Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[mcrow]

It's the only ojbective measure of a game's sucess. There are many, many subjective measures, but sales is the only real objective one.

I'm not debating sucess of a game but just the facts of how the mechanics and char gen work in response to Ryan saying that "light" systems are not faster and do not have a lower learning curve than d20.


Any old average system (@ that time anyway)that had the D&D logo on it would have done just as well given the same resources.

 

[fredramsey]

I'm not debating sucess of a game but just the facts of how the mechanics and char gen work in response to Ryan saying that "light" systems are not faster and do not have a lower learning curve than d20.

And on that note... We're back on topic!

 

[scadgrad]

Or, we could always use the other common definition of the terms:

"Lite" = RPGs I like.
"Heavy" = RPGs I don't.

Yeah, let's use that one.

 

[buzz]

There's something about being first, but it's not everything you think it is either.

Bingo. If it was all about being first, Superhero 2044 would be the supers RPG of chocie, and all the pulp fans would be playing FGU's Daredevils.

Ditto brands. You can't build a brand on a crappy product. The Champions brand (arguably the best-known SHRPG brand, at least until maybe M&M) certainly didn't help Cybergames' Fuzion-based Champions: The New Millenium line become any less of a disaster. And let us not venture into talk of AD&D2e. Even WFRP was out of print for a while.

 

[Gentlegamer]

So, your complaint is about tabletop RPGs are like video games specifically modeled after tabletop RPGs? Seems like a bit of chicken-and-egg here to me.

Here's what I am saying: A RPG game system that actually makes use of a Game Master to arbitrate the game (including ad hoc decision making on action resolutions) doesn't translate well into a computer game that is marketed under the RPG's brand name. Such a hypothetical video game cannot really be true to its source since the "rules" for so many types of actions are not usually codified. That is, this kind of RPG relies on a real live Game Master performing tasks that are impossible to model in a video game.

"Rules heavy" system that have an outlined rule for everything can be translated to computer games much easier (including lots of number crunching and calculations).

Video games are highly profitable. In order to tap into this profit, a RPG publisher creates a system that is more adaptable to that format as a source. The result is a paper RPG that itself feels like playing a video game, in may ways. For example, I don't think it is not a mere coincidence that Everquest found the d20 system so suitable when translating the video game to paper RPG.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Bingo. If it was all about being first, Superhero 2044 would be the supers RPG of chocie, and all the pulp fans would be playing FGU's Daredevils.

Ditto brands. You can't build a brand on a crappy product. The Champions brand (arguably the best-known SHRPG brand, at least until maybe M&M) certainly didn't help Cybergames' Fuzion-based Champions: The New Millenium line become any less of a disaster. And let us not venture into talk of AD&D2e. Even WFRP was out of print for a while.

All of these are RPGs. What was the FIRST RPG?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Moogle: I'm talking about video games based on a paper RPG source.

Final Fantasy outsells D&D brand electronic games, although both are hugely successful. Presumably, to maximize the sales of D&D brand electronic games, those dreadful money-grubbers at Wizards would have made paper D&D more like Final Fantasy.

That is, light, fast combat with a strong emphasis on basic attacks, little attention to location and movement and a simple magic system, with no out-of-combat resolution mechanic.

Something akin to a combination of the rules-litest aspects BD&D and Tri-Stat.

Something absolutely not akin to D&D 3.x.

Of course, since Wizards makes exactly $0.00 off the sale of D&D brand electronic games (as Hasbro no longer has the rights to said brand), they have no incentive to do either. :\

I suggest falling back on the WotC made 3.x rules-heavy to sell miniatures.

Because we all know that the Warhammer and War Machine rules are far more complex than, say, AD&D.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

All of these are RPGs. What was the FIRST RPG?

Tunnels and Trolls

http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/tandt.htm

 

[Quasqueton]

Start with a "rules lite" game system. The system covers 80% of a player's game experience.

Group 1:
When the players want to try stuff not covered by the system, the DM has to come up with rules for it. Once a rule is formed, the DM adds it to the list of house rules for future reference, should the situation come up again.

After 100 game sessions, that 20% has come up quite often. The DM's house rules list has grown quite a bit. The DM's game is now rules lite (80%) with house rules (20%). He looks at the "rules heavy" game system and sees that all of his house rules are included in the core rules (100%). So the group "upgrades" to the new game system.

The group is happy with the new rules because nothing has gotten harder, and the DM's job has gotten easier.


Group 2:
Start with a "rules lite" game system. The system covers 80% of a player's game experience.

Either the players never think of or attempt something not covered by the system (the 20%), or they consciously or subconsciously limit themselves to stuff covered in the system (the 80%). [If grappling is not mentioned in the rules, do the players not think to try it, or do they ignore/avoid that option?] So the "missing" 20% is never actually missed.

Someone sees the "rules heavy" game system, sees all these new options (the 20%) available, and the group upgrades to the new game system. Now everyone wants to try all these new options. The group no longer just attacks, attacks, attacks. Now everyone is bullrushing, grappling, and disarming. The 20% suddenly becomes so much more important. The 20% seems more like 50% now.

Everyone starts pining for the old days when things were simpler. "Rules lite worked fine for us."


So, for Group 1, "rules heavy" was a good change. For Group 2, "rules heavy" was a bad change. One group saw the old cup as half empty, and now sees the cup as full at last. The other group saw the cup as having plenty, and now sees the cup twice as full as it needs to be - and they feel that they *must* drink the whole thing.

Quasqueton

 

[diaglo]

Here's a simple test:

Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.

OD&D 1974 - 1979+ a little over 5 years.