Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[diaglo]

It's threads like these that make me miss Hong's presence.

Campbell "You Miss Him Too" Ooi

i'm not missing Hong

I'm hitting him right now.

IYKWIMAITYD

 

[diaglo]

Good lord, where's the hate people!?

What's all this... apologizing?

sorry, i had to go home for the day. i'm back now.

 

[fredramsey]

1 inch did equal 1 inch on the battle map for the minis

No, it didn't. 1" = 10' indoors, 1" = 10 yards outdoors. It was a SCALE, nothing about a battle mat. And, if you did use 1" = 10' on a battlemat, you couldn't use miniatures, because you couldn't have people side by side in a 10' corridor.

I don't give a crap what system you play NOW, I played 1st Edition AD&D for YEARS. You can't just pop something off like that without proof.

Christ.

 

[fredramsey]

minis were 25 mm scale. 1 inch = 25.4 mm
it wasn't by coincidence.

So, what you're saying with that, is a mini of a fighter, at 1" tall, was 10' tall.

Big guy.

Oh, and good job addressing the actual rules I was referring to.

Since you didn't, then this particular topic is resolved.

No tactical movement rules in AD&D 1st Edition.

 

[Psion]

Interestingly, at least one non-WotC company representative -- John Nephew, president of Atlas Games -- commented at Mearls' blog to point out that Mearls was plain wrong, at least with respect to his company (viz. Ars Magica 5th edition is doing very well, and outperforming the company's d20 material by a significant margin).

I think John lays it on pretty thick in the unsupported assertion department:

How can D&D now be the best game in the RPG world, if no statistically significant portion of its users really grok it, even after 5 years of play?

I'm wondering what statitistical study he drew this from.

Rollyeyes icon, how I miss you...

 

[Gentlegamer]

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)

Many C&C players explain the prime as a +6 so that d20 players understand it. It makes no difference how you think of it as long as the finaly TN comes out the same.

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.

It means the character is "more trained" or "talented" in tasks that fall under the prime attributes. It doesn't require listing each specific narrow skill the character is proficient in. An added level of skill is represented by adding the character's experience level to certain checks.

However, the mere fact that Primes lower the target number, rather than raising the skill roll is THAC0-ish.

Both means you can succeed on a lower roll of the die, that is, it is easier. It has zero relation to the way THAC0 used to work.

But why a lower target number rather than a bonus to the skill? Just seems weird.

You can think of it either way, it makes no difference. I would hazard to say it is to reduce the number of +/- modifiers you have on your character sheet.

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.

And you give a response I've come to expect from d20 Fantasy players - the game experience can only be enhanced by more rules.

 

[diaglo]

I don't give a crap what system you play NOW, I played 1st Edition AD&D for YEARS. You can't just pop something off like that without proof.

Christ.

well Christ,

i don't care what you played. i played OD&D. it had the rule that 1 inch = 10 ft indoors and 10 yards outdoors for the minis.

 

[fredramsey]

well Christ,

i don't care what you played. i played OD&D. it had the rule that 1 inch = 10 ft indoors and 10 yards outdoors for the minis.

Excellent. You just proved my point.

So, either a 1" tall mini of a fighter meant that the fighter was 10' tall (he should have been a basketball player), or 1" on the battlemat did not equal 1" in the rules.

I'm glad to see we are in agreement.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Wow, when I last left this thread it wasn't a festival of C&C bashing. Scadgrad, Akrasia, let the Knights of Wrongfun pontificate, and just ignore it. When you see someone state that changing a game by removing rules is subjective, but adding rules is objective, you've just got someone who's a rules junkie. He certainly wouldn't enjoy C&C, from what I've read of his posts he doesn't understand the rules, and he's just trolling.

The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems. If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.

Good call.

Everyone remember: this discussion has been brought on by Dancey's remark that the only reason some people think "rules lite" is "simpler and better" is because they "desperately" want it to be true, "not because it is." That is, those who like such things are deluded and desperate and none of their experience in gaming that has formed their preference is relevant, because according to his exacting study of "rules lite" and "rules heavy" games, there is no way that the "handling" time is any different between the two.

 

[Psion]

Analogously, if I, as an employee of Stanford University, started making gross , unsupported generalizations about other universities and departments on my blog, I think that people would be well justified in being annoyed with me, and accusing me of being irresponsible.

I'll trust that you have the right of how things would proceed in your particular academic environment.

But I think you may have a bit of a faulty point of reference. I, instead, would compare this to smack talk in professional sports. There are predictions and posturing, some of which is based on previous track records, but such predictions are often wrong and dark horses often come forth.

That said, if those 2004 numbers someone posted are accurate, then I don't know that Mearls claims are outlandish. It's WotC, WW, and "everybody else". At least a few years ago, non-WotC d20 was collectively easily pulling in a double digit take of the market share, but now, that only two "mainly d20" companies were even worth mentioning; all other companies on the list that did d20 have largely withdrawn from it.

Hmmm... do I smell a rhetorical pre-emptive strike of some sort?