Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[RFisher]

I think that rules "lite" can be successful as long as the game isn't also trying to be simulationist. In a simulationist game, a PC being able to jump a chasm possibly takes into account their Str, the width of the chasm, the amount of wind, whether the PC gets a running start, the surface being jumped onto, etc.

Why do you think a GM of a rules light system can't take all these factors & more into account when deciding the difficulty?

 

[Gentlegamer]

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....

Seems like the smart bet, considering the gaming industry has figured out how to get us to buy boosters of random miniatures . . .

 

[diaglo]

That doesn't mean that enjoying monopoly is wrong.

mang, you must play as one rat bastard tycoon then.

to me Monopoly is wrong. you are out to be cut throat and screw over your friends and family to achieve a Monopoly.

it is all wrong.

 

[Ace]

I've had trouble myself putting my thoughts together on this. This is a sort of first crack at it.

SNIP

I think this is related to the false light v. heavy dichotomy in that when people say, "I want a system that creates a 20th-level NPC in 20 minutes" that has nothing to do with the number of rules present, but rather the time and effort it takes to interface with a particular set of rules.

This is an excellent point!

One reason some folks do not like D&D3x or Hero or the like is "in play" rules overhead --

Time is spent referencing rules (few people have them memeorized enough that they never need the books) or worse implementing rules (Heros Phased Combat was slow IME) -- when the wanted to do Roleplay or Setting Exploration or some other thing

FREX if someone is playing D&D3x and the combat is not the main source of enjoyment what was meant to be a throw away ercounter can take a lot of time away from other things -- a combat (4 rounds) with 6 on the PC side and 12 on the opposing however balanced can take a long time at medium to high levels -- Even with extensive prep the sheer volume of options can bog down the game. This is great for a main course but if the combat isn't the reason for the game it can feel like a burden.

Now IMO at its roots 3x/d20 is not a rules heavy system -- almost everything you do is d20+mods and in actual play it is pretty fast -- skill check Roll d20 add the mods on your sheet meet the DC -- easy peasey

What gives the illusion of complexity are the myriad of rarely used subsystems (I have played or run in 5 3e campaigns and never seen a Bull Rush ) and the options that can mutate the battle field (Summon Monster is classic here) -- combat and prep in D&D are long -- the rest of the game is fast -- I would almost say --rules light

Other systems cater to different styles -- I ran a large battle (12 Vampires in a fortified bunker vs the PC's) and the battle lasted less than 15 minutes real time -- GURPS light/expanded is this fast for me as well -- This allows more emphasis on different parts of the game and makes a 6 hour session of mostly roleplay (The Holy Grail of some gamers) a distinct possibility

Also rules contribute to the feel of a game a lot more than you might think.

Rules light FEELS freer than D&D or other more restrictive systems -- its more than just a point buy vs. class level dichotmy -- It is a matter of bringing ideas to the table --

Rules Light systems (good ones anyway) seem to grant more freedom (as an example Risus-- I can create a Flying Monkey Ninja Knight in seconds Flying Monkey 3d Ninja 3d Knight 4d) and leave the details to imagination -- If I had the right templates I could do this in D&D quickly as well -- race Flying Monkey Class -- Ninja Lx Fighter with X Feats Level X) but dealing with the baggage can be a hassle

lets say you want to make a Wandering Scholar in D&D core rules -- you can take Bard, Rogue, or Wizard (or something odd) mainly -- each of these brings a package of goodies with it that may not fit -- why does my Wandering scholar have a Murderous 5d Sneak Attack ?
In Buffy I simply put X into Intelligence and X in Knowledge -- get the Nerd Trait and I am ready

Even class based systems ike Castles and Crusades can seem to do better -- OK take Fighter nad make INT a prime -- you are a scholar

Or even better Risus Scholar 4d Wanderer 3d Jack of trades 3d

This is a huge asset in less structed play enviroments --

The actual play will seem more spot on the other systems without changing the parameters of the rules as written -- thats a substantial advantage for some and why Rules Lite has its perrenial fans

I am also of the opinion that younger gamers (12 to say 24 maybe) want and need more rules. Not only do they often have (in case of the kids anyway) less social maturity and dispute resolution skills the type of game they need is different

Younger kids want and need conflict resolution driven games like most D&D -- kick in the door-- kill the critter-- take stuff -- power up-- repeat is nearly an ideal set up for them. They also often have more time to play and prep so the rules help them

Gamers as their tastes change often find this model less satisfactory.

Older gamers in particular (30+ ) often have less time or interest in the mechanical set up of games and many are able to handle a more complex social contract.

The rules become an impediment to the FEEL of the desired game and sometimes the actual play as well

 

[Gentlegamer]

mang, you must play as one rat bastard tycoon then.

to me Monopoly is wrong. you are out to be cut throat and screw over your friends and family to achieve a Monopoly.

it is all wrong.

Kill them and take their stuff.

 

[Psion]

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

Well, I've done it a fair few times, and as enthralling as this discussion is, I have work to do today. But I think I have a fairly good idea of what's involved in making a character, and feel it prudent to confine my illustration to that segment of character generation that I felt was a bit exagarated.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

No words are fancy if you're used to them. I get flakk all the time from my wife for my vocabulary--I sound high-falutin' all the time to her. We still talk about the famous "hirsute" incident with her parents where I had to explain what hirsute meant and why I didn't just say "hairy." Be that as it may, I learned perpendicular in middle school math, so I think it's reasonable to assume everyone knows that word.

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

I did, and I don't underestimate the nature of having a mentor kinda show them the way. But that's not a failing of the Window's rules that it's not obvious what to do, I don't think. That could be inserted as non-rule fluff if The Window were really serious about trying to be a real, rules-lite introduction into the hobby.

Which it's not--but IMO, it could be.

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.

I agree 100%. With the possible exception of getting old BD&D boxed sets off of Ebay.

 

[rabindranath72]

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.

What a precise fraction! I never assumed that the game is not important. It is HOW the rules stand in the way of RolePlaying.

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).

That you have found. And this is nice. But others may prefer it more freeform. That was the point of my post. I simply find that Classic D&D does the same job that 3e does.
Which is not to imply that anyone who plays 3e is wrong.
It is much more simply that, given my objectives, it is not good.

Cheers,
Antonio Eleuteri

 

[I'm A Banana]

That you have found. And this is nice. But others may prefer it more freeform. That was the point of my post. I simply find that Classic D&D does the same job that 3e does.
Which is not to imply that anyone who plays 3e is wrong.
It is much more simply that, given my objectives, it is not good.

Which is fine, but this talk of "rules-heavy games are for children!" (not by you, certainly) seems to ignore what I said.

 

[buzz]

His first example of a great interface was a description of tactical combat using miniatures.

What he said was:

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.

AFAICT, he's speaking in a D&D context, and in a D&D context, minis and mat are part of the "interface", and they certianly do make it easier to apply the D&D RAW.

At no point did he say that minis+mat was an example of a "great interface", or that they inherrently made for a superior interface.

(A)D&D had combat as an important (but not the most important) element,

I think this is pretty debatable. Combat has always been a central element of D&D. I mean, we're talking about the game that spawned the term "hack n' slash".

and did not require miniatures at all, because it didn't use tactical, detailed combat.

Ditto. See my comment above on most of the distances in 1e being in inches.

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.

Nope. See above. Mearls is not addressing previous editions of D&D, nor is he stating that, e.g., people should start using minis to play Unknown Armies.