Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Voadam]

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.

What more do you need as a rule system? I remember it being pretty comprehensive and thinking I could run a game with it.

 

[buzz]

No tactical movement rules in AD&D 1st Edition.

Based on my checking my 1e DMG last night, I'm finding your apparent defintion of "tactical" interesting.

The 1e DMG, as someone pointed out, specifically addresses scale during *combat* as 1" = 10'. It has a table that lists what the base movement rates translate to per round and per segment. I gives battlemat diagrams (for both squares and hexes) that define facing, talks about how many squares/hexes creatures of different sizes take up, provides to-hit bonuses for attacking the flank or the rear, getting free attacks on an opponent who is fleeing (and who also loses their Dex bonus to AC, RAW), tables and rules for handling pursuit, and the rules in general provide area effect measurements in inches, and lets not forget reach weapons.

In all, this is not very different from 3e. 3e is just clearer and more consistent. Positioning matters, as do tactics, ergo, tactical.

If 1e is supposedly not "tactical", then I'm not really sure what it is, becasue it's certainly not "narrative". I.e., your PC's chance to hit isn't based on their resolve or how important the opponent is to te plot.

Granted, it's hard to puzzle this all out given the writing and the inconsistencies in the rules. E.g., none of the base movement rates are in multiples of 10, so a PC who moves at 9" moves 9' in a single segment. Assuming that a PC has performed actions that have used up some of their segments (adjudicating which is specifically addressed), I'm not sure how you'd measure out their movement on a mat with 1" = 10' squares, or your personal 1" = 5' squares.

 

[buzz]

What more do you need as a rule system? I remember it being pretty comprehensive and thinking I could run a game with it.

The new 4e GURPS Lite has only basic chargen and action-resolution info. There's no sample magic system presented as in the 3e version, and no unusual Advantages or Disads. There's rules for making realistic human beings in a contemporary setting and that's about it.

It's less of a mini-GURPS like 3e's was and more of a GURPS primer. I can see how one would be hard-pressed to use it alone.

 

[Desdichado]

how important the opponent is to te plot.

Shouldn't that be "teh plot?"

 

[buzz]

Shouldn't that be "teh plot?"

Pol Pot?

 

[fredramsey]

It's becaused no one I ever ran into all those years used segments that much, only for spellcasting. It was rounds. And in a round, your average thief or wizard (unencumbered for obvious reasons) could move 2 FEET on the battlemat in a round. No use there.

And yes, it was 5' on the battlemat. You can't possible sit there and tell me you drew a 30' x30' dungeon room on a battle map that was 3 1" squares by 3 1" squares. Get out your current mat and try it. One mini per square? No walking two by two down a 10' hall? Nope, never saw anyone in all the years I played 1st Ed & 2nd Ed do that. You couldn't represent the action that way.

So no one bothered to move, except to step up to the next opponent, or for area of effect spells. There was no need, no rules to support why you would do that.

I think sometimes people view those 1st Edtion days through too much of a nostalgia filter. Gameplay was just not the detailed, tactical affair it is today in 3.x. Large movement rates, in YARDS outdoors. Yards. 6 squares on the battle mat per 1" outdoor scale. And again, using outdoor scale, an unencumbered human could move 72 squares on the battle mat. That's 5 FEET. So, no one playing on any table I can imagine counted out squares in an outdoor fight.

Strategic? Yes. But not tactical. 3.x gave us tactical movement. Movement that matters. Knockback/Bull Rush. 5' steps. The whole shebang. I started to create this for 1st Edition myself. I was going to cut the rounds from 1 minute to 10 seconds, use a formula to come up with a squares/round, etc. I just never finished it.

Based on my checking my 1e DMG last night, I'm finding your apparent defintion of "tactical" interesting.

The 1e DMG, as someone pointed out, specifically addresses scale during *combat* as 1" = 10'. It has a table that lists what the base movement rates translate to per round and per segment. I gives battlemat diagrams (for both squares and hexes) that define facing, talks about how many squares/hexes creatures of different sizes take up, provides to-hit bonuses for attacking the flank or the rear, getting free attacks on an opponent who is fleeing (and who also loses their Dex bonus to AC, RAW), tables and rules for handling pursuit, and the rules in general provide area effect measurements in inches, and lets not forget reach weapons.

In all, this is not very different from 3e. 3e is just clearer and more consistent. Positioning matters, as do tactics, ergo, tactical.

If 1e is supposedly not "tactical", then I'm not really sure what it is, becasue it's certainly not "narrative". I.e., your PC's chance to hit isn't based on their resolve or how important the opponent is to te plot.

Granted, it's hard to puzzle this all out given the writing and the inconsistencies in the rules. E.g., none of the base movement rates are in multiples of 10, so a PC who moves at 9" moves 9' in a single segment. Assuming that a PC has performed actions that have used up some of their segments (adjudicating which is specifically addressed), I'm not sure how you'd measure out their movement on a mat with 1" = 10' squares, or your personal 1" = 5' squares.

 

[Remathilis]

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

There's something rather Niechie about that...

 

[Remathilis]

It's becaused no one I ever ran into all those years used segments that much, only for spellcasting. It was rounds. And in a round, your average thief or wizard (unencumbered for obvious reasons) could move 2 FEET on the battlemat in a round. No use there.

And yes, it was 5' on the battlemat. You can't possible sit there and tell me you drew a 30' x30' dungeon room on a battle map that was 3 1" squares by 3 1" squares. Get out your current mat and try it. One mini per square? No walking two by two down a 10' hall? Nope, never saw anyone in all the years I played 1st Ed & 2nd Ed do that. You couldn't represent the action that way.

So no one bothered to move, except to step up to the next opponent, or for area of effect spells. There was no need, no rules to support why you would do that.

I think sometimes people view those 1st Edtion days through too much of a nostalgia filter. Gameplay was just not the detailed, tactical affair it is today in 3.x. Large movement rates, in YARDS outdoors. Yards. 6 squares on the battle mat per 1" outdoor scale. And again, using outdoor scale, an unencumbered human could move 72 squares on the battle mat. That's 5 FEET. So, no one playing on any table I can imagine counted out squares in an outdoor fight.

Strategic? Yes. But not tactical. 3.x gave us tactical movement. Movement that matters. Knockback/Bull Rush. 5' steps. The whole shebang. I started to create this for 1st Edition myself. I was going to cut the rounds from 1 minute to 10 seconds, use a formula to come up with a squares/round, etc. I just never finished it.

I take your ploy and raise you one. Since I hate 1e's books for finding anysort of rule (Gygax was a master poet and designer, but had the organizational skills of a butterfly on crystal meth).

So instead, I present you with the rules from the OneTru TM version of D&D:

Map Scales
You may want to keep maps of the characters' travels; it's usually a very good idea in traditional dungeon-based campaigns, and the DM may insist on it. With dungeon or indoor maps, you use graph paper. Each square on the paper typically represents 10' of distance. With wilderness or outdoor maps, you use hex paper. Map hex scales vary widely, but the most commonly used D&D game scales usually have one hex represent 8 or 24 miles. Always check the map key printed on maps. In any case, the DM will tell you if he or she wants you to map in a different scale.

Miniature Figures
Your campaign group might like to use miniature figures to represent all characters and monsters, especially in combat encounters. Several types of miniature figures are available from toy and hobby shops worldwide that are made of metal, plastic, or cardboard; the metal
and plastic ones are suitable for painting. With so many available, you should be able to find
figures that look very similar to your characters. The 25mm figurines (a human is about 1" tall) are well-suited to D&D games.When you use miniatures to conduct combat, 1" on the table surface represents 10' of distance. If a character can move 30 yards (90') in a round, you'd move his figure 9" ahead on the table.You can use a ruler to measure distances or you can buy one of many vinyl or plastic playing surfaces that are already gridded into inches. Additionally, you can use watercolor markers to draw room and situation details on vinyl or plastic surfaces and easily erase them once the combat is done.

Movement
You learned about movement in Chapter 6. Here are some additional details:
• Encounter Speed: A character or monster may move his full encounter speed movement
(1/3 normal movement in one round) and still make his attacks this round.• Running Speed: A character or monster may move his full running speed movement (3 x normal movement) this round if he is not already engaged in combat but cannot attack if he does so.
• Normal Speed: A character's normal speed is never used during the combat sequence. Simple, quick actions such as drawing a new weapon do not subtract from a character's movement score; the DM may choose to deduct some of a character's movement for the round if he performs any more complicated maneuvers. Standing up after a fall, however, does count as an action in a combat round.

Fighting Withdrawal
A character can only perform this maneuver when he begins his combat round in hand-to-hand combat with an enemy. With this maneuver, the character backs away from his enemy at a rate of 5' per round. He makes no attack unless his enemies follow him later in the same combat round, on the enemies' own movement phase. If they do, he can make his attack at the end of the enemies' movement phase, before the enemies begin their own attacks. The character's attack is the same as a normal attack. If he is not in handto-hand combat with his enemy when his movement phase comes around in the next round, he can go to running speed that next round.

Retreat
A character can only perform this maneuver when he begins his combat round in hand-tohand combat with an enemy. The character runs away from his enemy at greater than half his encounter speed, up to his full encounter speed. He forfeits the armor class bonus of his shield. Any enemy attacking him later in the combat round (that is, either an enemy who followed him during the enemies' movement phase or an enemy attacking with a ranged weapon) receives a +2 attack roll bonus this round. This is the same + 2 that characters normally get for attacking from behind (see the Attack Roll Modifiers Table on page 108).
If the character is not in hand-to-hand combat with his enemy when his movement phase comes up in the next round, he can go to running speed that next round.

Set Spear vs. Charge
A character on foot and carrying a spear, pike, sword shield, or lance can set the weapon vs. a charge. A charge is when a monster charges the character—that is, runs toward him for 20 or more yards before its attack. A character can also set his spear vs. another character's lance attack against him...

Granted, the rules evolved over 10 years (this printing was 92?) but they existed, in a very Rules-Lite version of D&D, and are better spelled out than the in AD&D1.

Sorry, YOU might have never used movement in your game, but it WAS there in D&D since Diaglo's time.

 

[scadgrad]

...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.

We're going a bit off topic here in a way, but I just wanted to respond to Curtis.

Yep, the simplicity from a DM's perspective is what totally sold it for me. I love those 1 line stat blocks. Even w/ the "complexity" that I've added to our game (basically nothing really), the Big Bad Evil Fighter would be:

Humie FTR7 AC19 HPs 60 Primes Str +2, Con +2, Dex +1
Weap Spec LSword, Combat Dom, Dodge, Impr Init, PwAttk, Cleave
Some gear

And I can make that guy up in about 3 minutes.

I fundamentally disagree that C&C Raw is Awful. It's just not something that you personally would enjoy playing and as we've said many times before, I think that really does boil down to personality types. I'm wondering what you'd make of something like CoC since it lacks feats, miniatures, a robust combat system, etc.? Just curious.

Personally, I love games like that. And just to argue semantics, "boilerplate characters" is a bit more disparaging than the more appropriate "archetypal characters," but maybe it's just me.

And finally, all of the things that I've added to our game will soon be part of C&C. Remember that the game is still very much a work in progress and that the optional rules will come later in the CKG. I think it's just easier to get your head around the game if you view it as a Bridge between all editions which allows you to pick and choose what you add to your game from where.

 

[buzz]

So, help me out here. Is the problem that GM-set difficulties are railroading? Because I can't get it -- if the GM wants to make it impossible to jump, or easy, or in between, he can do that either way. (The exception being that he's working from a published module, in which case the writer set the difficulty.)

My issue is that, as described (because I'm really not trying to pick on C&C specifically; I don't know enough about it, but am going on what has been explained to me), it seems like the C&C (or fiat) method doesn't really tell me anything about the capabilties of my PC. If, as soneome else mentioned, the TNs in C&C are generally going to be level-appropriate, and the TN for that jump is going to remain essentially "50% chance for your PC to do something heroic" no matter what level the PC is or what his stats are, then why does my PC even have a Str stat to begin with? How am I supposed to know anything about my PC when all of the numbers on the sheet are wholly subject to GM fiat? How does that help me make a decision when my turn comes up? Every turn becomes a game of 20 questions with the GM.

I mean, it seems like what really makes a difference in C&C specificaly is whether a stat is a prime or not; that has a much bigger effect than the range of bonuses a stat can provide. On top of this, it seems like TNs will be "level-appropriate", yet also highly variable at a GM's whimsy.

So, why isn't each stat just listed with a value of "good" or "bad", and why do PCs level up? If the GM is always going to just make the TN whatever it needs to be so that my PC's chances are 50/50, why the heck do I even need to be keeping track of as many numbers as the rules say I do? Apparently, my PC will never get to a point where I can be confident in their ability to accomplish a task, becasue any given task can be set at whtever TN the GM wants.

In D&D, this is not the case, becasue the numbers on my sheet mean something, and I have some assurance that the DM doesn't just make up DCs whole cloth. Sure, the DM is the one drawing out the battlefield, and thus can rig things so that even a 10' jump is impossible. But the DM isn't always just "rigging things". Most often, he's just drawing a map. Being able to look at that map and have a concrete idea of how the numbers on my sheet interact with that map helps me as a player. He also is working within a framework we both understand.

E.g., when my barbairan was 1st-level, his Jump skill wasn't so high that he'd be using a half-fallen dining table as a ramp to leap 15' at a satyr crouched behind a chair on the other side of the room. At 11th level, though, I know he can do this barring very unusual circumstances. The decision whether he can is not entirely up to the DM. If it were, then there would be no point to tracking ranks, and my skill should just be listed as "good"/"bad".

Is the problem that it's unrealistic? If so, that's a valid preference -- if you mean, "I prefer concrete situations which I can assess using the rules," then that's more of an issue that you prefer a different way of interfacing with the shared imaginative environment.

It could be entirely my preference, yes.

I guess my main point goes back to what I was saying about narrative games. IMO, "lite" games works best when any pretense of simulationism is thrown out the window. If you're going to put numbers on a character sheet that supposedly track objective qualities (strength, level of skill, weight), those numbers should have meaning and relate to the task. I don't see the point of making a roll based on Str when the TN is based on narrative importance. That's a disconnect for me.

This is why I keep coming back to the pseudo-HeroQuest example of my idea of a good "lite" RPG. The numbers on the HQ sheet are all narrative assessments, becasue that's what the GM uses to set up tasks; the frame of reference is the same. That appeals to me.

Buffy, which I like, has sort of a disconnect. PCs have a Strength stat, but the GM is still working in a pretty narrative mode. Thankfully, Buffy has Drama Points, which allow the players to make the same sort of "narrative assessment" of a situation. GM: "This is a really important scene, so you're hard pressed to get past that vamp." Player: "Yes, it is important, so I'll spend a Drama Point to make sure I dust him."

I guess my position basically comes down to: I like good RPGs. "Good" will be determined how said game fits my sensibilities (duh). I like "rules-sufficient" (or "robust" as Psion would have it ) and don't like "rules-insufficient".

Many "lite" RPGs don't appeal to me becasue they feel like the latter. As a player, I'm rolling all these stats and tracking numbers and using abilties that are listed as having some concrete metric, but then when I play, it all goes out the window and I have to rely on my GM to tell me what my PC can do.