Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[buzz]

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.

But there's a difference between setting the scene and being the sole arbiter as to how the PC interacts with that scene.

As you describe C&C, the player really has no idea whatsoever whether their PC can make that jump. They have to wait until the GM focuses on them, arbitrarily picks a number, and then reveals whether the roll was enough to beat it.

In D&D, as a player, I can look at the battlemat, see exactly how wide the gap is that my PC needs to jump, thus providing me, with no help from the DM, a basic DC. I then can determine the mods due to lack of space to make a running start, terrain, encumbance, etc, because they are right in the book. Barring the addition of a "DM's buddy" +2/-2 modifier, both the DM and I are on the same page as to the difficulty of the jump,. I can even make my roll and determine whether the PC makes it without the participation of the DM. As a player, this is empowering. The numbers on my sheet mean something.

In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished.

If a DM is doing this, that's railroading; the PC never had a chance.

In the D&D scenario, both the player and the DM are ostensibly bound by the rules of the situation that's been created. The chasm that's X feet wide doesn't suddenly become X+N feet wide becasue the DM doesn't want the PC to make the jump. That would be cheating. The circumstances are accounted for; regardless of who's DMing, the DC will be the same. Consistency leads to consensus, which leads to a better play experience.

In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed.

Personally, I prefer that the criteria be at least somewhat objective, e.g., a chasm X feet wide = DC Y. A game doens't need to be "heavy" to accomplish this objectivity, necessarily, it just needs to be "rules sufficient".

 

[fredramsey]

Well, ya'll have fun. Work's over, and I am... outta here.

 

[Psion]

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.

I'm not sure what you are missing. If a number of factors to consider are established, and the modifiers for those conditions are established, you take the inherent randomness out of the magnitude of the modifiers or even the consideration out of whether something should cause a modifier. If you have the DM make up modifiers every time, the chances are that any two times, he's going to come up with different numbers, or that two different DMs will have different snap judgements about what is appropriate.

 

[Ace]

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.

My only objections to Hero are the phased combat system (which seems really slow) and chargen -- the rest of the systems seem brilliant and how slow could 3d6 roll low be.

 

[Voadam]

And these are tactical movement rules why?

They are not. And were not intended to be examples of such.

These are examples of AoOs in 1e, in response to your disagreement of the quote from Diaglo where he says there were AoOs in previous editions.

Your post, #505 of this thread.

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

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

in response to

Originally Posted by diaglo
"they had attacks of opportunity in earlier editions."

 

[buzz]

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.

Becasue a DM in D&D is not allowed, in the RAW, to just set the DC for a 10' jump as high as she wants. There's a contract between the players and the DM that the rules in the book apply. The rules dictate modifiers for the jump based on distance, terrain, etc. The DC produced by those rules will vary by +2/-2 at best unless the DM is outright ignoring them.

I mean, I understand what you're getting at, that there's potential in any RPG that the GM can potentially ignore rules willy-nilly. But what's the point of using any system if that's the case? The basic assumption is that the rules will be used, and by the rules, the D&D version of the check will not vary, and thus the player can accurately assess how his PC's capabilties function within the game world.

There's a quote I think is relevant here (another one I found on Mearls' blog): "That's the value of well-designed rules. They let you do things that are more fun than you'd have without them." - Vincent Baker

IMO, the "lite" game that relies wholly on fiat is no more or less fun than "Mother, may I". I.e., why did I need to pay money for the game if I'm just playing "Did not!"/"Did too!"?

For me, rules-sufficient (I'm going to stop saying "heavy" here) is more fun, becasue there's a system in which all the participants work that serves as an equalizer. E.g., both the GM and I know that my PC can cover X distance in a round because the PC's movement is >= X (or possibly because the distance is rated at "Drama 1" and my Hero can accomplish anything of "Drama 5" or better in a scene wihtout rolling). If it's wholly up to whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed, well, I guess I'd rather just go home a read a book (or write one).

 

[buzz]

By-the-by, it's really nice to see the HERO-love here.

Buzz "I am HERO's beeyotch" Ooi

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Near as I can tell, these are tactical combat movement rules. Perhaps someone will translate it into English (or another language more widely recognized than that of the old PHB, such as Latin? Or Klingon?)

Movement - Time and Distance Factors

Movement range is always shown by a numeral followed by the sign for inches thus, 9." The number of inches moved is scaled to circumstance and time by modifying either the distance represented or the time period or both.

Movement in the Dungeon: The movement distance in the dungeon is 1" to 10' over a turn of 10 minutes duration while exploration and mapping are in progress. If the party is following a known route or map, the movement rate is 5 times greater, so each move takes 1/5 of a turn (2 rounds). If the party is fleeing, all movement - excluding encumbered movement, is 10 times faster, so that each move takes only 1/10 of a turn, or 1 round. This same movement rate applies in combat situations, so by converting each 1" of movement rate to 10', and then taking 1/10 of the round (using segments), the distance a character or monster can travel during the course of combat is easily found.

Although even less clear and precise, Melee Combat on pg. 104 and pg. 105 and Example of Combat on pg. 105 indicate the importance of position (as does the use of a radius spell, silence 15 ft. radius, in the example). They also discuss grappling, and the very quick progression from being grappled to probably being slain outright!

 

[Ourph]

But there's a difference between setting the scene and being the sole arbiter as to how the PC interacts with that scene.

As you describe C&C, the player really has no idea whatsoever whether their PC can make that jump. They have to wait until the GM focuses on them, arbitrarily picks a number, and then reveals whether the roll was enough to beat it.

Why do you assume that in C&C the player cannot ask the CK how difficult the jump would be before making the role, or even deciding to act? Why do you assume that the number picked is "arbitrary", rather than based on the same type of situational modifiers that might apply in a more rules-heavy system?

In D&D, as a player, I can look at the battlemat, see exactly how wide the gap is that my PC needs to jump, thus providing me, with no help from the DM, a basic DC. I then can determine the mods due to lack of space to make a running start, terrain, encumbance, etc, because they are right in the book.

The modifiers for terrain are in the book, but the status of the terrain and the space available for a running start at the point of the jump is completely up to the DM. You will still have to interact with a real person at some point in order to determine which modifiers apply. At that point, the person with the authority to make those decisions will inform you of the difficulty of the task (either by simply telling you the net difficulty or enumerating the modifiers that apply to the base difficulty).

Barring the addition of a "DM's buddy" +2/-2 modifier, both the DM and I are on the same page as to the difficulty of the jump,. I can even make my roll and determine whether the PC makes it without the participation of the DM.

Again, you're not on the same page until you know what modifiers apply. If the pit is actually a shaft with a strong updraft and the DM has decided this provides a +5 modifier to Jump checks across the pit, you won't know that until 1 - A description of the updraft comes up in actual play; 2 - You ask the DM about the specific environment of the pit; or 3 - You ask the DM about the difficulty of a Jump check to cross the pit. All three of which would also be necessary in C&C to get that information.

As a player, this is empowering. The numbers on my sheet mean something.

As do the ability scores on a C&C character's sheet. They determine how good or bad things are on your end. They don't do anything to inform you about how likely you are to succeed or fail until you have all of the information about the difficulty of a specific task.

If a DM is doing this, that's railroading; the PC never had a chance.

How is setting a DC or TN railroading? How is saying "The jump requires a Str check TN=15" any different than saying "The pit is 10ft wide, the roughness of the floor in this area makes a running start impossible, a strong updraft provides a +5 bonus to Jump checks across the pit. Resulting DC = 15."?

In the D&D scenario, both the player and the DM are ostensibly bound by the rules of the situation that's been created. The chasm that's X feet wide doesn't suddenly become X+N feet wide becasue the DM doesn't want the PC to make the jump. That would be cheating.

In C&C, modifying the TN after the PC rolls based on whether or not you want him to fail or not would also (by most reasonable people I think) be defined as "cheating". That's not what we're talking about here. If the player asks the CK, "If I try to jump the pit, how difficult will it be?" and the CK says, "It's a TN=15 Str check" where is the discernable difference between D&D and C&C?

The circumstances are accounted for; regardless of who's DMing, the DC will be the same. Consistency leads to consensus, which leads to a better play experience.

The circumstances aren't accounted for until the player communicates to the DM and makes sure he knows all the facts about the situation. In both systems, the DM sets the difficulty based on certain criteria. If a player assumes he knows all the criteria before communicating with the DM, he's just as likely to run into unexpected consequences in D&D as he is in C&C. I agree that consensus leads to a better play experience, but I don't think you automatically reach consensus with preset difficulty modifiers and I don't think consistency is the only way to reach consensus.

In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed.

That's absolutely untrue. You're either misreading my original post or I wasn't clear enough. Either way, this has nothing to do with the DM fudging the roll for a specific result.

Personally, I prefer that the criteria be at least somewhat objective, e.g., a chasm X feet wide = DC Y. A game doens't need to be "heavy" to accomplish this objectivity, necessarily, it just needs to be "rules sufficient".

But D&D doesn't provide you with a rule that says a chasm Xft wide = DC Y. It provides you with a system that sets a base DC according to the width of the jump, then modifies it according to several factors. Whether those modifiers apply is up to the DM and should (in a fair game with a reasonable and impartial DM) be either available to the player by asking the DM or discoverable by the player through in-game actions. This is not, from the players perspective, measurably different than how things work in C&C.

 

[Ourph]

I'm not sure what you are missing. If a number of factors to consider are established, and the modifiers for those conditions are established, you take the inherent randomness out of the magnitude of the modifiers or even the consideration out of whether something should cause a modifier.

But both systems still require communication between two people (DM/CK and player) to establish what the ultimate difficulty is; and both situations still leave the power to determine that difficulty in the hands of a single person acting as "referee". In both cases, you're still relying on the person acting as referee to make reasonable decisions.

If you have the DM make up modifiers every time, the chances are that any two times, he's going to come up with different numbers

I still don't understand why this is your baseline assumption. My experience has been exactly the opposite. In general, people I've played with tend to assign the same types of modifiers consistently and will usually assign the same types of modifiers even when playing different systems for tasks which are essentially the same (ex. - jumping a 10ft pit).

Even if they don't, simple communication between player and DM removes any ambiguity and I maintain that D&D requires that communication just as much any other system, because (while the modifiers themselves might be delineated in some cases) whether they apply or not and whether any additional modifiers apply is clearly still up to the DM. Players are still going to have to engage in some form of communication in order to ascertain the difficulty in most situations or risk making a decision without all the relevant facts.