Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[der_kluge]

This is the most creative definition of "lite" I have yet seen in this thread. Even classifying HARP as "lite" would be a massive stretch.

Well, there is a "HARP Lite".

I think HARP is equivalent to 3rd edition in many ways. In some ways it is more complex (you have to roll to cast a spell, for example), and you have to look up all these charts for combat. In some ways it is less complex than 3rd edition, there are less combat options, and the monsters are less complex, and the power curve is a lot less than 3rd edition, so high level combat should theoretically go a lot smoother.

But no, I'm not sure I would consider HARP rules light.

 

[dcas]

Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.

Lejendary Adventure (it's been in print and supported since 1999).

 

[Psion]

Pearls of power? Wisdom buffing items? Vow of poverty stat boosts? Tome type item for wisdom? Racial wisdom bonus or penalty? Scrolls, wands, staves, spell storing rings or weapons?

I was not making any assumptions about mgic, as my post-comment should have illustrated.

Your point for picking srd spells for a straight cleric once you determine stats is valid, but you might have to spend more time fine tuning and adding to the spells after you pick items and feats for this npc. Of course loading up on powerful armor, a big weapon, and a wondrous item or two can work as well without you touching the spell list.

Sure. A few buff items my net me two or 3 more spells. I chose, what, 50 or so spells? That's peanuts.

 

[eyebeams]

Uh, yes I am. I only said I was going to see how long it took to pick spells.

You do not have the luxury of re-defining challenges I set for myself, thankyouverymuch.

If your post was just a rude way of saying "that's not all there is to making a character", that was not my intention from the outset.

Then you simply set yourself a challenge that was irrelevant to the thread.

 

[rabindranath72]

Even if it takes as long to do that as it took to do what he did do, I think we've got a clear indication that it doesn't take "hours" to make even a high level spellcaster, unless the player is indecisive.

The post I was responded to arbitrarily picked an hour for character creation as the maximum cut-off point for short vs. long, and I think it's clear it can be done in half an hour, even for a high level spellcaster, which is the most complex and time consuming option to create by far. Any other type of character could be done in much less time. I routinely make low to mid-level characters in five minutes or less of all classes and races.

My choice was not "arbitrary". It was an expected time, expectation being taken on a typical mid/high-level (15th) character, with at least one class choice. And just to respond to your preemptive questions, it is based on MANY, MANY character creation sessions. A sufficient number to have a sufficient statistic and decent credibility intervals for the whole process. The expected time, always for your information, is about 45 minutes, with a 95% credibility interval of about 10 minutes.

Since you admit to never have prepared an high level character, please add to the 18 minutes cited above, the time to:
1) choose feats and resolve all feat chains
2) choose skills
3) determine the relevant skill bonuses
4) evaluate skill synergy bonuses
5) evaluate skill bonuses due to feats
6) (optional: differentiate from class and cross class skills, if you have more than one class)
7) evaluate the saving throw bonuses from class and feats
8) do not forget to increase the stats every four levels, so you may possibly have to return to point 3) to recalculate (I suppose you already choose in advance all the skills and the classes)
9) choose equipment and magic items based on character level
10) check all the steps, since this process is error-prone

...surely I forgot something along.

Oh, this is for a plain-vanilla cleric. But wouldn't you slap a template or two, or add some prestige class in-between, just for fun?
Obviously, you must make sensed choices all along. I guess that if you picked each item randomly, you could cut about 15 minutes. Still, you would have to pass through steps 3) to 7) to make all things balance out.

I am really, really curious to look at how you make a mid level character in five minutes or less. I would like to learn your techniques, perhaps I may clean the tons of dust on my 3e books.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri

Oh, Mr. Analytic here has a PhD in Statistics. So, when I speak about numbers, I know what I am speaking about, on the contrary of some others.

 

[Psion]

Then you simply set yourself a challenge that was irrelevant to the thread.

For being irrelevant to the thread, lots of people sure seem interested in it.

Of course, considering up thread you decide that people are "playing suckier games than they admit", you appear to be in the habit of speaking for others, which you really need not do. I am sure people can make their own decisions. If you find it irrelevant to you, feel free to not comment.

The topic/sentence being addressed was that making spellcasting characters takes lots more time than non-spellcasting characters. I addressed that statement directly with some real proof.

Do you dislike the actual results of the experiment so much you feel the need to wave it off?

 

[fredramsey]

To play devil's advocate (which I love to do),

As a DM, for an NPC, you CAN just write down an AC, a To Hit, a few spells, and Hit Points.

However, if you have someone in your group who is a "You can't do that, DM, it's not in the rules that way" then you are screwed, which is why DMs loath to create NPCs because of the time load.

 

[mearls]

I think this thread does an excellent job of summarizing why the RPG business is so screwed up.

The really funny thing about rules light v. rules heavy is that it's an utterly empty proposition. The number of rules in a game, or the length of the book, have no bearing on its quality. As a few posters have pointed out, the real issue is rules sufficiency v. insufficiency. A lot of indy games have very few rules, but all of those rules are directly applicable to play. If a GM has to make a judgement call, it's because the designer wanted it that way, not because he forgot a rule or missed a special case important to the flow of play.

What I think is fascinating is how people cling to rules light as if it's inherently better, to the point that I regularly see people describe games as rules light even though the game is obviously not as simple as, say, Over the Edge or Unknown Armies. The really funny thing is that people will argue with you about whether a game is light or not. Again, this is all the more interesting when you come to the conclusion that light v. heavy is a red herring. You don't see this sort of argument in other game forms - witness the discussion of computer RPGs, or look at board games. Is Settlers a better game than Puerto Rico? Is it better because it has fewer rules? Is Candyland better than both?

(A good rule of thumb for any student of RPG design - frame a question about RPGs in terms of other game forms. I think that's a useful tool to burrow into whether a question is important or a red herring.)

I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval. To a chunk of gamers, there's a suite of positive traits inherently linked to rules light. In many cases, "rules light" simply means "a game I like." It also means, "Not D&D." There's an element of rebellion at work there, like the guy who hates pop music and collects records from obscure, late 70s bands that no one else has heard of.

But here's the key: an individual gamer can like whatever he wants, and buy whatever games he buys, and hate whatever games he hates. The problem arises when "professional" game designers take those attitudes with them when they cross the pro v. hobbyist line. The automatic link between "rules light" and "good game" that some people bear is a major hindrance on the development, innovation, and improvement of the basic form of RPGs.

So I think the pertinent question isn't "Is rules light or heavy better?" - the answer there is "No." The real question is, "Why does the rules light bring out such emotional responses, why do people get so defensive about it, why is there a knee jerk reaction towards it?" That's the question you need to ask, and that's where the path to figuring out why the "industry" is so messed up begins. Half of the act of RPG design is hacking through all the misconceptions, malformed conventional wisdom, and backwards thinking that clogs the "industry's" arteries.

(I suspect that the real issue at work is a question of good v. bad interface design. That's a very real issue, and something I've been meaning to write about for a long time now.)

 

[Psion]

Oh, Mr. Analytic here has a PhD in Statistics. So, when I speak about numbers, I know what I am speaking about, on the contrary of some others.

Mr. Epistomological here would call this an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, not.

Actually, yes. You've got some interesting reasons for arriving at your conspiracy theory conclusions, but they remain conspiracy theory just the same.