Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[ThirdWizard]

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

More like "Rules-lite systems make it inherently more difficult for players to control the outcome of situations than rules-heavy systems. From my own personal standpoint, this doesn't give me enough satisfaction in playing the game because I feel less threatend by it."

I GM more than I act as a player, by the way. As a GM, I want less "power" in game so I can concentrate more on the game than figuring out how things should work. I like the fact, for example, that there is a jump skill the players can use to tell me if they make the jump or not so that I don't have to worry about such things. As a player, I like it because I know that my decision to put points in jump helped me cross this ledge (or likewise, my decison not to led to me falling).

 

[Gentlegamer]

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

Maybe you would have never charged . . . we weren't limited by what the game spelled out. At any rate, we had played lots of Zeb the Destroyer AD&D, which certainly did have a rule for charging during combat.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.)

I can't count the number of times I've posted here instead of prepare for a game.

 

[Psion]

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

Ahem.

I as a GM prefer rules heavy. Because I feel many creative heads are better than one and I appreciate the benefit of forthought, and I feel as if the players deserve to have a small handle on the rules of reality, and because I am a setting-driven GM vice story driven.

I also don't buy into the mentality that in heavier systems, if it's not in the rules you can't do it. If anything, quite the opposite. Already having several examples in place of how the system handles a variety of situations, and given a flexible baseline system, it is that much clearer to me to handle similar situations and not feeling like I am simply throwing caution to the wind.

As the sig says, I use the rules, not let the rules use me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

we weren't limited by what the game spelled out. At any rate, we had played lots of Zeb the Destroyer AD&D, which certainly did have a rule for charging during combat.

Quoted for irony.

 

[Desdichado]

I GM more than I act as a player, by the way. As a GM, I want less "power" in game so I can concentrate more on the game than figuring out how things should work. I like the fact, for example, that there is a jump skill the players can use to tell me if they make the jump or not so that I don't have to worry about such things. As a player, I like it because I know that my decision to put points in jump helped me cross this ledge (or likewise, my decison not to led to me falling).

My position exactly. Of course, all of my players also DM/GM as much as I do, so that probably changes the way we play somewhat.

 

[buzz]

What I'm trying to say is that it's entirely possible to play a challenging, believable game where the mechanics handle "can you achieve your goal", without knowing concrete specifics about everything.

True dat.

I think that rules "lite" can be successful as long as the game isn't also trying to be simulationist. In a simulationist game, a PC being able to jump a chasm possibly takes into account their Str, the width of the chasm, the amount of wind, whether the PC gets a running start, the surface being jumped onto, etc.

In a narrativist game, it will matter more if it's dramatically appropriate for the PC to succeed on the jump, or if they have a trait/stat/advantage like "Will Not Rest Until Father Is Avenged" or something.

In the former case, there's kind of a disconnect; how "realistic" is it if it's the GM who determines whether the jump succeeds? In the latter, the player is empowered a bit more, and it doesn't seem "unrealistic" if the mechanic is dead simple. Sure there's still a lot of DM fiat, but it seems a better starting point, IMO.

 

[rogueattorney]

You never would have charged in AD&D. There was no game mechanic for it.

???
There certainly was one in 1e.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

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

Yes, there were rules for charging in AD&D. In first and second edition.

 

[buzz]

I was saying that what RD and MM have been saying gives the appearance of d20 not only being more popular (which it is), but feels the need to put down so-called "rules lite" systems.

I still don't think they're really "putting down" anything. The main thrust of the argument is success in the market, not the quality of the design.

This paints them with the Microsoft vs. the world brush (as an aside, I don't view MS as the big, bad evil thing Linux people make it out to be).

Okay, someone in the game industry has been compared to Microsoft. I think we can end the thread now.

How much would WOTC suffer if Dragon magazine contained stories dealing with other systems, like it did long ago? Would that suddenly make D&D less popular? I seriously doubt it.

WotC might not suffer, but Paizo certainly would. Even covering other d20 games in Dungeon turned out to be hurting sales. Dragon readers have overwhelimngly pushed for the magazine of be all-D&D, all the time.