Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[DaveMage]

I find it incredibly interesting that people are mentioning games like AD&D1e, OD&D, and C&C in the same breath as "lite".

Well, compared to 3.5E in it's current state, of course.

However, I'm not sure you can really compare D&D 3.5E to anything at this point. No other game system has the support of dozens of companies making products for it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.

On the other hand, what I see are two of the biggest names in gaming making an comment based on some observed phenomena (whether or not you agree with the rigor of their data collection methodology*), and those people who are the supporters of "smaller games" - the underdogs, if you will - are just aching to be insulted so that they can point to the big guys and say, with injured nerd-pride, "We're better than them; see?"

* - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.

"Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.

In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.

 

[buzz]

Perhaps not, but that's certainly what I inferred

Indeed.

"Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said."

I lumped all of those games together because they were all being referred to as "lite" in this thread.

 

[Campbell]

I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of sales than popularity. But what about persistence? Perhaps it's the case that it's fresh product that keeps a game alive, something oft asserted elsewhere, and it's more than rules heavy games lend themselves to this model than rules light games moreso than any enduring appeal of the rules which leads to the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.

In fact, I'd go so far to say I beleive that is the case.

That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light) consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?

Or is it just that none have?

While I wouldn't call White Wolf's Storyteller games rules light, although they are certainly less rules heavy then D&D, I'd say that much of their success has come from following the GURPS model. Although by focusing on a single setting, rather than producing more generic content setting bloat rather than rules bloat occurs.

 

[Mark]

I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of sales than popularity.

In the above discussion, for good or for ill, sales is being used as the measure of popularity but I understand what you are saying and the point you are making. It would be hard, however, to accurately gage how many people are currently playing, for example, 1E GURPS, so we are left with sales as the beanchmark by which we can measure success of a brand. And I do think it is important to stress that what has been referred to as a "system" should more accurately be labeled as a "brand" for the sake of this discussion since the system used by a brand can change a great deal over time. What edition of GURPS is current, btw?

 

[buzz]

But I also consider just about every game mentioned in this thread rules heavy. Risus (6 pages) and similar games are rules lite. Any game where rules (and non-setting material) take up 100+ pages is not rules light.

Bingo.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

What edition of GURPS is current, btw?

They just came out with 4th.

3rd lasted a long time.

 

[fredramsey]

* - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.

"Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.

In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.

True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems? And yes, no matter how many "this is my opinion"s you use, it comes out as trash talk.

As far as I am concerned, it paints them and their company in a bad light. High-profile people are representatives of their company 24 hours a day. It's part of the job. So why stir things up like this? What good does it do them?

If anything, I suppose, it could steer more people to smaller, friendly game companies and systems. After this, I certainly hope it does.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Something I don't get, which may just be my own perspective getting in the way, is why rules-light games are perceived as "Cops & Robbers".A badly designed rules light game can, but nobody's defending badly designed games.

HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool, Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE -- one thing these games have in common is that any conflict at all that comes up can be resolved using the basic mechanic. These conflicts can be interesting and challenging. There's little cause for confusion or debate, except perhaps about difficulty levels (which always have to be decided).

There's also lots of things these games don't address. How much I can carry. Whether or not I can jump a seven-foot ditch. How long I can hold my breath. The relative damage of different-size swords.

But if those things ever came up in an interesting fashion, something involving a conflict with real stakes, you could use the rules to resolve them. And if they don't show up in an interesting fashion, then why do I care?


Similarly, on the topic of appeal to new players, I'm waiting to see more rules-light games that are actually written for them. I can't fault Everway for not producing massive of new roleplayers, because it's not easy for anyone to digest. How many games actually explain how to play? How to GM? I don't mean the usual five pages in the front and a chapter in the back of the GM Guide, but really explain it.

But look at Dogs in the Vineyard, and it explains what the game's about, how to make a character, and how to resolve conflicts. Then the GM's section explains how to create a scenario from scratch, specifically, in clear terms. I wouldn't give D&D 3.5 or Everway to a group who'd never played before, but if they were interesting in the setting for DitV, I think they could pick it up without help quite easily.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems?

I'd call it a concern for the health of the hobby combined with a sense of exasperation from seeing good game concepts go out of print.


Or they're evil and sit back on their thrones, drinking glasses of puppy, lording over the fallen RPGs like vultures over carrion, while John Wick polishes their boots.

I'm guessing the former, but the latter makes for a more interesting mental image.