Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Remathilis]

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?

Yes. Exactly. Its about power.

A RH system gives more power to the players because they have a firmer grip on what they can do and have rules they can use to do them.

A RL system gives more power to the DM because he can adjunctate the game without being pounded to death by hundreds of rules.

I doubt there will ever be a happy medium.

 

[Quasqueton]

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?

I think it comes down to some are saying one is by definition better than the other. Or that one is by definition worse than the other. That one decreases imagination, or that one opens creativity.

I do not find that one increases the fun, nor that one decreases the fun.

Quasqueton

 

[ThirdWizard]

Doh! I'm still confused. I thought this was what you were saying. Do you read this as what I was saying?

Not at all. That was in response to Turanil's "So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim." To which I disagree, because that would imply to me that he believes that the PCs abilities are completely irrelevant to the game. I can't agree with that on principle.

I don't think "Saying it's all make-believe" is the same as saying "The GM railroads". The former is always true. GMs have power at the table, power to create things from whole cloth. (Hopefully the players do, too.) Nobody should be using this power to block out anyone else's creative input.

Agreed there. The world around the PCs (and its reaction to them) is entirely in the hands of the GM. This is not a bad thing.

I guess what I was saying is "Any game can be broken by the GM, or played well, and rules heavy systems require more effort to do both."

Hmm... well I'll say a good player/GM will be able to pull off either a rules-heavy or rules-lite system. A rules-heavy game can more easily hide a poor GM's bad abilities, as well.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Oh, well, there's a great point. A DM had a brainfart and that proves that the d20 mechanics raped his brain and made him stupid. Maybe I should put away my books before my mind is completely drained of intelligence? [/sarcasm]

Edit: Oh, and the concept that you have to charge along a straight battlegrid line is not in the rules. So using that as an example of bad rules is disingenuous.

Quasqueton

Never said the rules said you had to charge along straight battlegrid lines. What I did say was the way the rules were set up caused my friend's conception of in game actions to contract. Yes, it was a brain fart, but he NEVER would have thought such a thing playing AD&D.

 

[ThirdWizard]

As someone said back on page 2 or so, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion between rules lite and rules insufficient game systems. Neither the boulder nor the spotting the assassin example illustrates anything about rules light systems, as is claimed. They illustrate problems with rules insufficient systems instead.

Note that was in response to someone saying that all roleplaying is consists of DM fiat and railroadig. It was less to do with rules-lite systems and more illustrating a point. Like I said, the example given was largely irrelevant. Pick any situation that a lite system doesn't cover and use that.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?

From what I've read on these boards and elsewhere, that's how a lot of people play. I think some players would be pretty surprised if they saw how little was actually "behind the curtain".

 

[Desdichado]

Note that was in response to someone saying that all roleplaying is consists of DM fiat and railroadig. It was less to do with rules-lite systems and more illustrating a point. Like I said, the example given was largely irrelevant. Pick any situation that a lite system doesn't cover and use that.

If that's true, then can I paraphrase your statement into "All Rules Lite systems are insufficient?"

 

[Quasqueton]

Yes, it was a brain fart, but he NEVER would have thought such a thing playing AD&D.

You never would have charged in AD&D. There was no game mechanic for it. You would have just moved up and attacked -- something you can still do in D&D3.

Quasqueton

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Agreed there. The world around the PCs (and its reaction to them) is entirely in the hands of the GM. This is not a bad thing.

That's actually one of the things I think should change, and I don't play that way -- but that's totally off topic.

Hmm... well I'll say a good player/GM will be able to pull off either a rules-heavy or rules-lite system. A rules-heavy game can more easily hide a poor GM's bad abilities, as well.

Then I'll say "Then I'm not a good GM", because I run games the players love with light systems, and eh, am mediocre with the more complex ones.

And with that, I've proved I'm not qualified to continue the discussion, and I bow out. (Rules-light game to run tonight, best get ready.)

 

[Remathilis]

If that's true, then can I paraphrase your statement into "All Rules Lite systems are insufficient?"

You COULD go further and say "All Rules systems are insufficient" but RL seem by the nature to be moreso than RH.