Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Rasyr]

If we are going to start discussing the predictions themselve, perhaps we ought to move it to another thread.

 

[Psion]

More stuff plucked from the livejournal:

I'll draw an analogy.

Why did TSR release the SAGA system? Think back to that time - 2e was sinking, TSR was in dire shape. Why do you think they released SAGA?

Heh... okay, I think he has a point. Still in the vein of "the Lakers choked in the finals last season"; it says something. It's certainly not Ironclad.

Edit: In fact, didn't someone upthread make the prediction that next edition would be any more minis-dependant? I don't think that's a prediction more startling or uninformed than this.

 

[Belen]

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.

You have some "odd" views on D&D/d20 and I think you have moved beyond your burnout with 3e to active hatred of the system. You have been parroting the same comments for so long that most of your posts seem like deja vu.

D&D can be hard to run, but not nearly as difficult as you make it. If you have a lot of rules monkeys in a group, then the game is a nightmare, but otherwise fairly easy to run.

The main problem is that few companies really embraced d20. Rather, they wanted to keep playing the same game of writing their stuff and window dressing it in a system they think they could have designed better.

I really think you should take a break from the d20 hatred for a while.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't understand what this means.

I do--that's how I play d20. buzz and others can talk all they want about players need to know how to ballpark Jumps across chasms (although I think Ourph sufficiently demonstrated that setting DC's in 3e "RAW" can be just as arbitrary as any other task resolution system with which I'm familiar) but that's not how it works in my game.

There's a few reasons for this. 1). A chasm on the battlemap isn't a very interesting challenge. Jumping between two airships that are bucking in a storm thousands of feet above the surface with slippery, angled decks is more like the kind of challenge I'd be likely to use. And the description of modifiers in the Jump skill write-up is notably more vague on those type of things, making my various situational modifiers more important, and the "RAW" less so. 2). The idea that players "need" to know more or less where their modifers are going to end up on their own, and don't want to be subject to the vagaries of GM interpretation is a personal preference. In my group, we don't need to know that. We have no problem either asking the GM how hard it would be to do something, or just attempting it anyway based on our understanding of how hard it looks to be in real life and trusting that the DC will accurately reflect that. The first is an issue of player/GM communication, the second is an issue of player/GM compatibility. 3). buzz's argument seems to hang its hat on being wary of such player/GM compatibility. In point of fact, I know what DC's are likely to be just based on the fact that I know my group, and all of us GM at times. We all GM in a very similar style--we like having the rules of d20 handy if we need them, but in practice, we do a fair amount of handwaving and eyeballing of things rather than strict computations of them. If we need to use a rule subsystem with which we're not very familiar (such as, say, sundering an opponent's weapon) we'll attempt to look it up. If it can't be found in, oh, 30 seconds to a minute or so, we discuss it for a few seconds, come up with a solution that we all think is reasonable, accept it and move on, while the affected player may continue to search for the actual rule while waiting for his next turn, just so we can all know better next time.

To get back to Ryan Dancey's point, for a moment if I may, we do have more discussions about rulings in rules-heavy games, mainly because we don't exactly remember what all the rules are, especially subsets that aren't used very often. We don't have discussions about the "arbitrariness" of rules-lite scenarios because 1) we don't argue anyway, so we'd all accept the GM's ruling without argument, and 2) we're all on the same page, so to speak, and we also don't argue with GM's rulings because they seem natural and intuitive to us as well--i.e., if we were GMing that same situation, we'd handle it the same way.

Since we seem to fit the profile of rules lite players in many ways, it's perhaps surprising that in general we all prefer to play d20, but play it somewhat fast-n-loose with a "rules lite" style. But we like the robustness of the system. We like that there's rules for lots of situations and scenarios that can be adapted to whatever happens to come up. To use an example of mine from earlier in the thread, swinging on a rope from the fo'c's'le to hit the orc pirate in the face and knock him over the railing into the briny deep, for example, is not covered by the d20 rules, but it's easy to make up a DC on the fly for your Use Rope check (or whatever skill you think appropriate) for the swing, and if it's successful rule that you can then make a Bull Rush attack with a +4 circumstantial bonus, or whatever.

The robustness and completeness of the rules is a feature we can use to cover all kinds of situations, even those that aren't necessarily specifically spelled out in the rules. They are not a constraining force for us that we feel bound to follow to the letter, though, especially when it's slowing down our pace, for which we have much less patience than for the occasional DC that's off by a point or two because we didn't calculate it exactly.

 

[fredramsey]

[snip]

The robustness and completeness of the rules is we can use to cover all kinds of situations, even those that aren't necessarily specifically spelled out in the rules. They are not a constraining force for us that we feel bound to follow to the letter, though, especially when it's slowing down our pace, for which we have much less patience than for the occasional DC that's off by a point or two because we didn't calculate it exactly.

Very well put. I think that balances both sides of this argument quite well, and even may point to the fact that there shouldn't be an argument to begin with.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Someone said that we C&Cers can't talk about what we like about C&C, but what we don't like about 3e. Imo, that's because the very absense of some of 3e's rules IS what I like about C&C, and conversely, is what I don't like about 3e. Aoos, ninja rogues instead of thieves, multiple attacks for clerics, rogues, and wizards, wilderogue rangers, counting every 5 foot step, one thousand hit point critters. I could go on. Now, I'm not really bashing 3e, if you like those things, fine. I don't. But I get the feeling that 3e players think I'm somehow inferior for NOT caring for those things. That I just "don't get it." I suppose the reverse is true as well, but the C&C fans get dismissed because we are a minority, and thus must be wrong.

As for Dancey's claim, well, last night's 3e game lasted until midnight. ONE battle with a bunch of drow. Five and a half hours. Would have been maybe 45 minutes in C&C.

 

[Psion]

Piggybacking here...

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).

You know, I like True20, but there is one thing I don't like about it, and it gives the lie to the notion that it allows "as much (customization) as 3e": the "all skills are maxed out" simplification.

Don't get me wrong; it's a simplification that I have used myself when churning out NPCs and when teaching my daughter d20. But it does make the characters more "chunky".

 

[Desdichado]

The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems. If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.

That may be the first time I've seen someone refer to me as someone they'd refer to argue with because at least my argument is substantive instead of insulting. Makes an old fart like me feel loved.

 

[fredramsey]

That may be the first time I've seen someone refer to me as someone they'd refer to argue with because at least my argument is substantive instead of insulting. Makes an old fart like me feel loved.

While you may be frustrating to argue with sometimes, you're much more civil about it than I am.

Keeping your cool is a good trait.

 

[der_kluge]

For the record, I'm currently playing in a C&C game. My GM is Scadgrad, and he has turned what would otherwise be a pile of crap (IMNSHO) into a really playable, fun, fast-paced game.

Let's consider C&C RAW -

- boiler plate classes, little to no customization from a mechanical standpoint
- no feats
- no skills
- horrible layout, tons of typos
- no rules for miniatures (that I am aware of)

At face value, C&C is an awful game, especially coming from the flexibility of 3rd edition.

3e RAW -
- feats and skills
- prestige classes (not that I care much about these)
- suffers from some "boiler-plate" issues, like racial abilities, class abilities (let's face it, it's no GURPS or HERO)
- rules for miniatures
- great production values, TONS of support

Scadgrad has taken what I would consider to be a nearly unplayable game into something great. How? He added back in feats, some basic miniatures rules, and some basic criticals rules. There are still a few things he and I disagree on, like weapon damage, for starters, but that's a minor thing. (In C&C, the only differentiator between weapons is damage, and how many hands it takes to wield).

In short, I would hate playing C&C as written. From a player's standpoint, it's very restrictive - no customization (see my thread a while back about trying to make a dex-based fighters with C&C rules). The lack of miniatures play devolves into "Where am I? Can I get there? Where is the creature at? How many can I get with my fireball?" kinds of discussions, which I suffered through in 2nd edition.

That said, the major benefit of C&C, as written, is the simplicity of the stat block. It utilizes a more 1st edition/2nd edition style stat block. Something more or less like:

skeletons (3): AL: NE; Init: +1; AC: 15; HP 6;
notes: half damage from non-bludgeoning weapons

that's basically it.

Compare that to a 3rd edition skeleton stat block:
 	Medium Undead 
Hit Dice: 	1d12 (6 hp) 
Initiative: 	+5 
Speed: 	30 ft. (6 squares) 
Armor Class: 	15 (+1 Dex, +2 natural, +2 heavy steel shield), touch 11, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple:	+0/+1
Attack:	Scimitar +1 melee (1d6+1/18–20) or claw +1 melee (1d4+1)
Full Attack:	Scimitar +1 melee (1d6+1/18–20) or 2 claws +1 melee (1d4+1)
Space/Reach:	5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —	—
Special Qualities:	Damage reduction 5/bludgeoning, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to cold, undead traits
Saves:	Fort +0, Ref +1, Will +2
Abilities: Str 13, Dex 13, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1	Str 13, Dex 17, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1
Feats:	Improved Initiative
Environment:	Temperate plains
Organization:	Any
Challenge Rating:	1/3
Treasure:	None
Alignment:	Always neutral evil
Advancement:	—
Level Adjustment:	—

(as a side note, since when are skeletons only found in temperate plains?!?!)

wow, what a difference.

The game play in the middle of the game is not any different, nor should it be. People still role-play, they still roll dice, they still eat cheesy poops and drink Mountain Dew.

The lack of complexity in the stat block greatly simplifies the work of the GM, and detracts very little from actual game play, freeing up the GM to do more things with his time, rather than tweaking a creatures feats, or whatnot. The idea of scaling a creature to be more powerful by adding levels has always been there - it's called adding more hit points!

Looking at it a different way, if you take the concept of the game itself - applying rules to simulate real-world (albeit fantastical) situations.

The number of those situations is infinite. So, is it better to try to cover as many of them as possible, or just admit right up front "hey, this is impossible, so I'm just going to cover the bases". I think the latter.


I don't think C&C is perfect - far from it. I think there's a happy middle ground. I think the game we have currently is damn nearly there.

I've rambled on enough.