Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[buzz]

This is not a system that has to be dumbed down for a newbie.

Well, I think it can depend on the newbie. 8 pages of chargen is diddly compared to the market leaders (D&D/d20, WoD, Palladium, GURPS), but it's still 6 more pages than the rules to Monopoly. I find the biggest hurdle is getting people to understand the rp'ing concept, and then figure out if they find the concept appealing, and then figure out if they're willing to do it via pen-n-paper instead of just popping Final Fantasy into their Xbox.

Once you get past all that, the newb will eventually rise to their comfort level in terms of complexity, IME.

 

[Psion]

Once you get past all that, the newb will eventually rise to their comfort level in terms of complexity, IME.

Yup.

I was teaching my daughter (7 yo at the time) to play, I was trying to shield her from the harrier aspects of skill accounting by just letting her pick a number of skills and max them out. By the time the character was 2nd level, she was no longer comfortable with that model and wanted to do things the right way and allocate all her points herself.

 

[Turjan]

That's why I'm looking forward to Iron Heroes. I know Mearls has addressed the spell system and "magic items as power-ups" issues. The Feat Mastery System and the skill groups should make feat and skill selection a lot more straight-forward. And some of the things he's added to the game are about giving people (both players and GMs) more "hooks" of the kind I like to have. That all sounds like it will really appeal to me. Of course, for those who prefer making things up with less guidance, it's probably not the system for them.

Somehow I have the feeling that Iron Heroes might be even more complicated than the original. But let's talk about that after I'll have had a look at it.

 

[buzz]

And that's what I think this debate comes down to - personal taste vs. what people can work with.

I have to wonder if what it boils down to is that the market has spoken, and the body of gamers that now and forever more will make up the majority of it demand a certain minimum level of crunch in their tabletop games. Though things seem weighted towards the "heavy" end of the spectrum, go too far in either direction and your potiental audience drops off.

All of which does not necessarily speak to quality, but just marketing and sustainability.

 

[Ourph]

If we were talking about a game without the history or brand recognition of Warhammer. As Pramas mentioend above, the d20 Black Company RPG essentially could serve as Warhammer.

I think you're missing the point. BC can't serve as Warhammer becaue it's not Warhammer mechanics. It may be "Warhammer-like" or it may be the closest thing in-print to "d20 Warhammer", but it's not Warhammer.

I think it would help clarify things if you answered my question from the previous post.

The core d20 game mechanics are an important part of the marketing brand for d20 RPGs. Part of the marketing strategy is giving people who like the d20 mechanics more of what they like. If enthusiasm for a specific set of rules mechanics can be a selling point for d20, what makes you think the same can't be true for other game mechanics.

The assumption that the only value in retaining mechanics for WFRP that are similar to the original WFRP mechanics is "nostalgia" or "brand continuity" and the complete dismissal of the possibility that the mechanics actually have some inherent value in and of themselves is just a type of high-browed d20 elitism AFAIAC. I sincerely hope that I'm misconstruing your comments and that's not the actual intent of what you're saying.

 

[Turjan]

The core d20 game mechanics are an important part of the marketing brand for d20 RPGs. Part of the marketing strategy is giving people who like the d20 mechanics more of what they like. If enthusiasm for a specific set of rules mechanics can be a selling point for d20, what makes you think the same can't be true for other game mechanics.

Just to stress this, I think the power curve that is inherent to d20 has been mentioned before. There is some wiggle room in the d20 mechanics, but most adaptations of d20 to a somewhat less steep power curve that I've seen did not look very convincing to me.

 

[buzz]

The assumption that the only value in retaining mechanics for WFRP that are similar to the original WFRP mechanics is "nostalgia" or "brand continuity" and the complete dismissal of the possibility that the mechanics actually have some inherent value in and of themselves is just a type of high-browed d20 elitism AFAIAC. I sincerely hope that I'm misconstruing your comments and that's not the actual intent of what you're saying.

What I'm saying (and what I think RyanD was saying), is that there is nothing going on mechanically in WFRP that couldn't be done with a d20 game. If you think that there is someting inherrently more "Warhammer" about rolling two d10s as oposed to one d20, then that's, IMO, your previous experience with the game kicking in.

What really makes WFRP, as I understand it, is the feel of the world; even many of the long-time WFRP fans in the playtest stated that there was nothing particularly special about the mechanics of WFRP1, it was the atmosphere that kept them interested. Mimicing this atmosphere is entirely possible using different mechanics (d20 or other). I mean, magic in WFRP2 works, mechanically, absolutely nothing like magic in WFRP1; it's a die pool, fer gosh sakes. I have yet to see anyone complaining that these mechanics "don't feel Warhammer".

Mechanics can have inherent value. Making Everway d20 would be pretty pointless, as there are mechanics (the cards) and goals (freeform storytelling and a lack of focus on advancement) that simply would not translate; something would be lost in the conversion.

WFRP, otoh, has, IMO, goals pretty similar to D&D, with the Renaissance and Cthulhu mixed in and the lethality level increased. Nothing about these elements ties it to its current mechanics; you could replicate them with others pretty easily. Doing so (dramatically, at least) would probably alienate the existing fanbase, though. And, just like d20, you probably want them to be able to port some of their exiting expertise over to the new system to encourage adoption.

 

[JohnSnow]

What I'm saying (and what I think RyanD was saying), is that there is nothing going on mechanically in WFRP that couldn't be done with a d20 game. If you think that there is someting inherrently more "Warhammer" about rolling two d10s as oposed to one d20, then that's, IMO, your previous experience with the game kicking in.

What he said.

Probability is probability. A 35% chance of success is a 35% chance of success whether I'm supposed to roll 35 or less on d100 or 14 or higher on a d20.

That said, WFRP fans want WFRP to be close to the game they remember. I don't think there's any theory that the newest edition of WFRP will expand the market for roleplaying games (or even Warhammer much), as opposed to selling to those who are/were already interested in it. Ditto that for the soon-to-be-released new edition of Tunnels & Trolls. Some people might buy it for the nostalgia factor, but I doubt many people new to the hobby will buy it. I could, of course, be wrong.

And I think that's Ryan's point. You can keep making these games, and their older audience will continue to play them, but if you want a growing business, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Staffan]

What he said.

Probability is probability. A 35% chance of success is a 35% chance of success whether I'm supposed to roll 35 or less on d100 or 14 or higher on a d20.

The question is (a) how you get those probabilities, and (b) how those probabilities interact with modifiers.
Let's take one D&D character and one GURPS character, in order to compare two relatively different systems. They're both climbers, and want to climb up a rock face. They both have a 75% chance of doing that. In D&D, that would be someone with Climb +9 versus a DC of 15 (very rough natural rock wall), while in GURPS it would be a Climb skill of 12.

Let's instead make things a little more difficult, by making them climb a stone wall - say, the wall in a dungeon. In D&D, you up the DC to 20, reducing the probability to 50%. In GURPS, a "stone wall" is -3 to Climb, which reduces the effective skill to 9. That's only a probability of 35-40%.

I'm not saying that either method is better, I'm just saying that the way modifiers interact are different.

 

[Ourph]

What I'm saying (and what I think RyanD was saying), is that there is nothing going on mechanically in WFRP that couldn't be done with a d20 game. If you think that there is someting inherrently more "Warhammer" about rolling two d10s as oposed to one d20, then that's, IMO, your previous experience with the game kicking in.

I think there's something inherently "Warhammer" about rolling vs. your own WS score to see if you "hit" independent of what your opponent might be doing or wearing (i.e. - there is no equivalent of Armor Class).

I think there's something inherently "Warhammer" about either having a skill or not (i.e. - no skill "ranks").

I think there's something inherently "Warhammer" about progression being tied to lifestyle
changes, rather than simply the acquisition of XP (i.e. - assemble the required equipment/training for your career before entering it, rather than the reverse).

There are lots more. Since you've played both WFRP and d20 games, I'm sure you're just as familiar with the differences in mechanics as I am.

Now I will be the first to admit you could take the SRD; fold, spindle and mutilate it into something wholly different; and come up with a game that reproduces those things using a d20 rather than a d10, but at that point any "networking efficiencies " your d20 game might have are basically gone. Any familiarity someone might have with D&D or any other SRD-based d20 game is going to do them little to no good in terms of being familiar with your "Warhammer" ruleset. If Ryan's earlier remark is accurate...

My thesis is that the differences in these games, which I maintain exist for a number of reasons other than a mechanical need to vary from D20, all made the market "inefficient" to some degree by limiting the portability of people's knowledge of how to play one game when they played another, and by segregating design talent into small slices of mecanics that could not feed back into each other smoothly to improve the overall game experience for all players.

...then making changes significant enough to "Warhammerize" d20 will re-introduce all of the inefficiencies that d20 and the OGL are supposed to be eliminating. I don't think there is any significant "networking efficiency" in simply using a d20 rather than a d10. In other words, if you change the d20 system enough to replicate the Warhammer system, you're really not designing based on the "d20 system" anymore, no matter what dice you use.

If the game is similar enough to the core d20 system outlined in the SRD that it actually retains those "networking efficiencies", then the mechanics are significantly different enough that (while you may be playing "d20 Warhammer") you're not really playing "Warhammer". For someone who plays Warhammer as much for the system as the setting, that's just not good enough.

What really makes WFRP, as I understand it, is the feel of the world; even many of the long-time WFRP fans in the playtest stated that there was nothing particularly special about the mechanics of WFRP1, it was the atmosphere that kept them interested.

This is the attitude that I have a real problem with. Many d20 fans feel that Warhammer (and CoC and Traveller and Gamma World and Runequest and etc.) are nothing more than cool settings/genres with inferior rulesets tacked on. Again, I call this d20 elitism in its most snobbish and unappealing form. I think lots of d20 fans and publishers would like to think that every other popular game made its mark only based on its "fluff" and not on having a well designed rule system and that the world will thank them when they swoop in and "save" the game by retaining the great fluff and replacing the "inferior", "unevolved" rules with a "better" system. Excellence in game design did not suddenly begin and just as abruptly end in the year 2000. :\

WFRP, otoh, has, IMO, goals pretty similar to D&D, with the Renaissance and Cthulhu mixed in and the lethality level increased. Nothing about these elements ties it to its current mechanics; you could replicate them with others pretty easily.

Exactly, the only thing you absolutely can't replicate about Warhammer with other mechanics is.....the Warhammer game mechanics. Which, IMHO, are vastly superior to the core d20 system in just about every aspect. I'm sure YM will V.