Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[fredramsey]

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, 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?

^^^^ What he said.

 

[kenobi65]

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.

FWIW, Ryan Dancey has not worked for WotC for, what, at least 3 years now?

 

[buzz]

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.

Ryan Dancey no longer works for WotC. Prior to working for WotC, Dancey worked with AEG, on lines that were crtainly "lite"-er than D&D/d20, e.g., Lot5R and 7th Sea. Dancey was also the motive force behind the OGL, i.e., the reason you can download 97% of the rules for D&D and d20M for free.

Mearls has worked for WotC for all of about a week and a half. Most of his career to this point has been freelancing for small companies with none of the financial stability of WotC. Given his near-meteoric rise in the RPG design biz, I have a hard time buying into the idea that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't see anything they are doing as attacking, and I don't see how ad hominems really help. These are two people whith a lot of genuine experience in the RPG biz. Agree with what they have to say or not, I find it all incredibly insightful.

 

[fredramsey]

FWIW, Ryan Dancey has not worked for WotC for, what, at least 3 years now?

I sit corrected. But still

 

[ThirdWizard]

Setting D&D 3E as the baseline of what a rules heavy game is (and anything below that rules-lite) is like setting SLUG (or FUDGE) as the baseline of what a rules-lite game is (and anything above that rules-heavy). D&D 3E is pretty much the height of rules-heavyness, not the standard.

 

[scadgrad]

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?

Absolutely right in that the Dancey/Mearls postulate seems to ignore branding and the inherent value of the brand. WotC dominates the market because it cranks out more Rules Crunch than anyone else? It has has nothing what-so -ever to do w/ the fact that it's the D&D brand their crankin' out "rules heavy for?"

riiiiight.

Look, WotC could have recreated 3.X as simply as The Window for instance, and because of the brand, it would have probably sold like hotcakes due to a combination of factors. The brand and the other marketing elements are clearly more important than the actual rules of the game (anyone actually FINISHED a game of Monopoly lately? Ever?) if we're to use nothing other than raw sales figures to define quality.

 

[Remathilis]

I'll refrain form the classic C&C/D&D 3.X and instead go for my favorite, the d6 SW vs d20 SW for an example.

I can create a non-jedi PC in d20 in 5 minutes. Any level. A jedi takes 10-15. I cannot create any character in d6 under 15 min, despite having alot less steps to go through. While d6 is a lighter system (one mechanic, etc) combat takes ungodly long. Roll to hit. Roll to dodge. Compare rolls to find how hit you are. Roll damage. Soak damage. Repeat. d20? Roll to hit. Compare d20 roll + mods to Defense. Roll damage. Subtract from vitality/wound. Repeat.

What are the rules for tripping someone in d6? How much damage does fire do? Can I swing across a chasm with a princess in my arms while dodging blaster fire? I KNOW how to do all that in d20, in d6 its either vague or not mentioned.

Perhaps the greatest thing I dislike about rules-lite is being a PLAYER. I feel like I have less control over my own PCs action because ultimately, the guy at the end of the table will be the decider of my action's success and failure, not myself or even impartial dice. If the DM doesn't believe I can swing across the chasm with the princess, He will a.) SAY NO or b.) Make an extremely difficult TN/DC Check. With some formula of rules, I can determine MYSELF my chances of success/failure and decide if I wish to chance it. The DM, of course can asign additional modifiers ("The princess isn't as light as she appears") to keep up tension, but WILL KNOW if the stunt is out of my league.

This is also what Dancy meant when he said the experience doesn't transfer DMs. Maybe DM A likes Errol Flynn and lets me do it with a decent DC, but DM B is very realistic and doesn't allow it, or makes the DC much higher (and of course, doesn't mention that.) Insue the "DM A lets me do it" arguement.

I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options. Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.

 

[Mark]

FWIW, Dancey states explciitly that this is his opinion, and presents the anecdotal evidence that led him to form said opinion. I'm willing to give his opinion some weight simply based on his experience, and the test situation he describes is more formal than any observation I've been abel to make.

While his opinion may not be 100% irrefutable, I think there's a germ of some kind of truth in there.

Opinnions can be wrong, when they are based on false facts. The ridiculousness of the described methodology of the experiemntation is what sent up red flags for me. When someone purposefully throws a parade in front of my face my first instnct is to watch out for what I might step in.

Perhaps, but haven't we also been told many times that it's the sales of core books that really provide most companys' meat and potatoes?

For D&D, we've been told such but let's not forget that 900 pages of core rules for about $60.00, re-sold after revision several years later for $90.00, and supported (despite what we've been told) by dozens of supplements as opposed to a rules-light booklet that might be able to sell for $20.00 and has a limit to how much support it can offer before it is adding too many rules to call itself rules-light.

 

[buzz]

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

Point me to where either of them said anything bad about a specific system.

Not to mention, they're not talking system design, they're talking marketing and sales.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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*) . . .

My comment based on the observed phenomena of Dancey's reasoning and my interpretation of his motive:

Ryan Dancey is a putz!