Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[WizarDru]

I like Chocoloate Milk.

 

[John Morrow]

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 "mother may I" problem that my group has (and we've played plenty of rules-light games using homebrew rules and Fudge) isn't so much a matter of permission but achieving a common understanding about what's likely to happen. If the GM thinks that jumping from the balcony, swinging from the chandelier, and kicking the BBEG is really hard and likely to fail while the player thinks it's really easy and likely to succeed, there can be a big problem when the player player states the action and then the GM resolves in a very different way than expected. The solution, in my experience, is for the player to play what I call "20 questions" with the GM to evaluate their options and make sure the see things eye-to-eye with the GM.

And, no, I'm not talking about the player knowing things that their character wouldn't know. I'm talking about situations where the player's character should have at least some idea of the risks involved. I've also had a couple of decades playing rules-light games (down to the level of "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad" being the only real rule) and this is one of the key reasons why my group (some of whom I've role-played with for nearly a couple of decades) seems to have a minimal level of desired complexity for anything but a one-shot game and why we also play Hero and (recently) d20.

In a rules-heavy game, in my experience, the players can have a very good idea of what's possible and what's not possible for their characters and in many such systems, they can even resolve complex actions without GM input. For example, I don't have to ask the GM in a D&D game that I'm playing "How far can I move?" nor do I need to wait for the GM to tell me to make an attack of opportunity when a character moves past my character. I can keep track of all that myself. In a rules-light game, I need to ask the GM "Can I try to hit him as he runs past me?" or even, if we're not using a battle mat, "Does he get close enough to me to try to hit him?" And it can create even a bigger problem if the player based their previous actions on the assumption that their character would be able to stop the bad guy if they tried to run past them while the GM rules that it's not possible.

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...

You've never had a problem with a player disagreeing with the mechanic you've decided to use or the difficulty level that you've set? Do your players always see eye-to-eye with the GM or do they simply go along with whatever the GM says, even if they didn't understand the situation the same way?

 

[diaglo]

I like Chocoloate Milk.

so do i.

but i know some people are lactose intolerant
and i know some people can't handle the sugar
and i know some people can't handle choclate

 

[Psion]

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

Because he lacks the benefit of forethought. And referencing.

He could do it. The results would just either or both take more time (how far can you jump? I dunno... hold up while I look up some experiments on human factors on the internet...) or be a worse simulation.

The point of simulationist rules heavy games is to compile this stuff for you so you don't have to do it yourself before or during the game.

 

[painandgreed]

Imagine a game with so many rules that the Players are completely paralyzed and unable to play at all. Reading the rules sucks all the imagination out of the reader's brain, and he is left an automaton.

Don't have to imagine, I've played Squad Leader with all the expansions. ;-)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

[Rant on ] And this is the crux of my personal dislike for 3.x. There are very few rules I specifically dislike, but many that - in play - are not worth the effort. Too situational modifiers ("Don't forget my character's bonus to saves when confronted by chickens at night when there's a full moon and..."). Too many types of bonuses. A few rules sub-systems which use significantly different mechanics than the core. Too many spells that "break" the normal rules in some way which must be adjudicated. Figuring AoO's for movement. Each of these add something to the game, but at too high a cost in fun for my particular group. I don't necessarily want fewer rules, but I do want simpler ones. [Rant off]

I totally agree. This is something I prefer about almost every other RPG I've played, and IMO the biggest problem with D&D: D&D does not have, and never has had, a unified core mechanic. d20 D&D, be it 3.0 or 3.5, is closer to the mark than its predecessors. Castles and Crusades, though I don't care for it, is closer. True20, HERO and SilCore are each in their own way significantly closer.

Every exception to the core mechanic is a design flaw, in my opinion. It should occur only - ONLY - if an absolutely compelling reason demands it. 'Because it was in a previous edition' or 'because (I think) it's realistic' are not compelling reasons.

Figuring AoOs for movement is an interface issue, though, not a rules issue, and it's one I don't understand and probably never will. Don't let players count squares on their turns, people!

I'd like to posit a different question: if different groups have different thresholds for rules/interface complexity, why not design the rules to be somewhat modular? For instance, D&D could have basic rules, with AoO's being optional. A simple core mechanic could be used for special attacks, such as grapple, trip, etc., with a more complex mechanic available as an option. It seems to me that such a system, properly designed, would appeal to a broader market than the current system, which constantly warns against making changes because of "balance" (which IMO is another red herring).

Modular rules really shouldn't be necessary. If everything uses the same core mechanic, why have modular rules.

AoOs, being an interface issue, are part of a modular interface, which almost all RPGs have to some extent. d20 D&D does perhaps drop the ball a bit in this regard - its interface is clearer and better defined than most RPGs, but it has lost some apparent modularity.

Balance isn't a red herring; it's just all but impossible in a system as contradictory and burdened by the past as D&D. Whether it's desirable or not is another matter.

 

[Andre]

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

Interestingly, this is why I feel Hero has less "overhead" than 3.x. Both would qualify as rule heavy, but D&D feels like an "exception based" system. The rules tell the players what can be done, then the subsystems break those rules in one way or another. Items and feats have effects that explained by text, but are not natural extensions of the basic rules system.

Example: the recent thread about incense of meditation. The incense maximizes all spells prepared by a divine caster, but without any level gain (as is normal for metamagic). So...if the caster is a mystic theurge, does it maximize his arcane spells too? The rules don't say one way or the other, and there's no clear rule for how the item works - you just have to parse the text and make a best guess.

Hero, OTOH, breaks everything down into blocks which can be combined in myriad ways, but always within the rules. If a player designs an energy blast, I know how energy blasts work. If he can fly, I know how that works. If he is hit with a suppress effect, I know how that works. Adjudicating actual gameplay is easier for me, because I don't have to worry about all those "wierd" spells/items/powers/feats/whatever that some designer came up with and how it interacts with all the other stuff in the system.

 

[freebfrost]

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

The problem with these kind of arguments is that there is never a discussion about who is rolling up the character in question.

Are you someone familiar with the typical spells and feat selections for clerics, and do you have a good grasp of how skills and such work? If so, your time to make a character will likely be shorter than someone who is not as familiar.

And does no one use character generators like PCGen? I can roll up a 20th level character, equipment, feats, skills, everything listed above, in about 20 minutes. I can whip out mid-level characters in about 5-10 minutes.

And never a need to check anything or figure out synergies or other bonuses...

 

[diaglo]

Don't have to imagine, I've played Squad Leader with all the expansions. ;-)

ditto.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Interestingly, this is why I feel Hero has less "overhead" than 3.x. Both would qualify as rule heavy, but D&D feels like an "exception based" system. The rules tell the players what can be done, then the subsystems break those rules in one way or another. Items and feats have effects that explained by text, but are not natural extensions of the basic rules system.

Example: the recent thread about incense of meditation. The incense maximizes all spells prepared by a divine caster, but without any level gain (as is normal for metamagic). So...if the caster is a mystic theurge, does it maximize his arcane spells too? The rules don't say one way or the other, and there's no clear rule for how the item works - you just have to parse the text and make a best guess.

Hero, OTOH, breaks everything down into blocks which can be combined in myriad ways, but always within the rules. If a player designs an energy blast, I know how energy blasts work. If he can fly, I know how that works. If he is hit with a suppress effect, I know how that works. Adjudicating actual gameplay is easier for me, because I don't have to worry about all those "wierd" spells/items/powers/feats/whatever that some designer came up with and how it interacts with all the other stuff in the system.

Agreed!

Honestly, I don't understand why people call HERO 'rules-heavy,' aside from looking at the size of the book.

Character creation is a long slog in HERO, but actual play has been, in my experience, more detailed and faster than any version of D&D.

I will say, though, that HERO is more of a 'math game' than d20 - you need to be fast and accurate at arithmetic to play it quickly and dramatically.