Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Umbran]

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.

There is no objective definition of where the line between sufficient and insufficient lies. One man's light but sufficient is another man's insufficient. Not a matter of confustion as a difference of opinion.

 

[Turanil]

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.

What you want is a sense of verisimilitude that RH gives more than RL. However, RL doesn't mean there is no spot check involved to see the thief coming. For me rule-lite is about less calculations of squares, movement, bonus of this because of that, etc. Now in the RL system the assassin makes a stealth roll and the victim a detect roll all the same. And if the DM decides to kill the PC anyway, he uses potions of invisiblity, min-max the assassin and what not. Much more work, but in the end it's the DM who decides. A bad DM is bad whatever the rules, but a RH may give a sense of more structured play at the expense of speed.

 

[Andre]

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 suspect every group does this to some extent. It's the old 80/20 rule. 80% of gameplay uses 20% of the rules. Whether or not to use the other 80% is up to the individual group. 3E is so rules heavy, I doubt there is a single group on the face of the planet that uses 100% of the rules (even if they could somehow collect them all in one place, resolve the contradictions between various published sources, etc). My group certainly doesn't.

Is it easier to start with a rules-lite system and add some complexity myself, or start with a rules-heavy system and strip out some of the complexity? Probably the latter. For instance, my group recently gave up on AoO's for movement - it slowed down play too much for the benefit. Yes, it's changed gameplay somewhat, but not dramatically. Trying to add such a mechanic to a lighter system would be more difficult (which brings to mind the comment about GM's needing to be game designers posted earlier). But if I were to game with another group, I would still know how AoO's work, which is a benefit of rules-heavy systems.

When is a rules-heavy system too much? When finding a rule is takes more time than it's worth. Note, you don't have to have all the rules memorized, but the GM does need to find them in a reasonable amount of time. This is an area where a good rules-lite system is inherently superior to its rules-heavy competition. But that's no excuse for the disorganized 3.x core books. Hero is certainly not rules-lite, but I have no problem finding what I need quickly. In 3.x? Just figuring out which book has which rules can be an exercise in illogic. Rules-heavy systems can be usuable, but they require more organization and play aids for that purpose.

 

[howandwhy99]

I play in both a rules lite game and a rules heavy 3.5 game. Both every couple of weeks. Character creation takes considerably longer with 3.5. I use Heroforge and have used multiple other chargen software too. This cuts the time down considerably, but it still takes 5-10 minutes even if you have every feat, skill, and piece of equipment memorized.

In our rules light game it takes us less than 30 seconds without a computer. (practically nothing with one). This includes equipment purchasing and background. I'm not joking. Granted people often spend more time writing up a detailed background and personality after the fact. But these tend to be more important during the play of the character than most games.

Both games are fun, but we spend the majority of time in each doing vastly different activities. Each game's play tends to focus on what their rules engender. Our 3.5 game has several rule wiz players in it. Plus we prep a lot in terms of spells on hand, power descriptions, etc. This really cuts down on rule questions (and look ups). However, we focus mostly on what skill, feat, spell, or power will help us accomplish our PC's goals. There is a lot of roleplaying still, but the rules are prominent.

Our rules light game has never needed a player to open a book to check on a rule. (not to my knowledge anyway and after 20 sessions) Play is as fast and as intense as we can muster with our voices and brainpower. It rarely touches on the abilities of the characters. More often play is tactical and decision making. It is tightly designed and reminiscent of the old Avalon Hill wargames. There is also a lot of in character discussion. We have had multiple 15+ round combats in single 6 hour sessions with hours of time left for more play. Now we have reached 11 players the combat length has extended some, but pacing hasn't slowed.

Both of the games are very good and run excellently. Both do their own thing well. But having played many many different systems myself, it's apparent they are also wildly divergent. Yet they are both D&D.

Go figure.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In our rules light game it takes us less than 30 seconds without a computer. (practically nothing with one). This includes equipment purchasing and background.

I'm not entirely sure what manner of character background I could come up with in 30s ... If I tried, I'd imagine it would sound an awful lot like an improv class prompt: "OK, your mother's a harlot, your father's a drunkard, and you've always wanted to study magic but never had the money to do so. Go!" :\

 

[Staffan]

I'll refrain form the classic C&C/D&D 3.X and instead go for my favorite, the d6 SW vs d20 SW for an example.

I can create a non-jedi PC in d20 in 5 minutes. Any level. A jedi takes 10-15. I cannot create any character in d6 under 15 min, despite having alot less steps to go through.

I don't have much, if any, experience with SWd20, but I find it hard to believe that it would take less time to make a character than "Choose a template, split up 7D worth of skills, and make up a name."

While d6 is a lighter system (one mechanic, etc) combat takes ungodly long. Roll to hit. Roll to dodge. Compare rolls to find how hit you are. Roll damage. Soak damage. Repeat. d20? Roll to hit. Compare d20 roll + mods to Defense. Roll damage. Subtract from vitality/wound. Repeat.

In D6, you roll Dodge once per round, not per attack. So that takes slightly longer, but not that much longer. And you don't have lots of hp, so fights tend to be over sooner for that reason.

Can I swing across a chasm with a princess in my arms while dodging blaster fire?

That one's a poor example, since it's spelled out in the rules: "Swinging across a shaft in the Death Star on a rope with a princess in your arms" is the example used for a Difficult (16-20) climbing/jumping roll. Since you're dodging at the same time, you get -1D to your skill (for performing multiple actions).

 

[ThirdWizard]

What you want is a sense of verisimilitude that RH gives more than RL. However, RL doesn't mean there is no spot check involved to see the thief coming. For me rule-lite is about less calculations of squares, movement, bonus of this because of that, etc. Now in the RL system the assassin makes a stealth roll and the victim a detect roll all the same. And if the DM decides to kill the PC anyway, he uses potions of invisiblity, min-max the assassin and what not. Much more work, but in the end it's the DM who decides. A bad DM is bad whatever the rules, but a RH may give a sense of more structured play at the expense of speed.

I'm saying that the rules-lite system makes me fiat the game more than I would like. If there is no resoultion system for a particular scenario, then the system has forced the GM to railroad the PCs whether he wants to or not. He can say that they get a 50/50 chance to see the assassin, but still, that's fiat. In D&D, you will build the rogue/assassin, determine ranks in Move Silently, the PCs will have ranks in Listen if they put points in it, they can cast spells like see invisibility, and personally, I find this more enjoyable than a simple 50/50 chance of hearing the assassin (or whatever I decide that day).

 

[Staffan]

Well, they recreated ther hottest-selling campiagn setting and novel series, Dragonlance, as a rules-liteish RPG called SAGA, and we all know what a huge success that was.

Dragonlance was by no means a "hottest-selling" campaign setting, which is probably why it was cancelled before they turned it into SAGA.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm not entirely sure what manner of character background I could come up with in 30s ... If I tried, I'd imagine it would sound an awful lot like an improv class prompt: "OK, your mother's a harlot, your father's a drunkard, and you've always wanted to study magic but never had the money to do so. Go!" :\

Roll a percentile for me...

EDIT: Or pick or make your own.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Beginning characters don't have a background. Background and story is what you have when you are 10th level looking back on your adventure career.