Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[MoogleEmpMog]

'Designing' a role-playing experience is pointless; if it's not 'cops and robbers with a GM,' it's not far from it. There's nothing wrong with that, and I've personally enjoyed some very rules-lite "games" - but at their core, they are not games, they are not designable, and they really don't need rules, only maturity and trust in the GM.

You also can't sell them, because a person would have to be incredibly foolish to buy a set of rules that essentially said nothing but 'use your imagination' - and a person foolish enough to buy such 'rules' would almost certainly lack the maturity and wit to play the resulting game. Although, they're clearly gullible enough to trust any GM...

Designing a game (the category of entertainment of which role-playing games are a subset) to be rules-lite, rules-heavy or somewhere in between is valid and necessary.

How detailed should a particular game be? What detail level is most marketable? What level are the game's designers comfortable with? What level are they competent to design for?

Risk and Axis and Allies both model world-spanning military engagements; both are enjoyable games, at least to the subsets they appeal to; their detail level is quite different.

Final Fantasy 7 and Baldur's Gate are both best-selling electronic games; both are enjoyable to the subsets they appeal to; their detail level is quite different.

Once you've established a detail level, there's still plenty of design to do.

Is the game competitve or cooperative or somewhere in between? Single player tournament Magic the Gathering is completely competitive. The original Heroquest was partly competitve, partly cooperative. Basketball is competitve between teams, semi-competitive between players, hopefully cooperative within each team. D&D is largely cooperative, with slight competitive undertones.

How important is balance? In a competitive game? Absolute balance may not be necessary, or even a goal to aspire to: Hawks vs. Pistons isn't balanced in NBA basketball, for instance. In a cooperative game? Some balance may be necessary. Or maybe not. If so, why?

Say you decide on a highly detailed, largely cooperative, carefully balanced experience. How do you make that experience as fast and, more importantly, as intuitive as it can be without losing the three elements you've already selected?

That's game design, and it applies to RPGs as well as other types of games.

 

[rabindranath72]

No, you haven't assessed anything scientifically. You've said that his experiments are not scientific, which while likely true, you can't actually know because very little of his experimental methods have been described. You then proceeded to add in your own anecdotal evidence, and seemingly claim that your experience is a valid sample size to extrapoliate for the entire population--which as a statistician you should know better than to do--and said, "trust me, I'm a statistician." All this despite the fact that no evidence of any statistical or experimental studies or analysis you've done have been at all forthcoming.

You're own posts have been considerably less scientific than anything Dancey has said, so you've done a very poor job of convincing anyone that your "credentials" have any bearing on anything, or that your "arguments" are any more compelling that anything anyone else has said on the topic.

Sorry for my bad english, it is not my home language. That is why I suppose I did not explain well my point.

1) Mr Dancey WROTE that rules light games are "worse" than rules heavy games, and cited taking some measurements and so on. My point was that, SINCE THERE ARE LOTS OF PLAYERS OUT THERE THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, his assertions could not be taken scientifically as they sounded.

2) I HAVE WRITTEN, if you take care to read the posts above, that in MY EXPERIENCE, AND IN THOSE OF MANY OTHERS, CREATING AN HIGH LEVEL CHARACTER can be time consuming. AND I AM NOT EXTRAPOLATING ANYTHING, if you mind reading my post CAREFULLY.
I have simply proof of the contrary of what Mr. Dancey (and you, I suppose) is saying. Which IS NOT extrapolating anything, but simply stating that part of the population does not satisfy certain assumptions. And THESE, I can prove (expected values, confidence tests and so on).

3) I do not have to convince anyone. I always assume people is intelligent enough to take informed decisions on what it reads. If you feel the contrary, then I apologize. Or you did not read carefully my posts.

4) Since I always close my posts with greets, just to signify that the discussion can be held on civil tones, and that we are not talking about "serious" topics such as hunger in the world or religion, I would STRONGLY appreciate that you do the same and show a bit of politeness. Otherwise, I will not bother to answer to your posts, since your replies qualify you.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri

P.S.
If it cares, I did not create (or make create) tens of characters just for the sake of it. I am writing an article with some colleague psychologists about roleplaying games, mental constructs, and freeform playing.

 

[buzz]

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

In what universe? My 1e DMG had battlemap diagrams for facing and gave most measurements in inches. The listed turn sequence alone screamed "wargame".

Granted, the rules were convoluted enough that I don't think most people used them, ergo why all most of us remember is rolling to hit and checking a table.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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

No, I'm not. His first example of a great interface was a description of tactical combat using miniatures. This assumes that such a thing is good in an RPG in general, and good in the d20 System in particular. The use of tactical combat in an RPG is fine. It depends on the genre and style of the overall system. GURPS has tactical combat (in fact, it seems like much of it was borrowed for Combat & Tactics, the precurser to the d20 combat system). Pointing it out as a postive interface in an RPG is assuming that it belongs there in the first place, without considering other factors.

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".

(A)D&D had combat as an important (but not the most important) element, and did not require miniatures at all, because it didn't use tactical, detailed combat. It would seem Mearls would point out that it lacked an important interface, or that it missed the boat to provide one for players, because he is presupposing that it should be there to begin with.

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

A spade is a spade.

 

[Rasyr]

Yeah, Rolemaster (chartmaster) being rules lite is waaaaay out there. Now Harp is a very good system, but not a light system. Harp light though comes close to fitting in the light rules description, but not quite.

Please note that *I* did not bring HARP into this discussion.

Please note also that in the post where I said RM was rules lite, and D&D was rules-heavy, that I said that those were just my opinions, AND I defined the criteria by which I had decided eash was so. According to the criteria I defined, my statement was accurate. However, according to the criteria that others may be use, it would not be accurate. Please keep that in mind.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The people I know who collect records by obscure bands generally don't collect them because they're obscure, or to buck a trend - they buy them because the albums speak to their personal muse. I would say that something similar is at work in gaming.

Well, don't discount the possibility that the obscure bands speak to their personal muse simply because they are obscure bands. People have pretty seemingly arbitrary guidelines for what we like and what we don't.

Fact is, that Role Playing being the goal (and not simply "playing a game", in which there must be clear-cut rules to define who wins and who doesn't), I "found" that the same goal could be reached with other systems other than 3e.

This strikes me as *amazingly* obvious. If role-playing is your ultimate goal, congrats, you've been participating in a tradition as old as imagination itself. You don't need a *system* for role-playing. You just need to be a human being.

Fact is, Role Playing is only two-thirds of a Role Playing Game. And to assume that the game itself isn't important is to pretty much dismiss any RPG ever as trying to do something that doesn't need to be done.

The Game is that interface by which player meets role. It's the added layer between what you say and what your imagination does. That added layer, for me and for millions, is fun. That's not to say that pure role-playing without the game isn't also fun, it's just saying that role-playing isn't the only reason we're playing a role playing game. We enjoy it, in part, because it IS a game.

The best-designed RPG will include only that which adds to the enjoyment of playing the role. For me, a lack of rules doesn't make it any more enjoyable to play the game, because it feels less and less like I'm playing a game and more and more like I'm just making up a story, which isn't the reason I play an RPG. At the same time, the rules can reach a point where they get more and more in the way of playing a role (stuff like Rolemaster or Harn, where mechanics are the point), and rolling on tables isn't the reason I play an RPG, either. D&D 3e has so far been the best middle ground I've found. It errs on the side of more rules, but it is always easier to simplify than it is to add complexity. It contains, for me, the best options to date for setting the parameters for playing a role and maintaining consistency (which is as important in poker or monopoly as it is in an RPG).

RPG's, as far as I am concerned, don't exist to help people role play. Human beings have been doing that independant of Gygax and d6's for their entire bloordy existence. You don't need a system to facilitate role-playing. The system must facilitate the game, in a way so as to add choices that are meaningful in trying to "win" (and despite conventional wisdom, RPG's aboslutely have a way to win and a way to loose).

If some other system does it better for you, have fun. But I in no way have to respect that that system is somehow objectively "better" at chasing some ficticious ideal of what an RPG "should be." You enjoy chutes and ladders? Good! That doesn't mean that enjoying monopoly is wrong.

 

[rabindranath72]

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.

Hmm...except for spellcasters...so your 18 minutes are just a differential...
it remains to find the rest of the time then
Do not worry investing time, lots of us did it and fortunately changed their minds

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri

 

[Rasyr]

In RPGs, the interface is the "mental space" that exists between the player and the game. So, miniatures and battlemats are an element of the interface. It's easier for me to make a decision and apply the rules if I can see where my sorcerer is in relation to the terrain, monsters, and the rest of the party.

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

Just as a side note - being more miniatures oriented is one of "predictions" that several people (including myself) have made regarding 4e if/when it comes....

 

[eyebeams]

And why would that be? The activity that was posited to take time was selecting spells. I was illustrating that. If you think that's somehow irrelevant, then I posit to you that the burden is on you to tell me why that is not significant. What factor am I missing that is going to bloat the time up so?

That'd be the rest of the character, since players almost always pick spells in conjunction with their other traits, not in isolation from them.

Edit: I'll even go so far to assert that activities-other-than-spell-selection, the creation of a spellcaster is less time intensive. A spellcaster has less in the way of stacking and tabulation of bonuses than a fighter type, and excepting bards have less in the way of skill point allotment than a rogue, bard, or ranger.

Well, that would involve actually making a character of each type, wouldn't it?

 

[Silverleaf]

I think alot of people are forgetting what D&D 3.0 was trying to fix. Over the years, AD&D varied wildly based on HR, supplements, and DM perrogative. I might use just standard AD&D pummeling, but Bob uses the OA martial arts and Luke uses Combat and Tactics Unarmed Strikes, etc. There WAS no guideline to where a ghoul was an appropriate challenge for a 1st level PC, or that a giant was appropriate for a 10th. Or that +5 swords are for 16th level PCs. Or the cleric's power varied from nil (complete priests) to vastly (faiths and avatars). Or that the RPGA had a houserule and ban list miles long. Or that by design flaw thieves were weak and wizards ruled all at high levels. Or that elves WERE the best racial choice.

Well not much has changed in that respect. Today there are hundreds of d20 publishers, and hence just as much diversity. You still don't know what rules the DM next door is using, unless he limits himself to the 3 core books. And even then house rules pop up, because that is the nature of the beast. Everyone wants something different out of their campaign. Even those who supposedly follow the rules put more emphasis on some aspects of them, and de-emphasize other aspects (eg, "yes we use AoO but we just eyeball them, and we don't have a battlemap" is a very different game than "we like the wargaming aspect and follow the combat rules to the letter and always use minis & battlemap").

BTW, there were guidelines for encounters in earlier editions. They may have been looser than a specific CR number, but they were there nonetheless in the form of monster HD and "special" powers denoted with an asterisk. It was a good bet that a 5** HD monster was going to be a tough encounter for low-level PC... The rules also suggested placing X HD monsters on dungeon level X, and increasing or decreasing the number of monsters encountered if you placed them on higher or lower levels of the dungeon. OTOH, wilderness enounters had no such guideline, and could be very dangerous or very easy. But at the same time, a smart group of players knows when to attack, when to talk, and when to run. Making every encounter balanced & winnable through battle, and precalculated to deplete X number of party resources is not my idea of what fantastic adventure is about...

In much the same manner, I don't see that having weak thieves or powerful wizards is a design flaw. In fact, thieves aren't weak unless they try to go outside of their domain. If they wanted to be good at fighting the player should have made a fighter instead. He made a thief, that means he's going to play a character who uses stealth and guile (which "sneak" attacks aren't ) to his advantage rather than charging into battle. The player who rolled up a magic-user knows that his character's chances of surviving past the first few levels are small, but it's a risk he's willing to take for the possibility of great power later on (should the campaign even last that long). In that sense, the classes were balanced, and they all had their niche in which they excelled. The much-touted alternative of making every class equal at overcoming challenges in battle feels very arbitrary to me, and much less fantastical.

As many have said, the biggest fault I have with Rules Lite is the "mother may I" syndrome. Mother, may I move and attack? (nah, he's too far). What about me (yeah, your closer, go ahead). Can I swing from the chandeleer? What about knock him off the balcony? Catch the falling phial? Without a rule to fall back on, the DM decides on the spot.

I run a quite rules-light B/X D&D game, and frankly this concept of "mother may I" is totally alien to me. The players decide what action they're going to take, regardless of rules. If the swashbuckler wants to jump from the balcony, swing from the chandelier and kick the BBEG, he's well entitled to try that. Depending on the nature of the action, we'll use either a to-hit roll, ability check, or more rarely something else. The other factor is the difficulty of the task, for which we'll adjust the roll. It's a very simple 2-step process and it works very well in practice, at least that's been my experience throughout the last couple decades...