Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Mythmere1]

I am sure that some hate will break out again soon ...

Castles & Crusades is a fun game and I enjoy playing it...


Where the heck is my sig line, btw...
Oh, there it is. That was weird.

 

[woodelf]

From Mike Mearls' blog:

I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.

My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.

First, a nit-pick: wouldn't it be a one-way mirror? I keep seeing references to "two-way mirrors" in various places, but how are you going to secretly observe someone through a mirror that is reflective on both sides? Surely they (and Ryan in this case) are referring to a mirror that is reflective on one side, and able to be seen through from the other side, or, IOW, a one-way mirror?

OK, now on to the substance of the claim:
Who was the test group? People experienced with crunchy RPGs? Regular gamers of some sort? Miss Marple fanfic writers? I would not be one bit surprised to discover that those who're used to GURPS or D&D3E or Hero are, in essence, reliant on the rules to resolve disputes. And that those same groups, especially initially, feel like the rules aren't supporting them when first introduced to, say, Over the Edge or Everway or Risus. World-class professional classical musicians often can't do jazz worth a damn at first, if they have no background in improvisation. But, then again, world-class jazz musicians might not be able to just pick up sheet music and sightread it. Doesn't mean either skill is better or worse, or easier or harder, than the other.

My anecdotal experience? Those who're experienced RPers, and only used to crunchy systems, often flounder, or argue, or fail to have fun with a rules-lite game. But not always--for some, it's an epiphany, and they either find something they didn't even know they were missing, or decide they like both styles of play for different reasons.

Heck, even for me, one of the most anti-crunch people i know (i consider Everway and OtE to be about my ceiling for crunch, generally), both styles of play appeal. [Well, really, i'd say "all styles", since i think this is a false dichotomy that both glosses over the spectrum on this scale, and sets up a false opposition which ignores the many other styles of play that are equally "opposite" to both of them.] Generally, anything crunchier than Over the Edge is too much for me. Except when it isn't. Then i want Hero, or Spycraft, or something like that.

But, with those with no prior experience with RPGs, the reaction to rules-lite games seems to depend on personality, with some definite gender and age trends in evidence. IME (dozens, if not hundreds, of beginners over the years; some friends, most at conventions), college-age+ beginners do better with rules-lite while younger gamers do better with more mechanical structure; women more often find crunchy games to have more detail than they're interested in mastering, while men more often seem to need mechanical detail as a crutch for their creativity; men more often start from the game stats when creating a character, and then see what develops, while women more often have a character concept in mind and then figure out how to get that with the game mechanics. Keep in mind, none of those are absolute statements--just trends i've observed. With numerous exceptions: the 2nd-most hack-n-slash/powergamer RPer i've ever known is female; several of the best rules-heads i know are female; probably the most anti-mechanics RPer i know is male; we've had a couple of first-time RPers in the 10-and-under category that had no problem knowing what to do with minimal rules support; i've known at least one person who first RPed in their late 20s, and didn't really "get it" until we used a crunchier system.

Oh, and i have never seen anything crunchy (and anything from Storyteller on up is "crunchy") run as fast as one of our sessions of Dread, or a game of OtE or QAGS or something equally lite. Not saying it can't be done, just that i've seen no evidence of it.

 

[Mythmere1]

First, a nit-pick: wouldn't it be a one-way mirror? I keep seeing references to "two-way mirrors" in various places, but how are you going to secretly observe someone through a mirror that is reflective on both sides? Surely they (and Ryan in this case) are referring to a mirror that is reflective on one side, and able to be seen through from the other side, or, IOW, a one-way mirror?

An excellent point. You may have explained the odd results of the experiment. Mr. Dancey thought he was watching gamers, but saw only himself ...

 

[Henry]

Boy, leave a place for a few days, and City calls in a wrecking crew...

Having recently played several games of C&C as a light-prep alternative to NO gaming due to lack of prepared DM's and low player turnout, I have to call foul on the apparent statements in Ryan Dancey's quote. Prep-time dramatically decreased and play-time dramatically increased for C&C over our usual D&D games; We finished around 40% of the Caves of Chaos in B2 PLUS got through a meaningful bit of roleplaying in the Keep, where they established relationships and a base of operations in only THREE sessions, as opposed to similar activities taking anywhere from 4 to 6 sessions in a 3E game. The biggest differences were in number of players playing (4 versus 6 players), and in combats (combats in the C&C games involved far larger numbers of opponents than in a similar 3e game session), and in DM adjudications (actions taking less time for me to adjudicate in C&C versus 3E); any of these could have had an effect, but the general experience was one of increased resolution speed and a feeling of "getting more adventuring done."

YET...

...Our favorite system is still 3E and d20-based games. The amount of customization and feeling of ownership of characters by the players is worth the additional prep time, when circumstances permit. If I want to play something quickly on the fly, C&C is the game I'd pick (especially with my handy 5-page cheat sheets I've now created). If we have our usual 5 to 6 hours a session and 5 or 6 players, however, 3E or d20-based game is our preferred game.

First, a nit-pick: wouldn't it be a one-way mirror?

Actually, he may well mean a two-way -- as in, he was the one speaking to the groups doing the test. In a one-way, the groups don't know they're being tested, or they are deceptively being told they're being tested for something else. In two-way, they know more or less what they are being tested for.

I would not be one bit surprised to discover that those who're used to GURPS or D&D3E or Hero are, in essence, reliant on the rules to resolve disputes. And that those same groups, especially initially, feel like the rules aren't supporting them when first introduced to, say, Over the Edge or Everway or Risus.

I can agree with this, strictly because what you are familar with is quicker to you than what is unfamiliar. In fact, it's one of the main principles behind OGL and d20 -- less time familiarizing yourself with totally new rules is more time spent getting into the game.

Oh, and i have never seen anything crunchy (and anything from Storyteller on up is "crunchy") run as fast as one of our sessions of Dread, or a game of OtE or QAGS or something equally lite. Not saying it can't be done, just that i've seen no evidence of it.

Oh, I've seen it for sure -- but it involved a group VERY familiar with said rules. In a group where all members are familiar with the rules and on the same page mechanically and dramatically, even Synnibarr could roll like an Earnhardt Stock Car. But it's a lot rarer because it requires comfort with the rules -- the more rules that come in in the middle of play, the more likelihood of referencing unfamiliar rules.

 

[JohnSnow]

Sorry...no hate. I totally agree with both this statement:

Out of the two games, I prefer C&C, but I can completely understand when people prefer 3e. It's just about whether people prefer GM adjudication or referencing a comprehensive rule-set. There are advantages to both sides.

Except for the part about preferring C&C, of course. I prefer 3e, but I can completely understand when people prefer C&C.

I also think this one is quite accurate.

I will say that mature gamers can like either rules light or rules heavy games. However, I think mature and experienced gamers are more likely to be *able* to enjoy rules light games -- simply because it takes experience and trust to make such games work.

As Akrasia says, more mature players are more likely to have the tools to enjoy a rule-light game. However, I happen to believe that mature players who know the rules backwards and forwards can easily play a rules-heavy game with the same degree of facility.

It's odd that it's almost paradoxical. Fewer rules ought to make a game easier to learn, but the reverse actually seems to be true. It seems that only players who develop a certain degree of experience and familiarity with RPGs can play and truly enjoy a rules-light game. That's an interesting observation, and one that needs to be addressed (and, to be honest, fixed) if RPgaming is going to continue growing as a hobby.

Personally, I think Mearls was making a general observation, not a blanket statement meant to apply to all gamers, hence the caveats like "seems to be" "an element of" and so forth. And the fact that he now works for Wizards doesn't mean he loses the right to have and express his own opinions, irregardless of what company he works for.

He was right to a degree, the RPG community needs to stop trying to eat its young. We'll scare all the new gamers off.

And finally:

I apologize for mischaracterizing the good gentlemen at Troll Lord Games. I do find their introduction patronizing and a bit preachy. The introduction, while not nearly as directly pejorative as I recalled, is incredibly "superior." I'll do a partial quote by way of making my point.

Capturing a mood is difficult. It is a challenge to create the intricate interplay between a bartender who is bought and paid for by a thieves guild and a character seeking to pry information from him. The task involves descriptive text, acting, accents, and a great number of things...The tale in the game must cascade over the players, engulfing them in a wash of emotions: fear, rage, courage, elation. Once you've captured everyone's emotions, the game is won! At that point, the game is pure fun, like a good movie - one where you forget you're in a theater.

The core of any game's philosophy has to have the goal of creating and capturing a mood charged with excitement. Anything that detracts from that objective detracts from the game. How does one capture that mood? Foremost, the rules guiding game play must be easily understood. Ideally, the basic rules of the game should be easily grasped within about fifteen minutes...As a foundation, the rules must be kept simple and logical, easy to comprehend and easy to enact. Expanding the game comes later, much like adding stories to a building. Start with a firm, square foundation and everything else follows.

The game must be adaptable as well. Gamers are diverse people. They all want to play a game that suits their tastes. Those playing should be able to add, discard, and change rules and ideas to fit their needs without worrying about the effects those changes have on the workings of the rest of the game. There should be only a few hard and fast rules. Everything else is extra.

The main impediment to these objectives is an overabundance of rules. A glut of rules unnecessarily restricts the flow of the story, and even worse, the flow of the game. Rules do serve a purpose. The codify actions during game play. However, rules can also impede the imagination. They can reduce the element of uncertainty and the emotions that come with it. They can describe too much, and thus hinder the capacity for narrative development for all participants. At its worst, codifying too much into game rules reduces emotion and mood. This misses the goal of capturing the emotions of the participants, and then, you've lost the heart of the game! An efficient and concise set of rules allows an ease of play and adaptability, and is a necessary ingredient.

A rules-light, adaptable game naturally engenders a gaming environment where one is bound only by imagination. When so unleashed, one can act without restraint to create a gaming environment that is fun for all. That is the core of this game's philosophy. That was the core of the original game. At its heart, it was intended to be a fun game to play and this game adheres to the same philosophy. Castles and Crusades is not a realistic-simulation game! Castles & Crusades is a fantasy game where imagination rules!

There's a whole lot of subjective opinion stated as absolute fact there. What the game "must" be. Many of the statements are accurate, but the clear intention of the designers is that they feel that the "descendant" of the "original game" they mention does NOT adhere to the same philosophy.

However, they do say a few things I agree with. Gamers should be able to play the game that suits their tastes. Couldn't have said it better myself. I guess I can just tolerate more rules before feeling that they "hinder the capacity for narrative development" than can the gentlemen at Troll Lord Games In fact, I think that some of those rules ADD to the narrative development, rather than detract from it.

As the Trolls say, gamers are diverse people. And I don't need them telling me how my game "should" or "must" be played. That second to the last paragraph is opinion stated as fact. Bully for them. I disagree and find their attitude patronizing.

That said, I do agree with a fair number of their broad and sweeping statements about how the game should be fun, easy to understand, and easy to play.

 

[Driddle]

Most of you are wrong.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I won't hate on C&C's players or the game itself or even the authors of the offending work. Mythmere nailed it, aside from his prefernce for Wrong Fun.

That said, I loath the C&C style introduction to an RPG (or any other) book.

I'd skipped it while perusing the system before; wish I'd never seen it. Similarly patronizing and snooty comments soured me on Storyteller, a system that I suspect I'd actually like if I could get past such elements or see it applied to a genre I like.

 

[Akrasia]

... Personally, I think Mearls was making a general observation, not a blanket statement meant to apply to all gamers, hence the caveats like "seems to be" "an element of" and so forth. And the fact that he now works for Wizards doesn't mean he loses the right to have and express his own opinions, irregardless of what company he works for.
...

The fact that Mearls now works for WotC suggests that he has an invested interest in dismissing 'rules light' systems. Sure he has a right to express his views -- but if he is going to make broad claims without backing them, he should expect to be called on it.

I have to say that my response to Mearls' "sociological/psychological theory" concerning RPG players who like rules light systems is, to some extent, motivated by some of the things he has been saying about non-WotC gaming companies in his blog.

Essentially, Mearls has been claiming that ALL non-WotC gaming companies are in a "downward spiral", that (with "one exception" that he never names) NO d20 companies "understand" how to write for d20, that only 2-3 d20 designers can write competently for d20, and so forth -- ALL in an incredibly vague manner, and without providing ANY support for any of his claims.

If you're interested, I started a thread on this over at RPGnet a couple of days ago:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203833

Does Mearls have access to some kind of sociological data to justify his claim that "rebellion" is a significant factor (i.e. a statistically meaningful one) that contributes to anti-3e sentiment? If not, it is no more meaningful than my assertion that beer consumption contributes to anti-3e sentiment (since, gosh, I drink beer, and I know many beer drinkers, and a lot of them don't like 3e).

Similarly, does Mearls have access to the profit statements for White Wolf, Black Industries, Eden Studios, Steve Jackson Games, Mongoose, Green Ronin, etc., in order to back up his claim that they are in "downward spirals"? I doubt it.

In short, this guy has been throwing around a lot of generalizations lately-- WITHOUT backing them up.

I'm not impressed.

 

[Akrasia]

...
There's a whole lot of subjective opinion stated as absolute fact there. What the game "must" be. Many of the statements are accurate, but the clear intention of the designers is that they feel that the "descendant" of the "original game" they mention does NOT adhere to the same philosophy. ....

Well, keep in mind that it is an introduction for a book that people most likely have already purchased -- it is not an advertisement, or an essay on role-playing. Rather, it is a "mission statement" -- i.e. an explanation of what the game is trying to accomplish.

Also, I didn't see ANY reference to the "descendent" of the "original game" mentioned in the passage you quoted.

 

[Mythmere1]

It's odd that it's almost paradoxical. Fewer rules ought to make a game easier to learn, but the reverse actually seems to be true. It seems that only players who develop a certain degree of experience and familiarity with RPGs can play and truly enjoy a rules-light game. That's an interesting observation, and one that needs to be addressed (and, to be honest, fixed) if RPgaming is going to continue growing as a hobby.

This is interesting - I think there might be one extra refinement to the thought, though, looking back on my early gaming years. Might it be that (for a brand-new gamer learning cold) that it's easier to start *playing* a rules-lighter game (here I mean one like C&C or Savage Worlds), but playing it - not too artfully. It's a bit harder to learn a heavier-rules game like 3e, but a brand-new gamer has more guidance and thus is a little more likely to be playing it - more artfully. As gamers mature and get a better sense of other rules systems, other modes of play, etc., they begin to develop a preference for either rules-heavy or rules-lite once they've got a more personal style?

Also, I think rules-heavy, since it contains "by the book" answers, is going to cause less stress in groups of younger players with hotter tempers.

I'm teaching my boys Castles & Crusades: simpler rules are better, since one's mildly autistic and the other is eight; the 3E rules are more than they can handle, but they can absorb what's needed for C&C and play like veterans (except for standing up to show exactly how that natural twenty sword thrust went in - actually, I've seen thirty-five year olds do that too - never mind). It's definitely been easier to teach. Left to themselves, though, I think tempers would flare more easily than with a nice big rulebook full of answers. When they're in college, I expect my autistic son to prefer 3e - he likes ANSWERS and hates ambiguity. My eight year old, on the other hand, is already showing a strong tendency to view the RPG as more of an interactive story than a game. He might follow his old man's lead and play C&C.

So, I think you're onto something about the learning curves not being exactly what you'd expect (although I think the rules lite games are easier to learn than rules heavy).