Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[fanboy2000]

Well, adding lot's of trivial house rules might qualify as "more rules than necessary." At least, in my book.

 

[Akrasia]

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

...

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

Rollyeyes icon, how I miss you...

Actually, that comment was based on claims made by *Mearls*.

 

[Akrasia]

You have some "odd" views on D&D/d20 and I think you have moved beyond your burnout with 3e to active hatred of the system. You have been parroting the same comments for so long that most of your posts seem like deja vu.

WTF? What are you talking about? :\

... D&D can be hard to run, but not nearly as difficult as you make it. If you have a lot of rules monkeys in a group, then the game is a nightmare, but otherwise fairly easy to run. ...

I have no idea *why* you are stating this -- it has *nothing* to do with the comments that you quoted.

In any case, I never claimed that 3e D&D was uber-difficult. I've run two 3e campaigns now, and I don't think it is my cup of tea; I find other systems much more enjoyable and easier to GM. What is your problem with that?

I really think you should take a break from the d20 hatred for a while.

I have no idea what you're going on about here. Feel free to respond to the *content* of my posts. Empty comments like this one are pointless.

 

[eyebeams]

I'll repeat what I said in the first place: Rules heavy games are for gamers. Rules light games are for gamers who are friends.

To elaborate, this means that rules light games suit groups with a particular set of social competencies. I'll name a few:

1) The ability to transfer social status within the group.

2) The ability to refrain from actions that would block an constructive result.

3) The ability to reach rapid consensus decisions.

4) The ability to trust the altruistic intent of other players.

5) The ability to deconstruct a session to its function from a position outside of play.

6) Reflexive constructive self-criticism

There are many other hobbies and professions where participants realize that these are not innate capabilities and that there are ways to develop them. Rules light games have almost always failed by refusing to talk about this except in very indirect language. For example, problems from disruptive in-character play are blocking problems that have set resolution techniques in dramatic craft, but to talk about them frankly would be saying many things a vocal minority of gamers don't want to hear.

Rules heavy games do not require these competencies to the same degree. They need a different set of skills. To pick a few out of the air:

1) Forethought with resource allocation (money, caracter points, feats, etc).

2) Strategic thinking (defined here as the ability to find the optimal solution among many for a particular problem).

3) Collective resource management.

4) Protection from the gambler's fallacy.

5) On-the fly calculation.

I suspect that rules light gaming really started eith people who weren't strong with rules-heavy skills but reflexively understood the requirements of rules-light games. But again -- getting folks to admit that is a problem.

The real question, then, is, does your group prefer on skillset or the other? The rules heavy approch has the advantage of not requiring as much trust, but remember that there are no absolutes. The existence of GM's fiat undermines any appraoch based on pure decision theory between other participants. For instance, the Prisoner's Dilemma in an RPG has the additional variable of the GM being able to re-weigh the options.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Wow, eyebeams, those are really intresting points. I disagree as to where rules-light games came from, though; I'd more argue that it should also include people who preferred a different focus. I think these competencies also reflect interests. Lots of people play roleplaying games without an emphasis on strategic thinking.

What I think is really interesting is the idea that rules-heavy games don't have the social requirements of rules-light games. Honestly, I read those points as being necessary to some level for people to go bowling or have a dinner party. I mean, things like trusting each other's creative input? I'm trying to parse how that's not a requirement for any roleplaying game.

Still, I think your points are interesting, and merit discussion.

 

[Akrasia]

... You know, I like True20, but there is one thing I don't like about it, and it gives the lie to the notion that it allows "as much (customization) as 3e": the "all skills are maxed out" simplification.

Don't get me wrong; it's a simplification that I have used myself when churning out NPCs and when teaching my daughter d20. But it does make the characters more "chunky".

OTOH, True 20 "roles" are a lot more flexible than 3e classes. So while True20 might lose some flexibility in terms of skills (though it would be a snap to reintroduce skill points), it gains flexibility in terms of the options available to each role.

 

[Desdichado]

eyebeams is the winner!

Seriously, great post! I can see aspects of both of those categories in us, though--a group of folks that largely prefers d20, but plays it in a somewhat rules lite playstyle. Your analysis rings true for me.

 

[Andre]

I think the idea of a GM running rules ad hoc is more "rules insufficient" than rules light. But then, that begs the question, what exactly is "rules light"?

And by extension, is everythign really just rules light, and if you add more rules than is necessary, does that become rules heavy?

Should it be "regular" and "rules redundant" instead?

Well, keep in mind that RL and RH are simply points on a continuum, and each individual has a different tolerance for detail. When people call a particular system RH, I think they are almost always referring to the level of detail and, perhaps, simple page count. "Hmm, this system has a core book that's 96 pages, so it's lite, but that system has 128 pages, so it's heavy..." Rules-insufficient, OTOH, is a term that can be applied to any system, regardless of size.

What drives systems to become RH is the desire for mechanisms that deliver satisfying results. As someone (you?) mentioned much earlier in this thread, flipping a coin to determine the outcome of a challenge is the ultimate RL system. The problem is, it's not a whole lot of fun. So we add rules to better define the challenges and what we, as players can do to overcome them. We add rules to assist suspension of disbelief. We add rules to limit the power gamers and encourage actual roleplaying. We add rules to limit the damage bad GM's can do. And when the day is done, we oftentimes end up with a system that's pretty heavy - because we want a satisfying game.

Of course, defining a satsifying gaming experience varies from group to group, so no one system will appeal to everyone. For most players, I would suggest "winning" is critical, be it rescuing the princess, saving the village, stopping Dr. Doom, or solving the impossible puzzle. But other elements are important, e.g., the social aspects of spending time with friends in a common activity. Does the group enjoy combat? Then they'll prefer a system that highlights combat. And so on.

But there's no question that a system that gets in the way of the satisfying game experience will be criticized. A RL system is criticized because the player doesn't like the "arbitrary" nature of the rules. A RH system is criticized because it's too much work to use all those detailed rules. What every critic is saying is simply: this system has flaws that affect my fun. Now we're back to what Mearls was referring to about the game interface. Which, IMO, is a much more helpful way to evaluate a system, rather than focusing on page count or rules detail (or lack thereof).

 

[John Morrow]

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.

And you keep missing the point that the option to use codified ones is not present in many rule-light games. Please bear in mind that I am not simply talking about D&D vs. C&C here but also Hero vs. Fudge, etc. and I personally have my doubts about whether C&C is rule-light from what I've seen of it. It's not simply DCs but little things like falling damage. D&D and Hero have rules for how much damage a character takes if they fall a given distance. Fudge purposely has no falling damage rules. In Fudge, there is no codified system to start with or modify. The GM is left to just make it up.

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.

Absolutely. And I'll happily suggest that groups that share a similar "assessment of reality" give rule-light (or even nearly rule-free) games a try. They work wonderfully. But that's only a fraction of the role-playing hobby and market. I'm not claiming that rule-light games can't work. That would be pretty foolish since I've played plenty of them and introduced Fudge to my group. I'm also not saying that they don't solve some problems that rule-heavy games have. I'm simply saying that the introduce some of their own problems -- problems that all those rules are there to avoid.

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.

The point you are missing is that when I play the Hero System or d20 D&D, I almost never have to ask the GM a question like that because I can figure it out myself while the GM is doing something else. Remember, I'm speaking from the experience of playing both kinds of games here, with more than one group. This isn't theory. Perhaps your milage varies but, yeah, I can notice the difference between having to ask the GM a lot of questions and being able to figure things out on my own.

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.

No. But you are using examples of D&D play that are as close as possible to rule-light play to claim that there aren't differences while downplaying the situations where they are very different.

I'm saying that both rules-lite and rules-heavy systems require DM judgement calls at some level.

Yes, and it's the level and frequency of those judgement calls that make all the difference. On the one hand, it takes much more time to use codified rules, especially if you have to look them up, than for the GM to make a decision by fiat. On the other hand, the GM's fiat decisions are not nearly as predictable and consistent as the codified rules. It's possible to resolve many situations in rule-heavy games with few or even no judgement calls on the part of a GM. That's simply not possible in most rule-light situations. And dwelling on the elements of a rule-heavy game that do rely on a GM's judgement calls is not going to change that difference. Basically, you are talking about the elements of D&D that can be used like C&C and now how they can be used differently than C&C.

You are also skipping over other differences like feats and criticals which, oddly enough, a lot of people using C&C seem to want to import from D&D. Why is that?

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.

Perhaps that's because you play D&D differently than the groups I've role-played with do. Or perhaps, as I suspect, C&C isn't really what I'd consider "rule-light". But comparing d20 D&D or Hero (unarguably rule-heavy) to Fudge or "high rolls are good" (unarguably rule-light), the level of GM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling and the amount of subjectivity involved is substantial and impossible to ignore. Remember, I'm speaking from experience as a person who actually prefers rule-light games much of the time.

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.

Yes, but what it means to try to trip someone, tumble through their space, or knock their weapon out of their hand will be defined in many rule-heavy games but not many rule-light games. Where objective rules cover all of those situations in a rule-heavy game, subjective GM assessments must step in when there aren't rules.

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 word "fair" is so subjective as to be useless. Take a good look at various threads here asking whether a DM did something "fair" or not and the number of people who come down on both sides. That's a big part of the problem that rules solve. It's a lot easier to question whether a subjective ruling is "fair" or not than it is to question a set of published rules that are available to everyone to review and clearly aren't based on personal issues.

But I do understand your point. Can some GMs run a good C&C game that feels very much like a D&D game for certain groups? Of course. But that's looking at a best case scenario. What's the worst case scenario?

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).

What you are ignoring is that rule-light games don't simply make talking to the GM to know all the relevant details important -- they make it necessary in a way that it isn't in many rule-heavy situations. You make it sound like communicating with the GM is a plus. It's often not. The GM's time is limited and the GM quickly becomes a speed bottleneck if they have to spend too much time explaining all the "relevant details" to allow players to make even simple choices. That's not theory. That's a real problem that I've encountered, both as GM and player.

Second, it has nothing to do with "hiding" anything. Over half the players in my group also GM, both rule-light and rule-heavy games. We all know what a GM does. It has to do with how the modifiers are determined and whether the players have access to how a situation will be resolved or not. Perhaps you play with GMs who like to fiddle with a lot of subjective situational modifiers. I don't. If you play with GMs who strongly prefer to use their personal subjective assessment of the difficulty rather than just pick the closest codified modifier, it doesn't surprise me that C&C appeals to you and your group because it's closer to what you want to do.

It really does sound to me like you don't want to just use the codified modifiers and really want the GM to set their own modifiers. If that's the case, of course C&C appeals to you. Yes, the RAW says that the GM can set whatever modifier they want. That's because the RAW tries to be all things to all people (and, yes, I can point you to a Ryan Dancey essay that explains how and why). When my group switches from a rule-light game (where the GM subjectively picks the difficulty) to a rule-heavy game (where the modifiers are codified), we do so specifically because we are looking for codified modifiers. And, yeah, codified modifiers are pretty useless if you ignore them and just let the GM make up their own numbers most of the time.

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.

My experience, not only with D&D but Hero and other heavy systems, says otherwise. You seem to assume that the GM will fiddle with the modifiers and difficulty equally in either system. In my experience, that's not the case. If you play D&D with DMs who prefer to set their own difficulties and modifiers rather than using the stock modifiers codified in the book, it really doesn't surprise me that you prefer C&C because those codified difficulties and modifiers are only going to get in the way if you don't actually use them.

In fact, that's my observation with most rule-light advocates all the way down to Fudge and Risus. If the GM feels that they subjectively know what a modifier or difficulty should be (or even how a scene should turn out), they are at best going to consider codified rules that are close to their subjective assessment useless and at worst going to resent codified rules that disagree with their subjective assessement. If you don't need a rule, by all means cut it out. People are amazed when I tell them that we run fast combat in Hero. How do we do it? We rip stuff out that we don't need that slows the combat down. But that doesn't mean that the complexity or codified rules are useless for everyone.

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.

Yes, but in D&D, the process can occur simply by reading the rulebook. In a rule-light game, it requires experience in play. Given that C&C is so close to D&D, it doesn't surprise me that they feel the same because many C&C GMs have played D&D and have probably internalized the D&D values, as have their players who are familiar with D&D. I'm not limiting my observations to D&D or C&C. I'm talking about Hero, Warhammer FRP, Fudge, OTE, Risus, etc. And how might C&C run for a group with a GM that had never played D&D before?

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.

You keep focusing on what the RAW requires. My focus is on how I've actually seen it used in practice. Perhaps there are DMs who like to fiddle with all the DCs and modifiers so that the final value is always subjective. I've never seen it played that way. Not with my group. Not with another group I play with (this is the first thing I've ever played with them). Not when I playtested some future Goodman Games adventures. The GMs all pretty much use the codified modifiers when they apply. And regardless of how a GM can use the RAW, a rule-light GM can't default to codified rules, modifiers, and difficulties. They are required to make a subjective ruling.

Step back from C&C because I'm not even sure I'd call that a rule-light game. Try a game of Fudge Fantasy or Risus, which will more clearly illustrate the point. Your focus seems to be on DCs and modifiers. I'm also talking well beyond that.

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.

If it had codified modifiers for that baseline, you wouldn't need the formulation of consensus amongst the group as to what those modifiers should be. You can look them up and apply them. And, again, I'm not reading "rule-light" as just "C&C".

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.

And, yes, those cases are probably very similar to C&C. It's not a matter of playing by the rules but how you use the rules and how you can use the rules. Personally, I don't see the point of using a rule-heavy game if you aren't going to use the codified rules in a reasonably objective way. If you want a lot of the situations to rely on the GM's subjective assessment of the situation, then by all means go rule-light.

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.

That the D&D RAW allows the DM to introduce subjective situational modifiers into the task resolution process does not mean that the D&D RAW requires that the DM do so, nor does it mean that all DMs do. If the DM wants to be subjective then they could certainly use C&C or an even lighter system and get similar results. That's not the point. The point is that the rule-light GM can't lean on objective rules and codified modifiers and difficulties that don't exist in a lighter rule system. You seem to think those objective rules and codified modifiers and difficulties should be largely altered or ignored. I don't. If you do ignore them then it does make sense not to bother with them in the first place. But your premise, that they should be largely altered or ignored, is not universally desirable because it creates its own problems.

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.

Have you ever tried a really rule-light game like Fudge, Risus, or Over the Edge?

The reason why there are dice in role-playing games is to simulate the fact that what a person (character) wants to do does not always determine how well they actually do it. A GM may very much want to be consistent, predictable, and fair, but it doesn't always turn out that way. YMMV.

 

[John Morrow]

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).

I don't think that's so much a function of how heavy the system is. The one D&D 3.5 game that I'm playing in right now, we're still 4th level (starting at 2nd) after about 15 sessions because it's been largely mysteries, sneaking around, exploring, outsmarting, convincing, etc. I think it's a play style issue, a point that Ryan Dancey raises in the other thread that he started.