Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[BluSponge]

I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options.

Let me turn that around on you. One of the most frusterating experiences I had as a GM (in an RPGA event, no less) was trying to run a chase scene between the party and a halfling wererat in the middle of an orchard. While I'm describing the little bugger darting in and out between the trees at a full run, I was immediately corrected that no, he had to run in a straight line. Once he'd reached the end of his full move, THEN he could turn, but not before.

Naturally, the PCs caught him in one round and laid him out. So much for drama.

Didn't ruin my game, but it's a good example of how rules can just as easily become a straight jacket (especially in RPGA games, where rule #0 is a big no no!).

Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.

That just shows a lack of out-of-the-box thinking on the part of your players.

Another pull-your-hair-out moment from the RPGA:

I'm helping run a big battle royale between squads of humanoids and groups of players (about 20 groups of 6, IIRC). I came across this one group. An ogre had them pinned down and was making quick work of them. All the while, hiding beneath a cart in the midst of the battle is a halfling thief (being played by a young kid, maybe 13-14). I watch the scene for a few minutes and then suggest the kid have his character hampstring the ogre (who was standing right there -- would have been an easy mark).

"I can't," says the kid. "I don't have that feat."

You can do any of these things in any rules lite game. You describe what you want to do, the GM sets the target number, and then describes the result if you succeed. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

Tom

 

[Staffan]

I call total BS on this. DL started the current trend of setting/novel cross-selling, and the books routinely make the NYT best-seller list. Brand city.

The novels sold (and sell) well. The game stuff didn't.

I remember reading comments from Steve Miller (who was pretty involved in the whole SAGA thing) to the effect that the series of events at TSR went something like this: 1. Dragonlance is cancelled as a campaign setting. 2. Some people at TSR make a rules-light story-focused game they call SAGA. 3. Someone says, "Hey, no-one's using Dragonlance, so why don't we use that as the setting for this game?".

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Something I don't get, which may just be my own perspective getting in the way, is why rules-light games are perceived as "Cops & Robbers".

Probably for the same basic reason that rules-light fans assert that all rules-heavy games stifle creativity and encourage munchkinism, are not fun, are not the "true" game, etc. etc.. Basically, it's an inability to recognize that one's own opinion is not a universal truth.

 

[BryonD]

Probably for the same basic reason that rules-light fans assert that all rules-heavy games stifle creativity and encourage munchkinism, are not fun, are not the "true" game, etc. etc.. Basically, it's an inability to recognize that one's own opinion is not a universal truth.

Can't really agree with you on this one.
I don't offer any challenge to the preference to rule lights vs rules heavy.
It comes down to the frequency of arbitrary judgements.
Where one prefers to be on the scale of frequency is certainly an opinion with no right or wrong.
But where a given ruleset falls on the scale has much less to do with opinion.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

In my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.

In my experience, it doesn't.

So much for arguments based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And its a poor one at that.

Most rules lite games call for die rolls or tests only when the action is difficult in nature. So you wouldn't make a die roll to notice that the farmer is milking a black cow. But a sneaking assassin would definitely require a (likely opposed) test. At least that's been the case with EVERY rules light game I've played/read (Over the Edge, Talislanta, SAGA, R.I.P., etc.).

Tom

Yes, even FUDGE has stealth options (though on opposed rolls); replace it with sundering items rules, jumping rules, lifting and carrying rules, creation of magical items rules, etc etc etc. Basically even though I said it is just an out there example to illustrate a point, you latched onto the example itself, which completely overlooks my point.

My point: Rules-lite systems use more GM fiat than rules-heavy systems. Yes, that's it. Check out who I was replying to.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Can't really agree with you on this one.
I don't offer any challenge to the preference to rule lights vs rules heavy.
It comes down to the frequency of arbitrary judgements.
Where one prefers to be on the scale of frequency is certainly an opinion with no right or wrong.
But where a given ruleset falls on the scale has much less to do with opinion.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my assertion that rules-light and rules-heavy fans simply don't see that their opinions are subjective truths valid for them, but not for everyone. One side says "your game sucks, because rules-light is no fun!" while the other side says "no, your game sucks, because rules-heavy is no fun!" No one can assert what is or isn't fun for someone else. That's my point.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Can't really agree with you on this one.
I don't offer any challenge to the preference to rule lights vs rules heavy.
It comes down to the frequency of arbitrary judgements.
Where one prefers to be on the scale of frequency is certainly an opinion with no right or wrong.
But where a given ruleset falls on the scale has much less to do with opinion.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You say you are disagreeing, but I don't follow what you said in disagreement... It sounds something like, "Because you can stay in the bounds of the rules in a rules-heavy system more often (since they cover more) then you arn't being as freeform as in a rules-lite system. This is because less rules are defined in the rules-lite so you have to break out of the box more." But, what I don't understand is that if you end up doing the same thing, to me that seems irrelevant.

 

[BryonD]

You can do any of these things in any rules lite game. You describe what you want to do, the GM sets the target number, and then describes the result if you succeed. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

Tom

First, I'd claim that both your examples have a lot more to do with the rigidity of RPGA more than anything else. Particularly the first, the second is more a matter of a player getting hung up on semantics.....

But further, while this thread has gone to fast for me to even bother trying to read every post, I don't see that anyone is having a hard time grasping you point. However, if the GM doesn't have a rule for setting the target number then you will result in inconsistent rulings, which are unsatisfying and can, in many people's experience, lead to disputes that are at least as disruptive as getting hung up on rules. And again, if you do rule consistently, then that is simply a rule that hasn't been put on paper. If you got the rules, then it isn't rules lite.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not sure what that has to do with my assertion that rules-light and rules-heavy fans simply don't see that their opinions are subjective truths valid for them, but not for everyone. One side says "your game sucks, because rules-light is no fun!" while the other side says "no, your game sucks, because rules-heavy is no fun!" No one can assert what is or isn't fun for someone else. That's my point.

Fair enough. But I consider rule light to be comparable to cops and robbers (the point you were referencing) without that implying any direct quality judgement.
Saying rules light = cops and robbers is not, to me, at all the same as saying rules lite is bad.