Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Faraer]

Why are these imaginary DMs telling players what numbers they have to roll?

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Separate issue:

Disconnects between how the various people at the table imagine the shared imaginative environment come up. It's important that they're dealt with. I don't think anyone will argue with that.

But in both cases, the way they're dealt with is communication. Whether it's by drawing things out, or asking for clarification, the important thing to do is ensure everyone is "on the same page", so to speak.

And that's just as true outside combat as it is inside it. The most awkward situations I've had in D&D involved major disconnects between how I perceived my character's personality and communication skills, and how the GM perceived them.

So while we're at it, can we find a better way to avoid these kinds of failures of communication, in a general fashion? I ask partially because a lot of the rules-heavy advocates are also in the camp that roleplaying shouldn't include any rules at all. I know they're usually seen as a separate issue (although I don't think so), but I wonder what people think.

 

[JohnSnow]

There is *no* reference to the "current edition" in the intro. There *is* a comment that "a glut of rules" is an impediment to a fun game, but at no place is there a reference to 3e (explicit or implicit). The comments in the intro have to do with explaining the design goals of C&C, not "bashing" any particular other system.

I confess I do not have my book with me at work. I read it last night and the edition bashing was pretty clear. I'll quote the paragraph if I can find it, but I'll come back to this later.

Huh? You keep making this bizarre claim. I have yet to understand the relation between the SIEGE system and THACO.

SIEGE: A character rolls 1d20, adds level (if appropriate), and tries to beat 18 (if nonprime) or 12 (if prime) +/- difficulty modifiers. How is that THAC0?

In THAC0, a character had to roll a certain number to hit AC0. As the character progressed, his "target number" (THAC0) decreased (A THAC0 of 19 rather than a +1 to hit). The C&C SIEGE system takes a base target number (18) and then adjusts it downward to 12 if the skill is a prime. In other words, Primes in Siege give a TN of 12 vs. 18, rather than a +6 to checks) Consequently, having a Prime implies that the task is somehow easier for the character with a Prime, as opposed to the character is more skilled. This gets to the subjective, relative nature of C&C's resolution system. However, the mere fact that Primes lower the target number, rather than raising the skill roll is THAC0-ish. After all the times I've explained this, if you still don't understand, I can't help you. I grant the Prime thing is a onetime issue rather than recurring and that more difficult tasks mean higher difficulty numbers, not lower ones, which is not THAC0ish. But why a lower target number rather than a bonus to the skill? Just seems weird. FWIW, the THAC0 crack was intended as a friendly jab between us, in an effort to keep this thread light...

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.

Those are things it DOES by virtue of what it takes away from the Core rules of the game (as presented in the OGL that C&C is published under). I specifically asked what it "added" to the game. You gave the answers I've come to expect from C&C players - it enhances the game experience by virtue of what it removes. That's a subjective value judgement, not an objective addition of new rules.

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.

It means that the decision to "handwave" difficulty numbers based on the subjective criteria of easy, average, tough, challenging, heroic, is part of the Core Rules.

The decision to base all relevant skills on one's attributes and level, perhaps with some allowance for "class skills," is another simplification of the core rules (and one that was presented in the OGL Unearthed Arcana.

Taking out feats is a simplification of the Core Rules. So is removing attacks of opportunity from combat.

C&C, for all its assertions, is 3e stripped of its skill and feat systems, and one of its more complex combat rules (attacks of opportunity). That's it. The designers then looked at C&C's classes and realized that without those 3e elements, they were out of whack. So they borrowed the XP progression tables from AD&D and claimed that those somehow brought the classes back into balance. Or more accurately, that even though they were out of balance, the differerent XP progressions somehow "compensated" for that. Finally, the Trolls added in an ultra-simplistic skill system that they gave a clever name too (SIEGE), because a system that says "your PC has no skills" isn't one players will play for long.

I don't need C&C to play rules light D&D. I can do that without buying it. But I can't make money telling people to play their D&D game and throw out large portions of the rules. And neither could Troll Lord Games. So instead, they published a rulebook. One which, I'd bet, sold primarily to people who already owned the Core Rules.

I freely admit and give credit to the Trolls for inventive marketing. Wizards of the Coast couldn't make money selling rules-light D&D, which is why they give the rules away for FREE (the SRD).

I'm amazed (and impressed) that Troll Lord Games can.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

I'd prefer to frame this in terms of C&C and D&D, since, honestly, I dislike the former and find the latter, at best, decent. But, I'll do it for this specific example.

1) C&C: The pit exists independent of anything BUT the GM's assessment of my character's ability to cross it. Its defining feature is that it is, in fact, DC x to cross. You could even call it DC x wide.

2) D&D: The pit is a defined width in squares, possibly more clearly defined in feet (although as a GM, I would try to avoid that). It exists independent of my ability to cross it. The GM can create it without knowing my ability to cross it. Its traits include being DC x to Jump across.

However, being DC x has automatic consequences, such as being either small enough that reach weapons can cross it or too large for them to do so, how far one would have to throw a weapon to strike a target on the other side, how far one would have to throw a grappling hook to bridge it, whether or not it has enough room in it for me to bull rush an ogre into it, whether it's wide enough for a gelatinous cube to fall into it.

This has two consequences:

The GM may have made the pit in 2) "DC x" to account for any one of those reasons, without ever considering whether or not my character can jump it. He might have even made the pit based on some other, external factor, such as the passage of a delver.

The GM drawing the pit in 2) immediately tells me all of the information above (and a great deal more besides), and I may be able to make creative use of that information in a way that him simply telling me "you see a pit" doesn't begin to describe.

In short, it goes back to Mearls' point about interface: 2) is a much more efficient way of conveying information about the pit to me.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

There is a very big difference between how players view GM fiat with respect to a set-up and during play (the same is true in fiction, by the way). 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, making the outcome much more subjective and subjet to GM fiat. 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. That a GM can run D&D like a rule-light game, producing all the same problems as a rule-light game, does not mean that's how many players want D&D to be run or that D&D GMs normally run D&D that way.

See, that makes me understand the argument. My priorities are different, so I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I'm happy.

It seems this kind of play emphasizes consistency for two reasons:

- Impartiality, because the game is about overcoming challenges, and to feel that the accomplishment of overcoming them is earned, they should be consistent.

- Plausibility, because we're imagining this invented world, and it should be pre-planned so as to give the feel that it's a living place that would still exist if the PC's weren't there.

Can anybody help me out as to whether those are common objectives that rules-heavy people would want to strive for?

If so, that helps me understand. Those are laudable goals if you prefer them, but they're not a part of the way I play at all.

For instance, there's absolutely no focus on mechanically balanced, objective challenges at all in our games. We have difficulties to overcome, but typically challenges are there for us to force characters to make meaningful choices. (Believe me, it's not just telling stories around a campfire. Characters face adversity, and a player can't just make the story come out how they want to.)

On simulating reality, it's a little more complicated. Plausibility is important. We deal with a lot of exploration of character, so that a poorly thought-out NPC would stick out as badly as a 10'x10' room with a dragon would for other people. But our physical locations are just sets. We still use rules, but we work backward from the difficulty involved to describe the situation.

I know people think that's hippy-dippy, and not roleplaying, but it works for us. Amusingly enough, I'm considered the "rules-heavy" guy in my game. That's because the co-GM would rather use a system that is a page long, and I'm lobbying to extend it to five pages.

 

[Akrasia]

...
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. ...

My apologies for misunderstanding your original comment.
(Though I haven't noticed a 'rise' in anti-3e bashers over the past 2 months...)

 

[Ourph]

So while we're at it, can we find a better way to avoid these kinds of failures of communication, in a general fashion?

I always give my new players some variation of this speech before we start playing:

"One of my most important jobs as GM is to describe the game world to you. I'm going to try my best to do that adequately, but there are always going to be situations where some detail that's important to you doesn't seem important to me and I won't mention it. The only way to get around that is for you to ask me questions. ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS!"

"One of my main goals during the game is to keep the action moving and to keep the game progressing. That means I don't want to spend a lot of time adding up numbers or waiting for people to decide what to do. That DOES NOT mean I want you to feel intimidated about pumping me for information. It doesn't mean I want you to act before you feel like you are completely informed about what is going on. Asking questions about what's happening in the game, asking for descriptions, asking for world details....all of those things help me to create a deeper, richer milieu for you and the other players. All of those things move the game forward. I do not consider them a waste of time. If I spend a whole session describing the details of a room to you and the other players, that's fine with me as long as the information you're getting from me has some relevance to what is going on in the game and allows you to make better, more well thought out decisions about your characters' actions.

"It's important to remember that anything is possible up until the moment the dice hit the table. Once the dice roll, your ability to search for more information, your ability to increase your chances for success, your ability to choose a different course is gone. At that point you are committed and have to live with the consequences. Always, always, always make sure that you've exhausted every possible avenue to increase your chances for success before we start rolling dice."

Sometimes they listen and sometimes not, but it's almost universal that the players who heed that advice have a better time and are more successful than those who don't.

 

[Akrasia]

... 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.

I agree with you about that. Fortunately, though, IME it has been easy to modify those aspects of C&C.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

This has two consequences:

The GM may have made the pit in 2) "DC x" to account for any one of those reasons, without ever considering whether or not my character can jump it. He might have even made the pit based on some other, external factor, such as the passage of a delver.

The GM drawing the pit in 2) immediately tells me all of the information above (and a great deal more besides), and I may be able to make creative use of that information in a way that him simply telling me "you see a pit" doesn't begin to describe.

In short, it goes back to Mearls' point about interface: 2) is a much more efficient way of conveying information about the pit to me.

Great, I'm understanding you.

Your first consequence deals with the idea that some things in the environment should just exist, and I could see how wanting to simulate a living world would lead one to include things like that. My disconnect was that I couldn't see why on Earth someone would want to include a pit for its own sake, without thought as to the relative challenge it provides. If there's a focus on exploring pre-prepared environments, then it adds immersion to have things that are "just there".

Our group doesn't really use setting-based immersion, but then again we don't do much exploring of dangerous uncharted territory. (Unless you count New Orleans during Mardi Gras.)

I can understand the second consequence in terms of player autonomy. You find "GM draws map, player consults it, determines difficulty" more efficient than "GM describes environment, player asks GM difficulty". I can see that for two reasons: One, the GM was going to draw the map anyway, so it's not considered a separate instance of communication. Two, you can consult the rules and determine several things from the diagram, not just the difficulty.

I get it, I really do. Thanks!

I'm still curious about how and if these techniques are applied to other situations, such as social interactions. My guess (and please help me out here) is that while a roleplayed persuasion attempt sounds a lot like "Gm describes, player asks (or intuits) difficulty", it's appealing despite a lack of rules because that describe/ask transaction is done through first-person dialog, which serves to provide immersion in much the way a battlemap does for combat. (I know some people don't use social conflict rules at all, in which case this still applies, but the difficulty becomes "how persuasive the IC dialog must be" rather than "how high the roll must be".)

 

[scadgrad]

And of course the primary activity of Castles & Crusades fans is to be not Pro-C&C, but anti-3e. In other words, they crop up and throw out their two cents about how the game "should be." ...

I'm certainly not in this thread to "bash 3.X," but rather to suggest that the silliness that Dancey claimed is complete BS. I saw it as standing up for the truth really, rather than letting someone talk out of the side of their...well you know. I think the "job of us C&C types" is to answer questions about the game, dispel spurious comments, and spread interest through word of mouth, nothing more really. I can't imagine that C&C could possibly benefit by a bunch of us hanging out over here on EnWorld of all places, and just blathering on about how "suckified" 3.X is. One system is better for some folks while the other is the superior choice for those other groups.

So the C&C proselytizers show up, screaming about how C&C is "better" than 3e, and even make statements like "rules-heavy games are intended to appeal to children....

I think part of what's being misconstrued here is that the C&C crowd, at least those of us who are active in the society, are for the most part, an older group of grognards. For the record, Scadgrad states that rules-heavy games are for, well, people who like a lot of rules. I really do think that Der_Kluge hit upon this in a recent thread where he speculated that certain personality types might be drawn to one game system over another.

Can't we as gamers just accept that some people prefer "rules-heavier" and that others prefer "rules-lighter" without applying value judgements?...

I would hope so. But at the same time, it's in my nature to suggest C&C to folks who might be looking for a change, just like I honestly tell folks that, you know, maybe C&C isn't for you. Different strokes, but none the less Dancey's "equal time" comments still seems like hogwash to me.

...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?

Not sure what problem you have with the SIEGE engine since I think it works surprisingly well, but since you've asked:

The ability to use ANY D&D product from ANY edition easily, and on the fly
A far simpler rules set
A bridge between D&D 3.X and the incredible amount of material produced for all other editions
A very simple way to teach kids and non-gamers how to play D&D
Combats that don't bog down into Battletech-like drudgery
A game experience that feels more like the D&D that I DMd for 22 years prior to the release of 3.X rather than say, Diablo.
Prep time that is far easier on pressed-for-time DMs
A game that is far easier for the DM to adjudicate when the PCs "go off the map"
A very simple way for D20 players to enjoy the modules of the past without requiring their DM to spend days doing the conversion to 3.X

I could go on and on, but those are just a few off the top of my head.