Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[National Acrobat]

I concur

I backed up that thread a bit to see where the discussion had originated, and it's interesting. Here's Dancy's original comment, about "20 minutes of game in 4 hours":



To which someone responded:



And that's when Dancy made the point that started this thread.

I found that very interesting. And I think it means Dancy's really missed the mark here. If your group spends 80% of their time doing non-gaming related things, that's a social issue, and one that rules of any complexity are utterly unsuited to resolve. (He pretty much admits that the quote above -- saying if they removed 5 minutes of arguing in favor of 4 minutes of rules consulting, it was a net win)

Personally, I think this is all social contract stuff. Our group sets aside the first half hour of a session for pizza and socializing, and we wait till we have all the kibitzing out of our system before we get down to business. (We also regularly get together for non-gaming related activities.) And we just plain *don't* fight over rules, because, not to be too blunt, but we don't have friends who use argument to get what they want.

You can't adjudicate that everybody gets along and focuses on the game, but designers could make some attempt to discuss the social side of gaming. Even things like advice on how to keep people focused and hold their attention would help. But I think that the fact that Ryan's pretty much saying rules-heavy is their preferred way to deal with non-rules issues is extremely telling.

I so concur. Our group spends a lot of time socializing because gaming night for us is the only time we can regularly get together and chat, hang-out, etc. We've all been friends for ages, gone through college, gotten married, had kids, some divorced, etc. We do tell prospective new players that we are a tight bunch and usually spend the first hour at least of a four hour night just talking and catching up on the day's news, etc.

For us (and we play Castles and Crusades) it has nothing to do with the rules taking up time, but the fact that we take time to talk and hang out, so for our group it is a social thing. I'm sure if he watched us for a four-hour session on 'rules lite' systems he might think that we were wasting a boat-load of time.

To each their own.

 

[Psion]

In C&C, the CK picks a target number and has the PC make an ability check. Almost no guidance is provided for what the target number should be (outside the base target numbers of 12 and 18). The modifiers are left to the discretion of the DM.

In D&D, the DM has several modifiers that can be applied to the Jump skill check, the result of which determines how far the PC actually jumps. The game provides heavy guidance on what modifiers to apply based on the situation. However, since the DM creates and explains the environment, he is in control of the situation and what modifiers apply. The DM is also allowed (even encouraged) by the rules to apply any additional situational modifiers he feels are appropriate. The +2/-2 rule is given as a guideline, but the DMG makes it clear that the DM should deviate from this suggested standard if necessary.

How are these two systems significantly different in the level of DM judgement required to resolve the situation? I suggest all of the extra rules and numbers are simply a screen that gives players the illusion that the DM is constrained in setting the difficulty. There's no real benefit in terms of how likely a player is to know his chances of success.

This one seems fairly straightforward to me: because between any two DMs, and between two sessions of the same DMs in the same situation, you are much more likely to have consistent results. And I beleive consistency to be a benefit.

Further, I beleive that if the rules are codified, not only can you expect the results to be more consistent, they become more subject to scrutiny and further consideration, allowing you to make your results better match your expectations.

Finally, I beleive that having codified difficulties lets the players feel more involved with the simulated reality of the mileu. They have a better understanding of how the game world works, and can behave appropriately.

 

[fredramsey]

i thought i said earlier editions in my first post of this argument.

otherwise how would setting a spear vs charge work? even in 1edADnD

That, withdrawing from combat (free attack), ranges, etc. is not a tactical movement system. Nothing in the rules supported or encouraged knowing exactly what square you were in, or gave you a reason to move in a particular way.

Considering you could move such a great distance in a 1 minute round, and that, in the end, it wouldn't mean anything anyway since your opponent would just move with you, AD&D combat consisted of pound/pound/pound - repeat. It wasn't until 3rd edition, that specifically addressed movement of miniatures and the consequences of moving, did those rules exist.

 

[diaglo]

That, withdrawing from combat (free attack), ranges, etc. is not a tactical movement system. Nothing in the rules supported or encouraged knowing exactly what square you were in, or gave you a reason to move in a particular way.

Considering you could move such a great distance in a 1 minute round, and that, in the end, it wouldn't mean anything anyway since your opponent would just move with you, AD&D combat consisted of pound/pound/pound - repeat. It wasn't until 3rd edition, that specifically addressed movement of miniatures and the consequences of moving, did those rules exist.

did you ever run a chase scenario. or use terrain. or worry about light sources.

i came from wargaming side. so maybe it was just inherently obvious to me.

edit: still how did you adjudicate spears set for charge?

 

[fredramsey]

did you ever run a chase scenario. or use terrain. or worry about light sources.

i came from wargaming side. so maybe it was just inherently obvious to me.

edit: still how did you adjudicate spears set for charge?

Nobody charged.

Nobody used spears.

But if they did, it would have been fairly abstract, because we wouldn't have counted squares to see if they were able to charge. The distances covered by movement gave no tatical value.

 

[Ourph]

This one seems fairly straightforward to me: because between any two DMs, and between two sessions of the same DMs in the same situation, you are much more likely to have consistent results. And I beleive consistency to be a benefit.

My point is why do you believe the codified modifiers provide more consistent results when the D&D DM is given just as much authority to modify the check as the C&C CK is (but does so in a different manner)?

If the D&D DM is deciding which modifiers apply, isn't he still making a judgement call about the difficulty of the check? Wouldn't he be applying the same judgement as a CK? Why do you trust the first, but not the second.

 

[Voadam]

You've used this argument before, and it still pegs the meter.

There was a rule about withdrawing from combat. That's it.

They also had rules for casting in melee, the melee combatant got one round of attacks for each segment of casting time.

It had rules for grappling, overbearing, and pummeling including some interactions with doing so against armed opponents, although I don't remember the specifics there.

I don't remember AoO equivalent rules about missile fire or general movement though.

 

[fredramsey]

Did chases, yep. Did light sources, yep. But the minis were there to establish marching order, and who had what opponents. Why? Because movement rates were so high (1 inch did NOT mean one inch on a battle mat. It was 10 feet indoors and 10 YARDS outdoors, or don't you remember that?).

So, if you used these so-called "movement rules" for tactical combat with minis, you would have to have played in a parking lot.

So, it was done with the good old imagination most of the time. Now, with 3rd edition, you can easily do indoor and outdoor combat on a mat. Why? It has tactical movement rules.

did you ever run a chase scenario. or use terrain. or worry about light sources.

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Well, as someone who feels this way about HERO, allow me to explain. Bear in mind that I never really "got into" HERO, and so I'm sure my opinion is colored by limited exposure. It's also worth mentioning that my sole exposure to HERO as a ruleset concerned a Champions game, and that supers games are, by definition, going to involve a fair amount of adjudication of "special effects."

I statted up a relatively simple character for a Champions game. This was the early 90s, so the character had a fair amount of influence from the comics of the period. He was a telepath/telekinetic with a military background and a preference for carrying firearms (so basically a Jim Lee/Rob Liefeld mutant). We started a game and the GM put me into a combat with other characters. I started using my "powers" as did the other characters. Half an hour later, the 30 second combat was done.

See, my issue with HERO isn't that it's complicated. It's that it takes a long time to resolve combat. If I can explain by analogy, HERO combats seem to play out in "Bullet Time." It's highly detailed and you can watch Neo dodge all the bullets, but the frenetic action of a scene is lost. Anyway, that's my issue with HERO.

It intrigues me that all the things people are complaining about with D&D 3e mostly are gripes with its magic item and magic systems, including things like "stacking." Oh yeah, and attacks of opportunity. I personally feel it comes down to this: for characters to be customizable and for player choice to have meaningful and consistent in-game consequences, you need rules for many of the things D&D has. For example, if you don't want characters who can get better or be meaningfully distinctive at certain combat moves or styles, you don't need feats. If you do want that, you do need them (in some form).

Just for a hoot, let's compare the "versions" of D&D, including C&C, which seems to be primarily what's driving this debate, and look at the real differences. (For the record, I'm using AD&D generically, as I've never owned the 1974 set, which came out when I was not yet 2.

Stats - different bonuses, but pretty much identical.
Class abilities - Nonspellcasters get more in 3e. Spell systems nearly identical.
Skills - One of the big differences
AD&D - proficiencies or not much.
3e - Uniform skill system
C&C - Primes + class skills: simplistic but fuzzy skill system.
Saves - Another difference
AD&D - Different kinds of saves - categories not always logical.
3e D&D - Three Saves, mostly logical - some weird ones, like "Dex-based fort saves"
C&C - 6 Saves, each one attribute based. Ultra-logical.
Feats -
AD&D - Weapon/Non-Weapon Proficiencies - not exactly standardized
3e D&D - Standardized feat system - mostly increases combat options
C&C - No feats.
Combat -
AD&D - Simulative - battlemats not necessary except to make "borderline" calls.
3e D&D - Tactical - battlemat eliminates concept of "borderline" calls. Some added mechanics (attacks of opportunity).
C&C - Simulative - back to the OD&D/AD&D style.
Experience -
AD&D - Slow advancement, "topping out" at about Level 15. Classes advance at different rates to account for "power discrepancies."
3e D&D - More rapid advancement - "balanced" through 20 levels in theory. Classes advance at same rate.
C&C - back to the OD&D paradigm, including different advancement per class.
Magic Items -
AD&D - Extra "goodies." DM ad hocs "appropriate level" of treasure.
3e D&D - Magic item "power ups" built into power curve. Guidelines in DMG.
C&C - unclear; rules forthcoming in Castle Keeper's Guide, not yet out.

So have I missed anything? Personally, I think 3e rationalized and standardized a lot of the things that popped up during the late 1e (and expanded during 2e) days. Some "proficiencies" became feats (ambidexterity, blind fighting, run, track, two-weapon fighting, weapon specialization) while others became skills (climb, craft, gather information, heal, herbalism, jump, ride). Finally, some of the class abilities were subsumed into the skill or feat systems and standardized (the thief, bard and ranger skills, magical item creation, etc.).

I'll freely give C&C props for the things I think it does right. I like the "attribute-based" saving throws. I hope they slip into 4e, if and when it materializes. I don't like the generic skill system, but I guess it's detailed enough for some people. As far as what it does with combat, I think it fixed one of D&D's "minor problems" while leaving a much bigger one - the magic system - utterly untouched.

So IMO, 3e was a big step toward standardization. If there's a criticism of it, other than perhaps "it's too battlemat-focused," it's that it didn't go far enough in standardizing its mechanic. For the record, I prefer a game where a jump of a given distance has a set DC, not one where the DC of a challenge is something the DM comes up with to "challenge" my PC. As a player, I want some things to become ridiculously easy at certain levels that weren't earlier. And I want to know it. If I'm just constantly facing "level-appropriate challenges," I start losing my sense of the verisimilitude of the game world, and my suspension of disbelief slips.

That's a criticism that can be levelled at the "rapid advancement" in 3e. Where do all these CR 10 critters come from that I defeat to advance to 11th level? For that matter, where were they when I was 3rd level? If they're rare, then one can assume that a significant amount of "in-game" time passes between me finding a level-appropriate encounter. So that's another prop I'll give to C&C - the diminishing effect of "levelling up" after 13th level. Personally, I think the game needs to be playable to the levels of its highest-level abilities (otherwise, why have them?), but not beyond.

So if 9th level spells are available to PCs at 17th level, then the game should top out at about 20th-level, with the realization that some of its playability assumptions change somewhere on the way to that level. If the game were well-designed, it would identify that point, or be redesigned so that those assumptions DON'T change.

 

[fredramsey]

They also had rules for casting in melee, the melee combatant got one round of attacks for each segment of casting time.

It had rules for grappling, overbearing, and pummeling including some interactions with doing so against armed opponents, although I don't remember the specifics there.

I don't remember AoO equivalent rules about missile fire or general movement though.

And these are tactical movement rules why?