Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Gentlegamer]

Offtopic: I really like HERO, too, but it is less a game than a toolkit for designing a game. Same for GURPS.

 

[Andre]

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.

Just to clarify, I say balance is a red herring because individual groups have different play styles. For example, my group has never had a problem with scry-buff-teleport. We know it's technically possible within the rules, but it felt too cheesy to us, so we never used it, as players or GM's. So later rules designed to limit this activity don't help my group, and may in fact hinder it, by changing the value of other, more legitimate tactics. There are groups who feel entangle is too strong, others who don't. Same spell, same rules, different groups.

At best, designers need to focus on providing gameplay options which are mostly equal, but attaining perfect balance just isn't possible.

 

[Psion]

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

I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise. The only strict, fair definition of rules heavy games is games that, er, have lots of rules. I think the HERO power system qualifies.

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.

Whilst I agree, you can't go two posts after mentioning Hero on RPGnet before someone complains about how slow the combat is. But yeah, I never found it that way, either.

More to the point, I think if you think rules heavy = slow, you are just buying what the more vociferous rules light advocates are selling. Don't.

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.

Especially if you play a character with VPPs.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Do you know what tactical combat is? Combat is part of fantasy role-playing. Tactical combat is not required.

Not REQUIRED, but wanted. I don't know about you, but we've always used minis even when playing 1st edition and 2nd edition, that didn't change for 3rd edition.

Every once in a while when a battle was easy, we'd run it it without any minis. However, if it was at all complicated, our DMs got annoyed at answering "Where am I again?" "How close am I to the enemies?" "Where is the fighter in relation to me?" So they'd put minis down to help people visualize.

I, as a DM, got annoyed at players continually coming up with new tactical maneuvers that I'd have to invent rules for. So, when I didn't allow them to do tactical maneuvers in order to speed up the game, battles became "I hit for 20" "He hits you for 13" "I hit him for 10".

Since I've been playing and running 3rd ed, my players have been happier, they love to explore the combat options. I find that combat holds their interest longer and there are less people leaving the room while waiting for their turn or wandering off to the bathroom and saying "you can just roll for me, I have +12 to hit and do 1d6+10 damage". My players feel their decisions are more important and there are more ways to show the personality of their character in their combat styles.

And since, likely 80% of the game is combat, the other 20% is role playing, making the combat portion more interesting is good, IMHO.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise. The only strict, fair definition of rules heavy games is games that, er, have lots of rules. I think the HERO power system qualifies.

I actually disagree.

I draw a distinction between rules (which tell you how to do something) and options (which provide you with the 'something' you're doing).

Since most if not all HERO powers operate under a relatively light set of rules, it's a rules-medium game at most - it just has a ton of options within the framework of its rules.

In d20 terms, scorching ray is not a rule, it's an option - x beams for yd6 fire damage, ranged touch. Fireball is also an option, but it has a rule (about catching on fire) in it, too. d20 has a lot of fireballs - a lot more than HERO.

Whilst I agree, you can't go two posts after mentioning Hero on RPGnet before someone complains about how slow the combat is. But yeah, I never found it that way, either.

HERO combat can take a while because some (most?) characters can be very hard to kill, but there's a lot going on in the course of that combat - lots of individual actions. To me, that's fast, because it's fast-paced, even if the combat takes a long time to conclude.

Ah, well; perhaps I've just had better (faster) GMs for HERO than most games.

More to the point, I think if you think rules heavy = slow, you are just buying what the more vociferous rules light advocates are selling. Don't.

Rules heavy doesn't necessarily equal slow, but speed of resolution is one of the relevant traits that a game should probably aspire to.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So what? Is the game hugely improved by this precision? I doubt it; however I admit that the heavy rulebook helps you win the argument against players who always try to abuse the rules and get an advantage over the DM with dishonest arguments. Personally I don't game with such players. I listen to their remarks, adjust when necessary and go on with the game.

You had me going there for a while. Okay okay, I get the joke now. Good one, you had me fooled. That's a pretty good joke.

 

[Andre]

I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise. The only strict, fair definition of rules heavy games is games that, er, have lots of rules. I think the HERO power system qualifies.

Yep - and the latest core rules book is written in a style as dry as the Sahara desert. But in my experience, it's less interface-heavy than 3.x, at least in actual gameplay. For other groups, their mileage may vary.

It's kind of ironic, I used to play 1E when I wanted something easier/lighter to play, as opposed to Champions. Now, compared to 3.x, I think of Hero as the easier system. Of course, both benefit greatly from computer aids (another interface issue).

Especially if you play a character with VPPs.

I love VPP's!

But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, you could walk x amount of inches (at 10' per inch) per round. That came out to almost all the way across any battle mat of reasonable size.

And what did moving do for you? Where was the rules for using movement in combat? Could you split your movment and move attack move?

There were none. I will admit I lied, however. We put miniatures on the battle mat because they looked cool. We used them to say, "You have this orc on you, and you have this other orc on you." And they never moved during the battle.

I still have my 1st Edition monster manual where I had written in a new stat: Tactical Movement Rate, or TMR. I was in the process of actually adding movement rules to combat.

Movement in 1e? Yes, how far you could walk in a minute. Not at all useful in combat, and bears no resemblence to current movement rules.

So I stand by my statement.

Oh, but we forget that 1e combat rounds lasted 1 MINUTE, and turns lasted 10 Minutes.
10 second rounds came about in 2e (Combat and Tactics) 6/minute
6 second rounds came about in 3e 10/minute.

So that movement WAS for combat. It was typically 12" (120'). or 12 squares. You could move 1/2 and still attack. 12/6 squares is EXACTLY the same amount the current D&D PC can move (30 ft = 6 ft' squares, older D&D had 10' squares).

D&D didn't have tactical combat? So those geomorphs and basic edition maps with 1" grids
weren't for combat eh?

All D&D added to make combat tactical was Attacks of oppetunity. Everything else existed in some form or fashion, usually as an optional rule.

 

[fredramsey]

No, they were to see how big the dungeon was. 10' wide hallways and all.

You can argue about "combat movment" rules in 1e all you want, but nowhere did the rules even point out about moving in combat. I seriously doubt that myself and those dozens of people I played 1e with simply ignored any tactical movement rules. Nor would I have begun to design some if they were there.

But I no longer have my PHB or DM guide. If you do, and want to post the relevant quotes, have at it.

Oh, but we forget that 1e combat rounds lasted 1 MINUTE, and turns lasted 10 Minutes.
10 second rounds came about in 2e (Combat and Tactics) 6/minute
6 second rounds came about in 3e 10/minute.

So that movement WAS for combat. It was typically 12" (120'). or 12 squares. You could move 1/2 and still attack. 12/6 squares is EXACTLY the same amount the current D&D PC can move (30 ft = 6 ft' squares, older D&D had 10' squares).

D&D didn't have tactical combat? So those geomorphs and basic edition maps with 1" grids
weren't for combat eh?

All D&D added to make combat tactical was Attacks of oppetunity. Everything else existed in some form or fashion, usually as an optional rule.

 

[diaglo]

All D&D added to make combat tactical was Attacks of oppetunity. Everything else existed in some form or fashion, usually as an optional rule.

they had attacks of opportunity in earlier editions.

edit: they also had rules on parrying
and two weapon fighting
and setting weapons for charge
and firing or launching grenade like weapons

and etc...