Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[fredramsey]

I'm afraid that is putting words in the rules-lite game's mouth.

Rules-lite systems I have seen cover the basics. Notice being one of them. They just might not have 5 different ways of going about it.

In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.

In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.

If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.

EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Of course. But, that's going into railroading. Most people on these boards hate railroading, and you are indirectly advocating it through your scenario. What the GM determines is the best solution, whether or not the PCs have spent resources (points in Strength) or not (points in something else) is irrelevant. The situation is taken out of the PCs hands and put into that of the GM, making their abilities and actions largely irrelevant.

This is perfectly valid, but not my playstyle.

I'm realllllly not expressing myself well, I think. My apologies.

Part of this is my lack of ability to relate to the whole "Well, then it's just GM fiat" argument. We have as much "Player fiat" in the games I run, if anything. I give players pretty broad narration rights. I don't have prepared plots, and the players are responsible for deciding the direction they want to take their characters. So if you're reading what I'm saying as advocating railroading, we've got a big disconnect.

I'm not saying anything about what the best solution is. I am saying that it's the responsibility of the GM to come up with challenging, interesting situations. I sort of assumed that "what the GM determines is the best solution" isn't done anymore.

I probably got off track with the whole silly boulder scenario. Someone was advocating "The rules should handle X specifically", where X was "how much can a character lift". What I was trying to say was, why is X so important that it's front and center stage? If it's part of an interesting conflict (or challenge, or whatever), then assign a difficulty. If it's not, then it's not worth spending "screen time" on.

Help me out here. Are you saying that if I go "Oh, those are pretty heavy, DC 25", instead of having predetermined the size of boulders that might fall randomly based on the stone makeup of the tunnel, that I'm railroading? I feel a little lost here.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.

Can I see an example of something you would do in a rules-lite game but not in D&D?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm afraid that is putting words in the rules-lite game's mouth.

Rules-lite systems I have seen cover the basics. Notice being one of them. They just might not have 5 different ways of going about it.

Like I said, the example wasn't important. He just didn't like the boulder example for some reason.

Do you share the oppinion that all actions in the game are actually GM railroading and rules-heavy systems are just trying to cover up this fact?

 

[fredramsey]

My Conclusion

Well, this has been about as fruitful as a version war.

We each have our preferences, and our levels of tolerance for trying new things. Some of us have never tried X, and are sure they wouldn't like it. Some of us have tried X, Y, and Z, and have settled on X.

And, like in version wars, nothing that is said here by anyone is going to change anyone's mind.

Personally, I don't know how these things suck me in, but they do.

Whatever game you play, have fun, and you'll be doing it correctly.

Over and out.

 

[RFisher]

I don't really disagree with the Dancey quote. The complexity of the rules is, for the most part, othogonal to how easy the game is to learn. e.g. I would never give Fudge or Risus to a group of novices. Now, Fudge is actually a pretty great first system if you've got an experience GM. But, guess what, that's pretty much true of every game.

As Eric Noah pointed out, how fast you play the game really isn't an important metric. It is also somewhat orthogonal to complexity. It will take me a lot longer to create a RAW Fudge PC than a D&D3e PC because Fudge doesn't lay out some options for me to use as starting points. I actually have to spend time coming up with a character concept.

(Please note that I don't consider either better. I actually prefer having almost no character concept & letting the concept evolve with the character rather than having a concept up front.)

& even beyond chargen, I don't prefer lighter systems because I think they save time in play.

It is certainly true that its easier to figure out how to build a business off a complex system than a simple one. I believe it is possible for the publisher of a simple roleplaying game to be successful, although it may require measuring success in different terms than Hasbro does.

Though, business models don't matter much to me, & as much as it would sadden me, I think the hobby could survive the death of the industry.

 

[Desdichado]

Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.

I don't. Not picking on any one person, as I've got no idea who's said this, but a common complaint (or perhaps insult) from rules lite folks is that rules heavy systems cater to gamers with little imagination who can't think of things to do with their character unless it's spelled out for them. And then ironically, those same folks seem to be stymied that they can't figure out how to do something that's not specifically called out in the rules of a game like d20. Who is it that lacks imagination again?

To me, d20--five foot squares, move equivalent actions, attacks of opportunity, etc. and all, is one of the most robust toolsets out there for doing any action I (or my players) can imagine. We have games that range from fragile, PC-death horror games to games that would make any Feng Shui player proud, all using the d20 tools at our disposal, and without turning into micromanagement of rules and books. As has been said more than once in this thread, it's more about the personality and taste of the players in question than anything else. Yes, we could be little d20 accountants, cross-checking every point of Difficulty Class against the rules, or we could accept that for some wild, swashbuckling attack by swinging in on a rope, smashing your feet into the orc's face and knocking him off of the balcony -- "uh, make a Use Rope check DC 20, and if you're successful, you can make a Bull Rush attempt with a +3 circumsance bonus."

We prefer the latter. And for us, d20 offers a very robust toolset with which to work.

 

[NewLifeForm]

Can only comment on my own experience...

IME, setup usually takes the same amount of time regardless of the system, as long as you aren't figuring out the total encumberance for every item that every NPC is carrying

Generally speaking, I play a sort of rules-lite D&D 3E, with a lot of stuff left by the wayside because it slows down play (fatigue, encumberance, cover and the like are handled off the cuff and follow common sense more then rules).

I don't agree that play is the same however. Most rules-lite games (Risus, TFOS, Sketch, Fudge and it's variants, Original D6 Star Wars, etc.) do play alot faster. With these games there is little to no looking up rules in the middle of play and no charts. I find there are few arguements, though this is mostly because those players who want to play a rules-lite games expect the GM to wing it.

My main question with Mr. Dancey's experiment is whether the players were given Toon and like Rolemaster ( The Game for People who Enjoy Charts(TM) ). If I slow down to look something up, it ruins the often manic flavor of my games and my players will think I'm getting old and losing my touch (well not re...actually yes, they would think that). That is of course, my players. This may not be true with all groups and certainly your speed and mileage may vary.

I happen to be startng a new campaign with my group this Sunday after not having run anything with them in almost a year (I've been running pick-up games with my wife and some other friends). The campaign is set in Terry Pratchett's Discworld universe. The system is homebrew, but largely resembles a more detailed Risus or simplified WEG D6 system. Why this system? It's easy for me as the GM to create NPCs, combat is quick and my group is more concerned with the story and doing cool and dramatic stuff then they are with rules.

NewLifeForm
"The Plays the Thing..."

 

[Gentlegamer]

Can I see an example of something you would do in a rules-lite game but not in D&D?

Finish combat in a timely manner! *zing!*

Seriously though, you can do anything in both. The point I make is that the more rules there are, the more likely they are to constrict and guide your conceptualizing in game actions. They also can encourage the GM to dissallow actions not explicitly allowed or spelled out by the game.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't really disagree with the Dancey quote. The complexity of the rules is, for the most part, othogonal to how easy the game is to learn. e.g. I would never give Fudge or Risus to a group of novices. Now, Fudge is actually a pretty great first system if you've got an experience GM. But, guess what, that's pretty much true of every game.

Whereas I, on the other hand, introduced my smallish children to roleplaying games with The Window, which is equally non-complex, and I'd recommend a similar set-up to any RPG novice. And I did it without using fancy words like orthogonal (what's wrong with perpendicular, anyway?)