Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[fredramsey]

(And, in the end)

Main Entry: opin·ion
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin·ioned/ adjective

synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. VIEW suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.

 

[Psion]

More or less yours was an indirect answer to my statement that creating an high level character takes "a bit" of time. If you set out to prove that this is not true, you were only half way. Choosing spells is just the tip of the iceberg. I guess this is what the other posters are saying.

Really? I thought they were just nitpicking.

Y'see, Curtis (I beleive) put forth that it's not so long except for spellcasters. I think he was being reasonable. I was just trying to take the examination from there, from what was already accepted by someone I considered was being reasonable.

I feel no great need to invest more time in what is already being accepted by folks that I consider are being reasonable about the issue.

 

[buzz]

. . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.

Where's the little eye-rolling emoticon when you need it?

 

[RFisher]

Whereas I, on the other hand, introduced my smallish children to roleplaying games with The Window, which is equally non-complex, and I'd recommend a similar set-up to any RPG novice. And I did it without using fancy words like orthogonal (what's wrong with perpendicular, anyway?)

Is "orthogonal" a fancy word? Maybe it's just that it is commonly used among one of my other interests. "Perpendicular" doesn't strike me as particularly less fancy.

For some reason the Window has never grabbed my interest despite many attempts to read it. Did you GM for them?

I think there's a real derth of products to introduce people to the hobby whether rules-light or rules-heavy. I have a nephew who lives too far away for me to mentor him, & I haven't found anything that I really think would be a good gift to introduce him to roleplaying.

 

[Mythmere1]

Well, in one sense, Mr. Dancey's comment doesn't need commentary - he's betting money on it and we'll see if his research was right in the sales numbers, which is the measure that he himself uses.

I think it's odd to see people defending either rules-lite or rules-heavy in the context of D&D (either edition wars or with Castles & Crusades involved) - some people just have a rules-heavy preference or a rules-lite preference, and it seems that lots of factors go into the preference. Consistency, prep time, the mode of interaction between the GM and the players, etc.

Everyone seems to be more tolerant of those who play very different systems (ie., the rules-heavy players looking at someone who doesn't even roll dice might be befuddled, but the two systems are so different that it's clear there's a completely different approach to gaming going on). On the other hand, when you've got people posting about games that are pretty similar, the attacks get heated. Witness the virulence of some of the debates about Castles & Crusades, which is very similar to D&D. I think people feel threatened by similar games in a way that they aren't threatened by totally different systems.

I play Castles & Crusades, and don't personally like the 3e approach, but I think it's very difficult to compare the games for quality - and when you do, you can't make a quality comparison based on whether it's light or heavy - gauging the quality of rules isn't done by reference to other systems, it's how well the game works for what it is. An apple tastes good or bad compared to other apples, not bad because it doesn't taste like an orange.

Although Castles & Crusades is highly similar to D&D, it's designed around a very different mechanism - with a broad brush, I'll say that the C&C design philosophy is to cover all situations with general rules of application that are interpreted by the GM. Modern D&D strives to present players with more specific rules so that there is less interpretation required. With these different approaches, although the games seem similar at face value, they are - to continue my metaphor - apples and oranges. You can evaluate each game in terms of whether it stumbles somewhere within its own level of complexity, but you can't really use complexity as the benchmark for comparing one game to the other. They're designed to be different in that respect.

I love Castles & Crusades, but that doesn't make me think 3e players are playing an inferior game - just a game that I don't like playing as much as C&C. Problem is, if I list my subjective reasons for preferring C&C, it sounds like a list of things that D&D fails, rather than a list of gaming preferences. War results. On the other hand, if I'm playing a diceless RPG in which the players are all playing the role of wombats, hurling cats into the air for random determination of results, no one will take my preference for this game as a slam against D&D. They'll just "tsk, tsk" quietly to themselves and click me onto the "ignore" list.

 

[BryonD]

You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.

Well, being as the conversation stated with the topic being specifically about economically viable RPGs, this is a very safe and well founded supposition.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well, being as the conversation stated with the topic being specifically about economically viable RPGs, this is a very safe and well founded supposition.

(A)D&D was an economically viable game for over 20 years without tactical (detailed) combat.

 

[buzz]

You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.

And you're making the assumption that it's inherrently a bad thing.

Mearls is talking specifically about D&D, and D&D presents combat as being a very important element. Ergo, the rules regarding it will tend toward detail. If it's important and merits detail, then, yes, some sort of mapping accessory will prove extremely useful. It has absolutely nothing to do with "regressing into a miniatures wargame".

It's funny how often "just a glorified miniatures wargame" gets trotted out as a synonym for "I don't like this RPG".

 

[Gentlegamer]

Where's the little eye-rolling emoticon when you need it?

It's at the "text lite" messageboard.

 

[fredramsey]

Well, being as the conversation stated with the topic being specifically about economically viable RPGs, this is a very safe and well founded supposition.

Wow.