at at least know a basic DC for a jump before the DM says anything. If the DC is set wholly by fiat, I don't know anything wihtout asking the DM.

Okay, I'll jump in and try this again. There are two things here:

1) C&C: GM says "There's a pit". Player says "How big?" GM says "You could probably make it, but it's a ways... DC X."

2) D&D: GM draws a battlemap, with a pit on it. Player measures it, checks the rules, determines it's DC X.


What we are trying to say is that in both cases, the GM set the DC., and communicated it to the players. That battlemap didn't draw on itself. And taking it further, in both cases the pit exists because the GM put it there.

So, help me out here. Is the problem that GM-set difficulties are railroading? Because I can't get it -- if the GM wants to make it impossible to jump, or easy, or in between, he can do that either way. (The exception being that he's working from a published module, in which case the writer set the difficulty.)

Is the problem that it's unrealistic? If so, that's a valid preference -- if you mean, "I prefer concrete situations which I can assess using the rules," then that's more of an issue that you prefer a different way of interfacing with the shared imaginative environment.

I don't begrudge you your opinion, whatever it is, I'm just trying to understand it.

I will say that if you like detailed tactical combat, then a more complex system that focuses on that is going to work best for you. I mean, yeah, that seems obvious.