Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[JohnSnow]

Interesting analysis Mythmere.

I actually will just comment that I basically transitioned from rules-light to rules-heavy right alongside the D&D game. As I grew up, basically the game grew up with me. There are a few things about its current incarnation that I'm not overly enamored of, but I don't think they merit throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Especially because, as I said earlier, C&C fixes some of what I see as "minor issues" with D&D while leaving glaring ones (like the magic and magic item systems) utterly and totally untouched.

I can play a rules-light game like C&C with a certain amount of enjoyment. After a time, I find myself missing the complexity and customization available in 3e. What can I say? I like feats. I like skills, although I think they could stand to be simplified. But I don't think they should be made LESS important to the game, which it seems to me is what C&C does. Anyway, I digress and don't want to rehash my issues with C&C.

The learning curve is a big deal. Obviously, an advanced gamer can teach a newbie a rules-light game relatively quickly. The issue (to me) is how quickly a new wannabe-GM can learn the game well enough to run it for his friends. It's odd to me that the rules-light game doesn't make that learning curve any faster; if anything, it slows the process down. Not everyone who plays D&D was introduced to it by playing in someone else's game. Some people learned it on their own through trial and error. IMO, anything that assists the new DM with that learning curve is a step in the right direction for the hobby as a whole (I think DMG 2 is such a product). And anything that goes against making the game more accessible to new gamers is a step backwards. Personally, I'd love to hear people's suggestions for dealing with this.

As to Akrasia's comments, I'll let Mike Mearls speak for himself, if he so chooses. Mike's obviously guilty of some hyperbole, but who isn't? And besides, it's his blog, so he can make sweeping generalizations on his opinions about gaming if he wants to.

For what it's worth, I think there's something to his assessment that most d20 publishers don't really "get" d20. As a result, they tinker around making new prestige classes, base classes, and/or feats that don't really add anything to the game. Much more creative things can actually be done with the OGL and d20, as C&C, for one, proved. Just creating new prestige classes, weapons, spells, and so forth is, to be honest, a pretty lame effort that adds very little to the game or the hobby. By contrast, I'd say making d20 setting material is smart, as is making classes and Prestige Classes to support your setting - if you can do them right. Publishing adventures is again smart - if you can make money ton them. Making gaming aids (like Fiery Dragon's Battle Boxes) is another good idea, if you can come up with one that enhances people's gaming experience. Toolkits of well-thought-out added rules (books like Unearthed Arcana) are another good idea that probably adds to the game. Those are all some pretty big IFs...but that's probably why not everyone succeeds.

The foregoing paragraph is obviously my opinion, not that of Mike Mearls, who I don't really know other than through his posts and blog entries. I just happen to think he may be on to something.

 

[RFisher]

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying that I can see a disconnect when playing a "lite" RPG that takes these factors into account by relying mostly on GM fiat. When you point to real-world justifications, it emphasizes that you're really just playing "Mother, may I". The GM is suddenly deciding how strong a PC is, or how a slick surface would affect their footing, whether it's reasonable that the character could make the jump, etc. I.e., you're in territory where players could potentially be pulling out their sports almanacs and Guiness' Book of Records to prove what could or couldn't be done.

Well, at my table, it's more about consensus. Sure, the DM has the final say, but he's not going to discount the opinion of the players. Heck, I have to rely on the players because they certainly know more about many topics than I do. Collectively the group can usually come up with at least as good of a simulated result as any set of playable pen & paper rules.

But, yeah, I see what you're saying. The real saving grace is that our results only have to be good enough to satisfy ourselves. The players don't have to pull out the Guiness book not only because the DM trusts their recommendations, but also because they'd rather use a good-enough result based on the group's knowledge than look it up & argue.

And it is true that I go for more of a balance between gamist, narratavist, & simulationist these days. It's neither which is more realistic or which is better drama. It's a bit of both.

 

[RFisher]

I have, because it's how we started gaming in the early 80's. There was nobody experienced to serve as a teacher.

My own experience is that I learned from the D&D Basic Set, but I don't think I learned as well as I could have. Even though I understood a lot of things even then--like why armor modifying the "to hit" isn't really any different than armor modifying the damage roll--I've learned an awful lot about the old game in the past year or three that have greatly increased my appreciation of it. While there may be no wrong way to play, I feel that much of how I played classic D&D & OAD&D in the past was wrong for me.

But like I said earlier, I don't know that the game's fault was that it didn't have enough rules so much as that it didn't explain certain things to me thoroughly enough. e.g. It always said "hide in shadows", "move silently", & "climb sheer surfaces"; but I never realized that those were literal special cases & not simply artistic hyperbole. I read them as simple "hide", "sneak", & "climb".

With a mentor, almost any game is a good introductory game. Without a mentor, very few are.

 

[RFisher]

Speaking of "rules lite", does anybody else remember Dinky Dungeons? Little xeroxed book with rules involving three stats that all came in a little 3"X5" bag with some little dice. All for $1. That's what I think of when I hear "rules lite'.

I don't remember it, but I've read about it. Another one of those out-of-print titles that I'd prefer to find than just about anything being printed today.

 

[Akrasia]

... As to Akrasia's comments, I'll let Mike Mearls speak for himself, if he so chooses. Mike's obviously guilty of some hyperbole, but who isn't? And besides, it's his blog, so he can make sweeping generalizations on his opinions about gaming if he wants to. ...

Sure, he can make sweeping, unsupported generalizations if he wants. But given that he is reasonably well known in the RPG community, and works for WotC, he should not be suprised when people get annoyed with his refusal to clarify and support his claims (claims that, btw, are generally favourable to WotC, and quite bleak regarding all other companies).

Analogously, if I, as an employee of Stanford University, started making gross , unsupported generalizations about other universities and departments on my blog, I think that people would be well justified in being annoyed with me, and accusing me of being irresponsible. (Of course, I am a nobody right now, so any such claims by me would be completely unnoticed; but, as I stated above, Mearls is well known in the RPG community.)

The foregoing paragraph is obviously my opinion, not that of Mike Mearls, who I don't really know other than through his posts and blog entries. I just happen to think he may be on to something.

He is 'on to something' if his point is that 95 percent of stuff produced for 3e (or RPGs in general) is crap -- including stuff by WotC IMO. But that is hardly news.

What is annoying is his claim -- vague and unsupported -- about non-WotC companies (both d20 and non-d20). It looks like a crass dig at the competition, one that is lent the air of credibility by his reputation as a solid game designer.

Interestingly, at least one non-WotC company representative -- John Nephew, president of Atlas Games -- commented at Mearls' blog to point out that Mearls was plain wrong, at least with respect to his company (viz. Ars Magica 5th edition is doing very well, and outperforming the company's d20 material by a significant margin). See the end of the comments here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mearls/105311.html. I can only imagine that what is true for Atlas is also true for a few other non-WotC companies -- and thus Mearls' generalizations are rubbish.

Anyway, I've rambled on about this long enough. My apologies. I hope all is well back in Emeryville.

 

[Akrasia]

... After a time, I find myself missing the complexity and customization available in 3e. What can I say? I like feats. I like skills ...

I don't think 'customization' requires a 'complexity'. It is worth mentioning that there are some very good, comparatively 'rules light' games that allow for a lot of PC customization (as much as 3e). Some examples: Cinematic Unisystem (Angel/Buffy) and True 20 (which uses feats as the main way to distinguish between different characters).

C&C does allow for some customization (more than pre-3e D&D). But customization is not its forte, as it is focused on traditional 'D&D archetypes'. For 'non-D&D-ish' campaigns, I would not use C&C, but instead Cinematic Unisystem or True 20.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Interestingly, at least one non-WotC company representative -- John Nephew, president of Atlas Games -- commented at Mearls' blog to point out that Mearls was plain wrong, at least with respect to his company (viz. Ars Magica 5th edition is doing very well, and outperforming the company's d20 material by a significant margin). See the end of the comments here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mearls/105311.html. I can only imagine that what is true for Atlas is also true for a few other non-WotC companies -- and thus Mearls' generalizations are rubbish.

Mearls has reaponded to John's post here

To sum it up with an excerpt from Mike's response:

"To put it another way - I'm very happy to hear that Ars Magica is selling well. On the flip side, though, it's an almost 20 year old game designed by Jonathan Tweet, one of the best RPG designers in history. There aren't too many Tweets to go around, and companies without them are in trouble of falling farther and farther behind the curve."

To which John responds further down in the thread.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of the old pamphlet for 3rd Edition that was passed out in the stores. Fourth Edition has a much more comprehensive 'Lite' version. Still, the point stands.

GUPS -Lite 3rd edition was 32 pages in length also.

It is also an incomplete game despite how comprehensive it manages to be in 32 pages.

 

[diaglo]

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.

1 inch did equal 1 inch on the battle map for the minis

 

[diaglo]

Movement rate for unencumbered human = 12"

Converting for indoor movement = 120 feet

Converting for battlemat scale of 1 square = 5' (and it was, or you could never stand side by side in a 10' square) = 24"

24" = 2 feet of movement per round. Check your battlemat.

Average dungeon room = 30' x 30'

30' x 30' = 6" x 6", real measurement.

Movement rate of an unencumbered human per round = 24 squares/24 real inches.

Thus, you could move from any point in the room, to any other point in the room, at no penalty. And, other than stepping up to the next opponent, what encourages you to move? Fireballs? Indoors, Fireball took up so many cubic squares.

Outdoors, range was in 1" = 10 yards, or 30 feet.

Movement rate for an unencumbered human outdoors? 12"

1" = 10 yards = 30 feet = 60"

My battlemat didn't span 5'

So, again, only for relative positioning.

Does that make it any clearer? No tacticial movement rules, period.

minis were 25 mm scale. 1 inch = 25.4 mm
it wasn't by coincidence.