Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Remathilis]

Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).

Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.

ThirdWizard wins.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

FWIW, my experience has shown been that over the long haul, there is little or no difference between rules-light and rules-heavy in terms of in-game vs. out-of-game activity. Rules-light might have a slight early advantage, but the inevitable house rules and arguments once the players stretch their wings eventually suck up whatever savings their might have been.

What it boils down to for me is that subtraction is easier than addition both for the DM and the players. In other words, in the long run I am better off simplifying a rules-heavy game for newbies and gradually lettting them get up to speed on the full ruleset than I am if I engage in perpertual ad-hockery once they've hit the limits of what a rules-light game provides.

This is also a significant reduction in the learning curve when mutliple people DM, or when players migrate from group to group. This is I think is the real advantage of d20.

 

[ThirdWizard]

ThirdWizard wins.

What's my prize?

 

[Pants]

BG is a 2nd Edition game.

[/pendantic]

BG2 is a combination 2e/3e game. It has monks, barbarians, and sorcerers after all.

Hm, I like D&D 3e. I like having options that help me build the character I want. Sure, I could just say that my fighter character spent years on the street learning to fight and stealing before becoming a squire to a noble knight, but I actually like having the rules back this up. Sure, a rules-lite game could achieve this, but usually its up to the DM to say 'Okay, you know how to pick pockets or such-n-such...'

Some people prefer rules-lite (I'll leave the definition of what that is to others...) and others like rules-heavy. I'd much rather play a rules-heavy game, BUT if I ever met a GM who was willing to work with a rules-lite system to allow me to build the character that I wanted, I wouldn't be adverse to trying. But there's no way in hell I'll go back to the 2e way of things, where 'all fighters are the same.'

2e may not be rules-lite, but it was liter than 3e...

 

[Ace]

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.

I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.

In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.

What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).

Games really are a short term thing anyway. Like any hobby it has fads and they come andgo -- WEG Star Wars one day -- RIFTS another. Few systems are evergreen and fewer still are played after 5 or so years. Unless your game is D&D odds are each year past the first 3 less groups play it -- yes there is probably at least one group playing Melanda and a few folks still play Dragon Quest or Powers and Perils but the "fad" has past -- heck even D&D is subject to the fad. OD&D is still played exclusivly by some as is 2e and 1e and the like

Now as for your 5 year mark, the Buffy RPG and Cinematic Unisystem is quite well supported.
It is more than 3 years old thus far and has 5 supplements (1 is a screen and 1 is a journal) and with 2 more in playtest/approvals -- There is a spin off game (Angel) with 1 supplement (a GM Screen) with supplements for that in approvals/playtest as well .
Arguably Army of Darkness (which uses the same system) could be counted as support since crossovers are discussed in the rules.

There is also Ghosts of Albion in playest which has good crossover posisblity. Oh yeah there are 2 issues so far of a supplement/magazine with more support and an adventure in Game Trader --

Thats a lot of support. How sustained this will be is up in the air but I suspect once Eden produces more non liscensed content (ala Beyond Human) it will have a decent life cycle. I am quite sure that it will make the five year limit easy

Risus which is ultra rules lite is sizable web community as well -- Risus is too small to print since the rules can fit on a 5" by 8" card

None of these games meet or exceed D&D in sales but in since gaming started only White Wolf's storyteller has come close of ANY game. Even rules heavy stuff (GURPS and Rolemaster) don't come close

D&D/D20 is the brand for most gamers. The bulk of the rest are into WOD, often the LARP version

The thing is gaming is not one single consolidated hobby ala Hackmaster in the KODT verse. It is several sub hobbies who often play together --

Some games group (mine) dislike tactical wargaming and are perfectly happy with GM arbitration as long as it enhances fun. Rules lite is fine for them

Others want Narrative systems ala Risus, Wushu or Story Engine. These are the rarest group but they do exist

Many gamers are unhappy with that much roleplaying or storytelling and want a minis driven game and rules for most situations. D&D is a better fit for them

The thing is it can be hard to get enough gamers to play any games together, much less oddball systems

IME gamers often play D&D as the least objectionable choice -- One or more gamers always seem to hate the pet game of another gamer and won't play it period.
Since a compromise needs to be reached D&D is the default choice. It is familiar and OK to most people.

An analogy -- You and 5 friends want to go out to eat.
One wants Thai, one wants Mexican, 3 want American and 1 wants Chinese. Since some of the people won't eat Thai, Mexican or Chinese the group ends up at Burger King. Only part of the group really wanted burgers but no one refused them either.

I think that game publishers and writers (including myself) overestimate the amount of satisfaction that people get from D&D --

I would bet in many groups there are at least one or two players who would prefer another system or style at least part of the time . The difficulty in getting a group together can make it hard to make that happen so they suck it up and play D&D.

At least thats better than not playing

As for the market-- This is my opinion gaming is a fan hobby with room for 2 (maybe 3 if the numbers of gamers grows) main companies with real employees, a few part time print companies and lots of lots cost of entry PDF companies, a few of which will make a living for the owner

This is a healthy vibrant market and provides ample support for all types of gamers.

Now we as gamers need to get people away from Evercrack and LARPing and to the table but beyond that its a pretty good setup

JMO I don't think the market will change much in the next few years -- D&D on top, WW in second everyone else bringing up the rear -- its been that way for more than 10 years or more

I would love to get a million more players for alternate systems but given the limits of the hobby the current set up is pretty sweet

 

[JamesDJarvis]

....
2e may not be rules-lite, but it was liter than 3e...

Really? How about when you factor in the skills and powers books? Or the two or three variants on running in the PHB and so on

 

[Desdichado]

Noted and filed. :\

OK. :\ It would have been nice if you could have addressed my questions though--y'know, in the interest of promoting better communication and understanding or something. It seems you made a claim based on some information which was shown to be faulty, but you stuck to your claim anyway. I don't know what you're trying to say--or perhaps more accurately, I don't see any evidence of anything you're trying to say. I'm still trying to reach some understanding here of what you're getting at, though. It's quite possible that I'm just not seeing something obvious--it happens to me all the time.

 

[Desdichado]

IME gamers often play D&D as the least objectionable choice -- One or more gamers always seem to hate the pet game of another gamer and won't play it period.
Since a compromise needs to be reached D&D is the default choice. It is familiar and OK to most people.

An analogy -- You and 5 friends want to go out to eat.
One wants Thai, one wants Mexican, 3 want American and 1 wants Chinese. Since some of the people won't eat Thai, Mexican or Chinese the group ends up at Burger King. Only part of the group really wanted burgers but no one refused them either.

I think that game publishers and writers (including myself) overestimate the amount of satisfaction that people get from D&D --

I completely agree and I've always had the nagging perspective that that was the missing element from the market research Dancey unveiled vs. anecdotal "common knowledge" on various Internet RPG discussion forums.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Having more options will limit what you are capable of more than having less options? I disagree.

More rules = more options? I think not. When the concept of RPGs was explained to me years ago, it was something like this:

You can do anything. You pretend like you are there. You aren't limited to stay "on the board."

My first "rpg" sessions were exactly like this: my friend was DM, and I was the player. We had no rules (didn't have a copy of D&D). He drew dungeons and I was a warrior or thief or wizard (changed each time). He adjudicated whatever actions I wanted without dice or set rules, just his judgement. Those sessions were the most pure and "outside the box" RPG sessions I have ever participated in. We were quite creative at 11 years old.

When I finally had a copy of the D&D rules, I became more constrained. As time went on, my players (whom I had taught to play RPGs) and I became more and more constrained in what we conceptualized within the game because we were used to thinking in "rules terms."

A several years ago, I came full circle when I realized how much my involvement with the rules had come to guide my thinking. Seeing the rules for what they are, I was able to break free and become a better GM and better player, often surprising other GMs with my "creative" thinking while participating as a player character.

EDIT: It's completely baed on the players not the rule system. A group of players who likes to do weird and crazy stunts will do so in a lite system or a heavy system. A group of players who doesn't like to do weird and crazy stunts won't do so in either system. A bad GM will flounder when the PCs break outside the box in either case, and a good GM will be able to run with it under either system.

Rules tend to train you to think in terms of the rules. The fewer rules in general, the less constraint.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Wow, your smugness is amazing dude. I mean, really, I thought *I* was arrogant.

I am smug and arrogant because I am always right. Always. Any indications that I may be wrong, well, I refer you back to step one.

Instead of grabbing the first 80 pounds worth of gaming material you use per session (because its "consistent", of course!) and beating them over the head with it, try to listen sometimes.

I did. I'll get to the specific response in a moment.

And just so you dont categorically dismiss my commentary as sour grapes or the shrill cry of another rules-lite emmisary, I can tell you right now I am running a D20 Star Wars game right now and loving it.

Cool. Say, I created some d20 SW Starship Control sheets. I'd appreciate whatever input you might have regarding them!

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=138755

Now that we're done with the preliminaries, I wonder if you actually read my post or the posts to which I was responding.

Some specifics are:

You know, the more I read about this guy, the more I think he is a total boob.

It's all hot air, he's just trying to model a "study" after a premeditated conclusion.

like some kind of spoiled children. ... Am I the only one who sees their statements as juvenile and pointless?

Ryan Dancey is a putz!

Admittedly, the last was actually a response to my post - as was yours.

Now, let's go back to what *I* said:

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.

Note, in my post, that there is absolutely no value judgement of those who enjoy rules-light games - heck, I'll play anything once or twice, given the chance.

Instead, there is a value judgement of those who enjoy rules-light games and are using this as an excuse for personal attacks on Ryan Dancey and Mike Mearls.

In other words, your criticism of me is not only misplaced, it's also nonsensical. The only thing I could be logically accused of is hyperbole in my last sentence - there actually is a good amount of "Huh - I don't agree with his results / they don't match my experience"-style commentary, all of which was enlightening to read.

Some posters, however, couldn't contain themselves with attacking the position, and decided to attack the person instead. I called them on it.