Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Andre]

But that doesn't matter, because the main users of a freely distributed reference document would be the designers. The aim of the OGL was to allow publishers and writers to produce supplements without paying license fees. Giving free electronic versions of the rules to gamers is just a byproduct.

You’re right, and I think this was what Ryan was referring to above. My point is that distributing new rules to designers is a means, not an end. The end has to be improving the gaming experience of actual players. If the new rules don't affect gamers, what's the point?

Assume WOTC begins to maintain a constantly changing body of rules for the game. Not just incorporating errata, but also new rules sub-systems released under the OGL. The purpose is to make available to WOTC and other companies’ designers the best of the d20 rules. What happens when a designer creates a supplement based on the latest collection of rules, as opposed to using the core books as the baseline?

We end up in a situation quite common in software design: upgrade or else. You want to use the latest version of Office? Sorry, you have to upgrade your operating system. You want to use the next iteration of a popular game? Better upgrade Direct X, your device drivers and, maybe, your entire operating system.

Imagine my frustration if I buy a series of modules only to find that they assume I’m using rules not in the core books. Do the designers reprint all the appropriate rules, in each module published, so anyone can play the module? Or do they include a blurb saying the module is NOT compatible with the core books as written, that I should first own a copy of "build 2.73" of the SRD?

Instead publishers will continue to design products around what the majority of the community have, which is the core books. So collecting the “best” new rules in one place doesn’t seem to have much benefit to the average gamer. At best, it would help companies such as Malhavoc, who design alternate rule books. But for the vast majority of published material – I just don’t see it having an effect.

 

[buzz]

Sorry, I meant Mearls statement was true. I was agreeing with you.

Whew!

 

[RyanD]

Just state your point already.

My point is that what most people think of as "big differences" between Game X and D20 are relatively trivial. It is a discussion of trees from people who live in a forest. To people outside the forest, we all seem to be nattering on about differences that are not meaningful.

"Big differences" would be things like:

* A game that didn't quantify ability scores

* A game where you had no system for killing anyone or breaking anything

* A game where you didn't play an individual character (*)

* A game where the players created their own virtual environment as they played


As it is, most RPGs are basically identical to each other on very fundamental levels. Then they diverge in terms of mechanical rules. Some use fewer rules than others. Some use less well defined rules than others. But eventually, they almost all come back to the same play pattern: A group of individuals who band together to confront challenges and gain in power.

For all the talk about "innovation" and "creativity", the RPG genre, as a whole, has disturbingly little of either.

The example I have often used is that we are all engaged in writing sonnets, but each publisher chooses a slightly different definition of "sonnet" then tries to convince readers that their definition is innovative and creative. But nobody writes haiku. Or free verse. Or lymerics. And so all the poetry readers are left with is a sliver of the potential of the format.

I still don't see what benefit in the market someone gets if their game is d20 in terms of resolution mechanic, but the rest looks entirely different. Are there still reasonable network externalities?

As I said in my previous post, I think that if you are consistent through my "module #4", and you use consistent definitions, you retain most of the value of the D20 network externality. That leaves a wide margin for variance while still gaining the network value. You'll note that "hit points" are not on my list of modules at all - they're just a scorekeeping mechanism, not an element of fundamental mechanical differentiation. In the end, almost all "wound" systems in most "standard form" RPGs can be reduced to: You're Ok, you're damaged, you're dying, you're dead. As long as the rules are clear and simple on how that works, having a hundred variations on the theme is probably harmless.

Other things not on my list (and thus things I don't consider necessary to capture the value of the D20 network externality):

* Races
* Classes
* Levels
* Saving Throws (**)
* Combat rules (other than the task resolution system, obviously)
* Movement rules
* Alignment
* Experience Points

(*) I'd really love to play an RPG where the operating entities were tribes, for example. And conflict was resolved on a social, religious, political and economic matrix rather than a physical matrix.

(**) This one is a bit iffy, because I consider the current system so elegant and so useful that I'm inclined to say "just use it unless you can clearly describe a mechanical reason not to", but if you're building a D20 RPG without combat or physical dangers, you could probably do it without saving throws and thus reduce the complexity of the game without any noticiable sacrifice.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I still don't see what benefit in the market someone gets if their game is d20 in terms of resolution mechanic, but the rest looks entirely different. Are there still reasonable network externalities?

Absolutely!

For example, I can take a new monster straight from Lords of Madness and use it in a cosmic horror (d20 Call of Cthulu), modern (d20 Modern or Grim Tales), anime (BESM d20), space fantasy (Star Wars d20), sword and sorcery (OGL Conan), high fantasy (D&D), supers (Mutants and Masterminds), sci-fi (T20 or d20 Future), steampunk (OGL Steampunk or Iron Kingdoms or d20 Past), romantic fantasy (Blue Rose) or old school D&D (Castles & Crusades) campaign.

In most cases, it requires no change at all. The most extreme would probably be Mutants and Masterminds or Blue Rose, with their damage saves, but even that is explicitly in the stat block already and just a matter of dropping the unneeded lines!

I can do the same thing with a feat from Complete Warrior, with a spell from Arcana Evolved, a PC race from Warcraft d20, or, with a few exceptions, with a class from the Iron Kingdoms Character Guide. At most, I might need to convert the damage system or the way characters accrued special abilities (making a class feature or spell into a feat or power, for example).

You could say the same for GURPS or HERO, of course; I'd even call HERO a better system in many respects. But only SJG and Hero Games make products for those, and they don't have tasty variants like Blue Rose/True20 or Grim Tales.

 

[RyanD]

I had to modify my list from the previous post because I forgot to include ability scores.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Precisely. It's aikido marketing - turn a competitor's strength into a disadvantage (whether perceived or otherwise).

Spin! Spin! Spin! Wheee!

So I guess most game companies that talk about "rules lite" are the basic equivalent of Teh Crawring Crabe?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Spin! Spin! Spin! Wheee!

No - and nowhere did he say that, either. Are you just looking to be insulted, like I posited earlier?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

In my opinion, the current "core book" model is one of the defining problems with the RPG industry's ability to take advantage of the OGL.

I would love to see a subscription-service SRD replace - not supplement, not offer an alternative to, replace - any "core books" for D&D 4e. A document that comes with its own (simple) software interface to announce updates and provide easy searching.

New content would be released not as discrete "books" but as an ongoing "content feed."

Now, the kicker here is how to maintain OGL development?

Wizards of the Coast could, for a cut of the profits, allow other companies to add their "content feed" as a premium service: $19.99/month for the d20 feed, $4.99/month for Malhavoc, $4.99/month for Green Ronin, etc. In effect, WotC becomes the cable company and the d20 publishers become the individual channels thereon.

Alternately, each company could have its own product feed with its own subscription/distribution system.

All of this could be printed and distributed to stores or via mail order subscriptions, for those who prefer hardcopies. Nonetheless, the biggest downside of this option, IMO, is the possibility of killing FLGSes.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm turning his perceived strength into to a perceived disadvantage. [/deadpan]

 

[Akrasia]

Thanks for all the interesting information in your post, RyanD. It was very enlightening.

I certainly agree that the production values of the 3e-era books has improved the quality of RPGs overall.

Regarding your comment on WFRP:

Now I'm extremely interested.

Could you discuss the reasons you think WFRP requires a mechanically distinct approach?

I am only a fan of WFRP, so I do not know Chris Pramas' reasons for not using d20 for the second edition. (I will mention that I think he did a really excellent job with the 2e WFRP book, and that I am glad that it has the mechanics that it does.)

However, I *do* think that mechanics affect game play. Simply tweaking 3e into a WFRP form would have failed miserably -- and I know that you would not have recommended that. Revising d20 *enough* to accurately capture the feel of the WFRP game and setting would have resulted in a game that differed *significantly* from 3e (and the standard 'd20' system).

At that point, the question becomes: "why radically modify the d20 system into a form suitable for Warhammer, when we could instead simply revise and update the 1e version?" I know how I would answer that question.

My point is that what most people think of as "big differences" between Game X and D20 are relatively trivial. It is a discussion of trees from people who live in a forest. To people outside the forest, we all seem to be nattering on about differences that are not meaningful.
....

But who cares about people outside the forest? I am sure that to people who do not play wargames they ‘all look the same’; that to people who do not read fantasy novels, ‘the plots all look the same’; etc.

But the rules of a game *do* have an impact on how the game plays and feels. These differences might seem trivial to people who do not play these games – but to people who *do*, the differences are important.

Moreover, there is a segment of the market that appears to enjoy trying out new mechanics. For them, testing out new mechanics is part of he appeal of RPGs. Granted, this is probably a very small segment of the market (despite the impression that one might get over at RPG.net), but it is there.