Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[John Morrow]

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.

There are plenty of different reasons to role-play, which is why I've called this a collection of similar hobbies with a lot of overlap.

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?

For the record, the second if very important to me because of my style of play. The first reason is quite a bit less important to me, but still matters to me.

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.)

That's the sort of game that I don't really like because I look at a game through my character's eyes and such games feel like being a part of The Truman Show to me. But if that's what your groups wants, more power to you.

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.

I've played in one-shot games where the only rule was "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad". The reason that works for me for one-shots but not campaigns is that the importance of consistency (allong with the difficulty of maintaining it) increases as the length and complexity of the game increases.

 

[John Morrow]

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

I think that helps a great deal. Let me simply say this. If you don't think a player can't bog a game down asking questions as much as they can bog the game down looking up rules, you've never had someone like me as a player.

 

[John Morrow]

Well, I'd certainly hope so. It's there in black and white in the C&C PHB. While tumbling past isn't covered by the rules, the DC certainly is. It's whatever the creature's HD is added to either 12/18 depending on the PC's Prime. Of course the DM/CK can add more levels of difficulty, but you can pretty much do that in any RPG.

Well, that's not really more rule-light than D&D 3e, is it?

 

[John Morrow]

While that's true, consider that every NPC in the game chooses to act, essentially, by GM fiat. So that leaves a huge portion of the game in a kind of mechanics-free space that relies on a GM's judgement, rather than on any codified system of task resolution (and on an open line of communication between players and GM).

It also removes a huge portion of the game from reliance on a GM's judgement.

To varying degrees the rules system can describe what a GM can do with NPC's (or any form of obstacle/encounter), but not what they do. And in that there's no escaping a reliance on the GM's subjective judgement calls.

The degree of subjectivity matters. It's not a matter of escaping subjectivity entirely but reducing or limiting.

In light of that, quibbling about an extra +2 circumstance bonus applied to a Jump check seems, well, to miss the point.

I'm not talking about quibbling about an extra +2 circumstance bonus. I'm talking about whether a 40 foot fall should leave a character largely unharmed, badly wounded, or dead. If a system has no falling rules, the GM's assessment covers that entire range of options which is quite a bit larger than a +2 circumstance bonus, correct?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but can you suggest another way for GM's to assess things, other then subjectively? I'm not a robot or an algorithm. While I try for a degree of objectivity, I have to be honest with myself and admit I fall pretty short. I'm only human.

Often, yes. Nobody expects perfection. But the reason why complex rules are usually complex is because they have specific procedures for handling specific situational conditions. Applying them can be entirely objective to the point where two players could run a combat between their PCs without any GM judgement calls in some cases. In many ways, the Internet is the land of the excluded middle argument -- all or nothing. But in this situation, degrees matter. Both objectivity and subjectivity have costs and create problems. Where you set the bar along that scale will determine what problems and benefits you get.

I don't accept that. Most of what you list aren't problems (level-appropriate challenges?? rewards for creativity?!) unless taken to an extreme. And even a GM who limits their assessment to 'the setting and the situation' are making subjective judgements. How can they not be? How did they obtain an objective frame of reference?

It all depends on why your role-play. All of those things were real enough problems that they've ruined games for the people that cited them. In most people's book, things that ruin the enjoyment of the participants are generally considered "problems". As for basing assessments only on the situation and setting, that's what dice are for and even if the decision is otherwise subjective, the feel of a GMs subjective decisions will vary greatly depending on the factors that they base that subjetive decision on.

 

[Silverleaf]

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.

That goes without saying. I've played in crunchy games where we did a lot of that stuff, because such was the nature of the campaign.
I only brought up those points to explain that even though we were new at gaming, and had no mentors, and the (light) rules we used didn't dwell too much on non-combat resolution (no skill system), we still naturally gravitated to sessions with lots of "roleplaying" situations instead of just pure hack & slash.

 

[John Morrow]

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

My group meets all of those criteria(*), yet we still have problems with rule-light games and gravitate toward at least rule-moderate games. They key element that's missing (and I'm talking about a group that's role-played with each other for years and, in some cases, well over a decade) is often a common understanding of how things are working in the game setting. The rules serve as a sort of "common reality" for the group that we can all depend on.

(*) With respect to "blocking", we all tend to be "simulationists" and are all willing to live with the consequences of appropriate in character actions even if they don't follow story logic. So that's more of a non-issue.

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.

I think the problem is often more fundamental than that. I think the problem is that many rule-light games don't tell you how to actually use the system. "Just make it up!" or "Just use your best guess!" doesn't really help someone who doesn't know where to start.

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.

Again, I think the issue is even more basic. A person who knows how to figure out what happens doesn't need rules. A person who knows what they want to have happen next doesn't need dice. Worse, if a person knows how to resolve a situation or what should happen, the rules or dice will only either confirm what they already know or give them the wrong result that they'll want to fudge around. I think a lot of the advocacy for rule-light systems or diceless play comes from GMs and players who think they can do a better job than the rules of deciding what happens in the game.

In fact, that's why I think that rule-light advocates often resent complex rules rather than simply being indifferent to them or finding them too complicated. They resent the rules because the rules are worse than what they can do themselves.

 

[Ourph]

Write a novel why don't you!

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.

OK. This is the problem with starting a discussion with one poster (in this case 2, Buzz and Psion) and continuing it with someone else 5 pages later. I think we've gotten off track here, because you've placed me as defending positions I never took and don't agree with.

I am NOT:

1 - Defending rules-lite games as "better" than rules-heavy.
2 - Defending C&C or any other game as better than D&D.
3 - Saying that rules-lite games provide just as much structure or pre-existing guidelines as rules-heavy games.
4 - Saying that rules-lite games do not have their own problems, especially including that they are unmitigated disasters when the group playing them doesn't have some consensus about what to expect in terms of task resolution.

I AM:
1 - Defending my original thesis. Namely, that rules-heavy games ALSO require (to virtually the same degree as rules-lite games) that the group share a similar "assessment of reality" (let's call it AOR)or the game will suffer. With the addendum that rules-heavy games sometimes offer a bit of psychological comfort by either hiding differences in "AOR" or in some cases, exposing them very quickly.

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.

Do the "answers" you come up with always coincide with the GM's rulings? If so, is that because you're playing a rules-heavy game or because you and your GM share a similar AOR? I would argue that, no matter what game you were playing, if you and your GM didn't share a common AOR you wouldn't feel comfortable figuring things out on your own.

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.

Maybe this is just a case of our POV differing to the extent we really can't understand each other. I don't view the DM saying..."It's a 10ft pit, there's mud around it, so players move at 1/2 speed and running isn't possible (therefore no running start, double the DC of Jump checks), there's a really strong updraft, so that adds a circumstance bonus to the Jump check....so the final DC is X"...as playing D&D rules-lite. I see it as the DM doing what the rulebooks instruct him to do - apply circumstance modifiers when appropriate. Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "appropriate" in this context.

Yes, and it's the level and frequency of those judgement calls that make all the difference.

Again, we're off track. I'm not commenting on the level and frequency of judgement calls, I'm questioning the assertions of two other posters who said they preferred rules-heavy games (especially D&D) because when playing them, the GM doesn't have to make judgement calls because the rules tell him what to do. My counter to that is that every time the GM applies or doesn't apply a modifier based on his interpretation of the environment in which the PC finds himself, he's making the same kind of judgement call that seems to be so distasteful in examples of rules-lite play. The only difference I can see is that the judgement calls take place on another level, hidden behind a veneer of rules.

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?

There are a lot of comments like this in the rest of your post. Ones that would put me in the position of defending rules-lite or C&C vs. rules-heavy or D&D (or whatever other games are being used as examples). Please don't be offended that I'm going to skip over them and not answer/respond. I'm not ducking the question, I just don't want to take the position of defending those things because I don't believe in them. I'm asserting the statement I listed above, nothing more.

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.

Right. I agree. Back to my original point....If D&D requires a DM to make some subjective judgement calls and you, as a player, are comfortable with the way your DM handles himself in those situations - why would it make you uncomfortable to expand the instances when those judgement calls are necessary? From my POV, a player will either trust or not trust the GM and if he trusts (usually because of a shared AOR and/or good dialogue between the player and GM) then the move to rules-lite shouldn't be a problem. Buzz and Psion seemed to be (I won't put words in their mouths, but this is the impression I got) saying not that D&D requires fewer instances of the DM making subjective judgement calls, but actually provided a ruleset in which the DM needed to make no subjective judgement calls at all and consequently playing 3e D&D by the RAW makes a shared AOR and dialogue irrelevant. That is the idea that I'm taking issue with.

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.

This is where these discussions usually diverge. I disagree that rules-lite absolutely necessitates that the game be rules-insufficient. The difference between a rules-heavy game would be that tripping, tumbling past, disarming, wrestling, pushing someone around, etc. might all share the same dice roll mechanic, but would get vastly different modifiers for the same pair of combatants, would have numerous special rules that apply for each action, would interact with other combat actions or aspects of the game (feats frex.) in different ways, etc. Whereas, in a rules-lite game, all of those situations would be covered in the rules, all would have clearly defined consequences, but since all are essentially combat actions that produce the effect of "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do" they would all use the same roll, with the same modifier (or with only one of a very few modifiers based perhaps on whether the action is based on raw strength, raw agility or training) and that roll would be the same as the normal combat roll (since dealing damage to your opponent also qualifies as "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do"). This is NOT something C&C does - which is one of the reasons I don't like it, refuse to defend it and find it a convenient but in some ways unfortunate example of a rules-lite game to use in this discussion.

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?

Flip that around and you have exactly the same question I put to Psion and Buzz. Sure some GMs can run a good game of D&D with the players feeling comfortable that their AOR and the GM's are essentially the same, but that's looking at a best case scenario (i.e - players and a GM whose AOR are already similar enough that they probably wouldn't run into problems playing a rules-lite game either). What's the worst case scenario? Does D&D really produce a noticeably better outcome when you're playing with a DM whose AOR significantly differs from your own?

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.

Again, I'm going to say that you're putting the best-case spin on the rules-heavy game and the worst-case spin on the rules-lite game. If the rules-lite players all share a common AOR with their GM the amount of necessary communication isn't all that great. If the rules-heavy players all have a completely different AOR than their GM, the amount of necessary communication shouldn't be (IMO) significantly different than the same group playing a rules-lite game. Players in the rules-heavy game might think they are safe figuring out things like DCs on their own, but will their assessment match the assessment of the GM often enough that they become comfortable doing it?

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.

I play with people who all share a very similar AOR when it comes to RPGs, so it rarely matters how heavy or lite our rulesets are. For the record, I've never played (and have no desire to play) C&C - which (although unquestionably rules-liter than D&D) isn't IMO a particularly well done example of a rules-lite game. I'm familiar enough with the rules in terms of how skill-like activities are handled to use it as an example in comparison to 3e D&D - that's about it.

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.

Again, is this because of the ruleset or because of the DM's personality and the commonly arrived at consensus of the group about what's expected and wanted from the game?

those codified difficulties and modifiers are only going to get in the way if you don't actually use them.

For the record, when I ran 3.x D&D I tended to use all the codified modifiers plus any other modifiers that seemed reasonable. I would say 80% of the time, the written modifiers were the only things I used, but on certain occasions when I had included specific world details I thought should be represented numerically in play, I felt no compunction in applying circumstance modifiers. Personally, I don't see that as running the game rules-lite (since I was actually using all of the rules at the time).

Yes, but in D&D, the process can occur simply by reading the rulebook. In a rule-light game, it requires experience in play.

I would argue against this. Most new people who entered my games of D&D took time to adjust to the shared AOR of the group just as they would in a rules-lite game. Hence my assertion that, while the numerous rules tend to give the illusion that you can have a certain level of expectation when you game at a new table, it's really only an illusion. I played by the RAW, but my creation, as DM, of the game world (a completely subjective activity) affected the in-game reality to such an extent that rules knowledge didn't translate to an automatically shared AOR. That takes interaction, communication and consensus - activities I would argue occur in every successful RPG group and the lack of which are the main cause of most unhappy, unsuccessful RPG group.

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.

OK, let's talk about really rules-lite for a moment and compare OD&D (3 LB only) and 3e. In an OD&D game, numerous activities a gaming group might want to engage in are completely undefined. Many of those activities are completely defined in 3e D&D. OD&D requires that the group discuss and experience the game together and reach a consensus on their AOR to be successful. Since they are at different ends of the complexity/coverage spectrum the process of reaching a shared AOR will look completely different between a group playing OD&D and a group playing 3e. However, I believe that the process of reaching a shared AOR still goes on in 3e and to nearly the same extent as it does in OD&D for successful gaming groups. IMO it has to because, no matter how many activities are covered by the rules, the game still ultimately comes down to an imaginary space created by the GM and shared by the players. If the GM's view of the imaginary space does not mesh with the player's view, the game will feel arbitrary and inconsistent to the players no matter how clearly defined the rules are.

You seem to think those objective rules and codified modifiers and difficulties should be largely altered or ignored. <snip> But your premise, that they should be largely altered or ignored, is not universally desirable because it creates its own problems.

I really don't think that. I just don't believe that the codified modifiers cover every situation that might call for a numerical representation in the game.

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.

Let's just say that I think that in a game run by a consistent, predictable and fair GM, the amount of insecurity incorporated into play by the randomness of the dice is something the players can gauge and depend on. That they can expect from game to game that certain types of dice rolls come with certain types of consequences. For example, that missing an opponent engaged in melee with an ally with a ranged attack won't simply be a miss with no chance of hitting your ally one game session and call for a roll with a 90% chance of outright killing your ally at the next game session.

I think that helps a great deal. Let me simply say this. If you don't think a player can't bog a game down asking questions as much as they can bog the game down looking up rules, you've never had someone like me as a player.

That's just it. I'm not interested in how long it takes to accomplish certain tasks during the game. I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, so I'm in no hurry. I don't consider a player asking relevant questions to be "bogging down the game". That activity is part of the game and AFAIC a large part of the fun. I do consider looking up rules to be "bogging", because it's not actually play, it's work I do in order to get back to the play, and it's work that I want to do as little of as possible.

 

[John Morrow]

Write a novel why don't you!

Well, doing so actually seems to be helping clarifying things.

OK. This is the problem with starting a discussion with one poster (in this case 2, Buzz and Psion) and continuing it with someone else 5 pages later. I think we've gotten off track here, because you've placed me as defending positions I never took and don't agree with.

Sure, no problem.

1 - Defending my original thesis. Namely, that rules-heavy games ALSO require (to virtually the same degree as rules-lite games) that the group share a similar "assessment of reality" (let's call it AOR)or the game will suffer. With the addendum that rules-heavy games sometimes offer a bit of psychological comfort by either hiding differences in "AOR" or in some cases, exposing them very quickly.

I disagree that the rules simply provide "psychological comfort" and simply hide differences in the AOR. In my experience, a group can use the rules do define the AOR and the more comprehensive the rules, the more comprehensive the AOR they provide.

Do the "answers" you come up with always coincide with the GM's rulings? If so, is that because you're playing a rules-heavy game or because you and your GM share a similar AOR?

It's because both I and the GM are using the rules to provide a substantial amount of the AOR. The codify the way things will be resolved in a way that's accessible to both the players and GM. They serve the same purpose as the GM writing a treatise on how they are going to resolve combat based on the various conditions present. Rather than the GM making it up, they use the AOR provided by the game designers and incorporated into the rules as a common framework.

I would argue that, no matter what game you were playing, if you and your GM didn't share a common AOR you wouldn't feel comfortable figuring things out on your own.

The less GM subjectivity that's present in the resolution process, the less differences in AOR seem to matter in my experience. My group has severe AOR difference problems despite many of us having role-played together for more than a decade and despite knowing each other quite well. For whatever reasons, our assessments of reality differ substantially quote often. The more the resolution of a situation relies on an objective ruleset and the less it relies on the GM's personal assessment of the situation, the less the AOR matters in my experience.

Maybe this is just a case of our POV differing to the extent we really can't understand each other. I don't view the DM saying..."It's a 10ft pit, there's mud around it, so players move at 1/2 speed and running isn't possible (therefore no running start, double the DC of Jump checks), there's a really strong updraft, so that adds a circumstance bonus to the Jump check....so the final DC is X"...as playing D&D rules-lite. I see it as the DM doing what the rulebooks instruct him to do - apply circumstance modifiers when appropriate. Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "appropriate" in this context.

In my experience, GMs don't worry about strong updrafts and mud unless there is a strong setting-based reason for having such things involved in the situation. YMMV. But I do wonder if at least some of the GMs who do include things like mud and updrafts are doing so to justify setting their own DC based on how much risk they want the task to have for a particular PC.

Again, we're off track. I'm not commenting on the level and frequency of judgement calls, I'm questioning the assertions of two other posters who said they preferred rules-heavy games (especially D&D) because when playing them, the GM doesn't have to make judgement calls because the rules tell him what to do.

In my experience, that's exactly how rule-heavy systems like D&D 3e and the Hero system usually work in practice, even if the rules as written permit the GM to inject a subjective assessment into the numbers. In my experience, a GM looking to work with the rules (rather than fighting them) will often just use the rules as written. YMMV. In such a situation, the GM normally really don't have to make any judgement calls about the mechanics to resolve a situation because the rules do define all the numbers on an objective way.

My counter to that is that every time the GM applies or doesn't apply a modifier based on his interpretation of the environment in which the PC finds himself, he's making the same kind of judgement call that seems to be so distasteful in examples of rules-lite play. The only difference I can see is that the judgement calls take place on another level, hidden behind a veneer of rules.

I don't think it's the same thing for two reasons. A big difference is deciding to use a modifier or not is very different than a GM subjectively determining the magnitude of a modifier. There is a big difference between deciding that the bottom of a pit is solid stone 20 feet from the top of the pit (apply falling rules accordingly) and deciding that the 20 foot fall will break a character's leg. There is a big difference between deciding that a pit is 20 feet across and applying the jumping rules for 20 feet and deciding the DC to jump across the 20 foot pit. And it also raises the issue of whether the GM is setting the DC for story-based reasons or for setting-based reasons once the DC is entirely in the GM's hands.

There are a lot of comments like this in the rest of your post. Ones that would put me in the position of defending rules-lite or C&C vs. rules-heavy or D&D (or whatever other games are being used as examples). Please don't be offended that I'm going to skip over them and not answer/respond. I'm not ducking the question, I just don't want to take the position of defending those things because I don't believe in them. I'm asserting the statement I listed above, nothing more.

If I'm misrepresenting your position, by all means tell me so and don't bother answering. No offense taken.

Right. I agree. Back to my original point....If D&D requires a DM to make some subjective judgement calls and you, as a player, are comfortable with the way your DM handles himself in those situations - why would it make you uncomfortable to expand the instances when those judgement calls are necessary?

Because (A) not all subjective judgement calls are equally important and (B) many of the problems with subjective judgement calls only show up as patterns in a string of judgement calls so the odd one-off judgement call is less likely to create a noticable problem than a string of them. Point (B) is why I'm far more tolerent of things like totally subjective play and even diceless play in a one-off game than in a campaign. My group tends to run campaigns, not one-offs.

From my POV, a player will either trust or not trust the GM and if he trusts (usually because of a shared AOR and/or good dialogue between the player and GM) then the move to rules-lite shouldn't be a problem.

There are things I will trust the GMs in my group with and things I won't trust them with. It's an AOR issue, not a maturity issue. But I agree that if a group has a strongly shared AOR and good communication, a rule-light game might work very well for that group. But I would still argue that the two can feel different and the way the game is played can change more than simply the reduction of rules, sometimes in desirable ways and somtimes in undesirable ways.

Buzz and Psion seemed to be (I won't put words in their mouths, but this is the impression I got) saying not that D&D requires fewer instances of the DM making subjective judgement calls, but actually provided a ruleset in which the DM needed to make no subjective judgement calls at all and consequently playing 3e D&D by the RAW makes a shared AOR and dialogue irrelevant. That is the idea that I'm taking issue with.

I think it's certainly possible to run D&D that way most of the time and I do think that using just the rules for most situations and minimizing the subjective input of the GM into the resolution process can actually provide an AOR for a group that doesn't otherwise have one. For example, if a GM pits my PC against a group of orcs, it doesn't matter if he and I have a different assessment of the PC's chance of victory. The assessment of reality provided by the game's designers via the rules will ultimately determine who wins. I don't have to ask the GM what my chances of winning are or what various variables mean. I can look at the rules for that.

This is where these discussions usually diverge. I disagree that rules-lite absolutely necessitates that the game be rules-insufficient.

I disagree with that, too. Rule sufficiency is a highly subjective assessment and you can see how much it differs from group to group simply by looking at the rules different groups use, homebrew, and ignore. In reality, most people want only the rules they need and not extra rules that they don't need.

The difference between a rules-heavy game would be that tripping, tumbling past, disarming, wrestling, pushing someone around, etc. might all share the same dice roll mechanic, but would get vastly different modifiers for the same pair of combatants, would have numerous special rules that apply for each action, would interact with other combat actions or aspects of the game (feats frex.) in different ways, etc. Whereas, in a rules-lite game, all of those situations would be covered in the rules, all would have clearly defined consequences, but since all are essentially combat actions that produce the effect of "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do" they would all use the same roll, with the same modifier (or with only one of a very few modifiers based perhaps on whether the action is based on raw strength, raw agility or training) and that roll would be the same as the normal combat roll (since dealing damage to your opponent also qualifies as "doing something to your
opponent he doesn't want you to do"). This is NOT something C&C does - which is one of the reasons I don't like it, refuse to defend it and find it a convenient but in some ways unfortunate example of a rules-lite game to use in this discussion.

The problem is that throwing out the detail doesn't mean that those details are "covered by the rules" in the same way that taking them into account does. And for the record, I'm a big advocate of using rule-light systems in the way you describe but, alas, many players want more control and want to micromanage things like combat. Personally, I have no use for feinting rules and such. I assume that a suitably skilled fighter is using things like feints as a part of what makes them a suitably skilled fighter.

Flip that around and you have exactly the same question I put to Psion and Buzz. Sure some GMs can run a good game of D&D with the players feeling comfortable that their AOR and the GM's are essentially the same, but that's looking at a best case scenario (i.e - players and a GM whose AOR are already similar enough that they probably wouldn't run into problems playing a rules-lite game either). What's the worst case scenario? Does D&D really produce a noticeably better outcome when you're playing with a DM whose AOR significantly differs from your own?

In my experience, it does when the subjectivity is minimalized because both parties are not relying on their own AOR to resolve actions. They are relying on the AOR of the game designers as reflected in the rules. It's like having a third party in the picture using an AOR that's accessible to both player and GM if they care to read the rules and comprehend them. This really isn't that complicated. It's the same reason software development teams use written processes and project plans to develop projects. The more that's defined, the more accessible it is to all parties. Rule-heavy systems simply define more information about how tasks will be resolved than rule-light systems do.

Again, I'm going to say that you're putting the best-case spin on the rules-heavy game and the worst-case spin on the rules-lite game. If the rules-lite players all share a common AOR with their GM the amount of necessary communication isn't all that great. If the rules-heavy players all have a completely different AOR than their GM, the amount of necessary communication shouldn't be (IMO) significantly different than the same group playing a rules-lite game. Players in the rules-heavy game might think they are safe figuring out things like DCs on their own, but will their assessment match the assessment of the GM often enough that they become comfortable doing it?

Yes. Because I think the bit you are missing is that in a rule-heavy game, the AOR of the game designers, as reflected by the rules, looms large on the horizon. I don't have to communicate with the GM to understand how combat is going to be resolved in D&D or Hero. I can read a book. And as long as the GM and I are reading the same book, it should help give us a shared AOR for resolving what happens in the game. And in my experience, it does.

I play with people who all share a very similar AOR when it comes to RPGs, so it rarely matters how heavy or lite our rulesets are. For the record, I've never played (and have no desire to play) C&C - which (although unquestionably rules-liter than D&D) isn't IMO a particularly well done example of a rules-lite game. I'm familiar enough with the rules in terms of how skill-like activities are handled to use it as an example in comparison to 3e D&D - that's about it.

I play with people who, despite our best intentions and years of playing together, still have some nasty AOR problems so it does matter to us how heavy or light our rules our. Yes, we can use rule-light games but there is such a thing as "too rule-light" for my group. On the other hand, we're all primarily role-players not wargamers so there is also such a thing as "too rule-heavy". We try to find a happy compromise in between.

Again, is this because of the ruleset or because of the DM's personality and the commonly arrived at consensus of the group about what's expected and wanted from the game?

It's because the rules minimize the need for GM subjectivity and the GM doesn't feel a need to insert subjectivity when it isn't necessary. I suppose you could call that a shared AOR but it's a very simple one -- "We're using the rules as written and the GM is expected to use custom subjective modifiers as little as possible." That's fairly easy to establish, even if you have to do so explicitly.

For the record, when I ran 3.x D&D I tended to use all the codified modifiers plus any other modifiers that seemed reasonable. I would say 80% of the time, the written modifiers were the only things I used, but on certain occasions when I had included specific world details I thought should be represented numerically in play, I felt no compunction in applying circumstance modifiers. Personally, I don't see that as running the game rules-lite (since I was actually using all of the rules at the time).

Well, I think this describes exactly what I'm talking about. If you use stock modifiers 80% of the time, that means that 80% of the time, you are using the AOR provided by the rules which bypasses AOR problems that might exist between player and GM. My point is not that adding subjective modifiers here and there makes the game rule-light but that it resolves the situation in the same way that a rule-light game would, with all the benefits and liabilities of doing so. It's the other 80% that I'm interested in because that's the part that's missing in a rule-light game. No, 80% isn't 100% but if a group has problems, 80% is a lot better than 0%.

I would argue against this. Most new people who entered my games of D&D took time to adjust to the shared AOR of the group just as they would in a rules-lite game. Hence my assertion that, while the numerous rules tend to give the illusion that you can have a certain level of expectation when you game at a new table, it's really only an illusion. I played by the RAW, but my creation, as DM, of the game world (a completely subjective activity) affected the in-game reality to such an extent that rules knowledge didn't translate to an automatically shared AOR. That takes interaction, communication and consensus - activities I would argue occur in every successful RPG group and the lack of which are the main cause of most unhappy, unsuccessful RPG group.

The GMs in my group (myself included) tend to use the game rules as a proxy for how things work in their game world. In my experience, rules knowledge in those situations does translate into a substantially shared AOR because the AOR is the rules. As I've said, my group seems to find it impossible to find a consistently shared AOR on the subjective player and GM level yet we all seem to be satisfied when we have rules to provide an external and defined AOR. As such, a certain level of rules (not necessarily as heavy as D&D) are what allows us to have a happy and successful RPG group, at least for longer campaigns.

OK, let's talk about really rules-lite for a moment and compare OD&D (3 LB only) and 3e. In an OD&D game, numerous activities a gaming group might want to engage in are completely undefined. Many of those activities are completely defined in 3e D&D. OD&D requires that the group discuss and experience the game together and reach a consensus on their AOR to be successful. Since they are at different ends of the complexity/coverage spectrum the process of reaching a shared AOR will look completely different between a group playing OD&D and a group playing 3e. However, I believe that the process of reaching a shared AOR still goes on in 3e and to nearly the same extent as it does in OD&D for successful gaming groups.

In my experience, I don't believe this is true. In my experience, the process of reading a rule system can help establish a common AOR between player and GM. The more that's defined by the rules, the less finding a common AOR is going to depend on the players and GM understanding one another and the more it's going to depend on the players and GM understanding the rules.

IMO it has to because, no matter how many activities are covered by the rules, the game still ultimately comes down to an imaginary space created by the GM and shared by the players. If the GM's view of the imaginary space does not mesh with the player's view, the game will feel arbitrary and inconsistent to the players no matter how clearly defined the rules are.

The imaginary space is filtered through the rules which define a great deal about what's possible and not possible within the shared space. That's why the rule system used matters and why there are different rule systems for different settings and genres. Using your 80% from above, if 80% of your decisions as a GM are based on the rules and not your subjective assessment of the situation, then 80% of your decisions are defined by the AOR of the rules and not your AOR.

I really don't think that. I just don't believe that the codified modifiers cover every situation that might call for a numerical representation in the game.

That's back to the excluded middle argument. They don't have to cover every situation. If they cover 80% of the situations (your assessment for your games), then that's substantially more objective than 0% or just making stuff up as you go.

Let's just say that I think that in a game run by a consistent, predictable and fair GM, the amount of insecurity incorporated into play by the randomness of the dice is something the players can gauge and depend on. That they can expect from game to game that certain types of dice rolls come with certain types of consequences. For example, that missing an opponent engaged in melee with an ally with a ranged attack won't simply be a miss with no chance of hitting your ally one game session and call for a roll with a 90% chance of outright killing your ally at the next game session.

Yes, but just because the GM is consistent and predictable in their game and think they are being fair by ruling that a miss never has a chance of hitting an ally does not mean that players will expect it until it's established (they might make decisions based on the assumption that they can hit allies unless the GM tells them otherwise or they figure it out) or even think it's reasonable or just. Having rules that define what happens when a ranged attack miss lets the players and GM know what to expect, even if they've never seen a miss before. And if they don't like how it works, they have the opportunity before the game even starts to homebrew in a different way of doing it, before it becomes a critical issue in the game.

That's just it. I'm not interested in how long it takes to accomplish certain tasks during the game. I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, so I'm in no hurry. I don't consider a player asking relevant questions to be "bogging down the game". That activity is part of the game and AFAIC a large part of the fun. I do consider looking up rules to be "bogging", because it's not actually play, it's work I do in order to get back to the play, and it's work that I want to do as little of as possible.

Even if I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, I'd rather not spend that time discussing the nuances of the setting just like I'd rather not spend my time watching television watching commercials, credits, or a test pattern. To me, discussing whether my character is close enough to get hit by an NPC as he runs by in combat is about equal to counting squares or looking up a rule and if looking up the rule or counting squares if faster and gives a similar answer, then sign me up for the faster alternative. Further, while I'm querying the GM about things that only matter to my character and my decision, the other players are sitting there essentially looking at a test pattern. That a game moves along at something resembling real time matters to me and is, in fact, the primary reason why rule-light systems appeal to me. Often they do run faster than a rule-heavy system.

 

[JohnSnow]

That a game moves along at something resembling real time matters to me and is, in fact, the primary reason why rule-light systems appeal to me. Often they do run faster than a rule-heavy system.

And now we have someone else stating anecdotal evidence as fact, and pulling the thread back on topic. So...do rules light systems run faster? Anecdotal evidence claims yes. Dancey (who, AFAIK conducted the only observational market research ever done on roleplaying games) claims that wasn't what he found in his research.

Bear in mind, he probably means "after correcting for variables like DM ability." So while a DM with a good understanding of his preferred system runs the game quickly, a DM with a lesser understanding runs the system slowly.

So can you teach someone to be a good rules-light GM? Or is Ryan right that the only GMs who can run rules-light games without them bogging down (or becoming unduly frustrating to players) are people with the natural talent (the "on-the-fly game designer" hypothesis presented in Ryan's original post). Thoughts?

That's totally apart from the session prep time issue, which I wholeheartedly concur with. I think some people are willing, through mature assessment of the factors in question, to conclude that they can live with the inconsitencies of a GM lacking that talent if it addresses other areas of concern to the group (time to prepare certainly being one).

I know that was the case in our group. We agreed to put up with whatever inconsistencies and limitations existed (there weren't many - as I've said before, Akrasia's a very good DM, maybe even one of those extremely rare "on the fly game designers") in the name of a good game where we could all have fun (and with a prep time that our beleaguered DM could live with).

Personally, I think the 3e rules serve to train people to be good DMs. People may eventually conclude they don't need 3e's complex rules, but I think attempting to master them makes people better DMs. They internalize the rules, maybe even without realizing it. Subsequently their rulings are consistent and they can deal with a much "rules-lighter" version of the d20 system because when in doubt, they default to a ruleset they're not even aware of using. Of course, I could be wrong. :\

Interestingly, I think there's an element here that touches on the OGL. If you're always running roughly the same system, your rules-experience is cummulative, either as a player or a GM, to the extent that the systems are the same. If all d20 games use the same balance mechanic, every balance check I make, witness, or referee helps me to internalize the mechanics. For example, we've all internalized the basic combat mechanic - the d20 roll + bonuses to compare to AC. It's not at all complicated anymore.

Of course, if we constantly shift game mechanics (i.e. gaming systems) the experiences are still only cummulative to the extent that the games are similar. So if I play D&D and Vampire, the role-playing experience is cummulative, but the rules-experience isn't...at least not necessarily. I can't help but wonder if this is what Ryan was trying to address when he came up with the OGL. It wasn't for the benefit of game publishers - it was to make it easier on gamers. Ryan, any comment?

 

[der_kluge]

I"m trying to imagine how one could add "more rules than necessary". Would those be rules that were redundant, e.g., a second set of grappling rules? Or is "necessary" just a synonym for "taste"? I mean, the detailed rules for vehicles in HERO's The Ultimate Vehicle aren't necessary per se, but someone who wanted more detail than was in the core book might find them rewarding (and, thus, necessary to their having fun).

Or is "necessary" possibly a design issue? E.g., "this rule subset for blah was unnecessary becasue there's already a mechanic that could be used to handle blah." Or is that just good/bad design?

'counter-spelling' is an example of mores rules than is necessary. I'm sure there are others.