Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Voadam]

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.

I have no experience with 4e or 4e lite so I'll take your word on that.

But the person I was quoting and responding to was saying the 3e one wasn't a complete game and I did have experience with 3e. I was asking what he thought was missing from the 3e lite.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh, the thread drift.


If I remember what I read last night correctly, Regdar didn't move 120 yards outside if he was in combat. He would move 120', and I'm not even sure if he could move the entire 120' and still make an attack, if you were being zealous about segments.

Thats entirely possible too. The version of D&D I played, the movement rules I used were posted above.

 

[fredramsey]

1.) If you could walk the length of the dungeon in one minute, most of them dungeons were pretty dang small.

Nice pick on an exaggeration.

2.)Lots of other people have posted the rules from AD&D1. You are simply ignoring them or twisting them as you see fit (based rightly or wrongly on your preceptions of the game).

You moved 120' in one round. 1" = 10" feet on the grid. Simple math says thats 12 1" squares (120/10 = 12). Did you use that movement to move up and hit the thing? Probably yes, there wasn't anything else to do.

So, you drew dungeon rooms on a battlemat at 10' to the inch? How did you show people fighting side by side? Doesn't flush.

This is the same for OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D 1 and 2. SAME. Combat and Tactics ushered in 5' squares and 10 second rounds. These were adapted for 3e. I posted the clearer version using the book I had (online btw, no I didn't type it). My AD&D book (pg 39) says the scale is the same. It listed all movement in inches because inches equaled feet indoors, yards outdoors.

Different argument, different system.
AD&D 1st Editon is the topic in this sub-thread.

So Redgar (120" movement) moved 120' in a dungeon per round, 120 yards outside. He moved 1/2 of that and could still attack.

Certainly more than the 2 ft your PCs were moving.

And the usefulness of being able to move 60 feet and attack in a dungeon would be?

EDIT: Rephrase: What disadvantage would being able to move only 50' instead of 60' in your average dungeon and attack?

If you wish to continue assuming you've won, go ahead. I can't convince you otherwise. But let it be known, for the record, that you have misconstrued something along the line.

Good gaming.

That's really funny. That's just what I was thinking about people quoting OD&D, Basic D&D, and Rules Cyclopedia rules in a conversation about 1st Edition AD&D.

And still, no one has said they drew 1" = 10' on the battlemat. Hmmm.

 

[scadgrad]

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.

No it doesn't. The TN doesn't yield a 50% for the entirety of your PC's career. As the PC gains levels, he gets better at those logical things that the archetype would be skilled at.

You're being patently absurd here. The numbers do mean something and the only thing that will be affected by DM fiat is how difficult the task in question is.

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.

Primes are incredibly important, but the class that you pick is also. And TNs are not necessarily "level appropriate." There's no more DM whimsy in my C&C games than in the 1000s of hours I spent DMing 3.X.

So, why isn't each stat just listed with a value of "good" or "bad", and why do PCs level up?

A very good point and one that was debated during play test. One could have easily made the stats w/ simple pluses and minuses as needed, but that gets too far away from one of the Gold Standards of D&D.

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.

Come on buzz, as the DM, I could do the same thing in 3.X just by saying the floor is really wet, loose stones, etc. Your charaters ability to "do stuff" in C&C is not always 50/50. In fact only rarely so. He/She will get better at certain tasks as you progress in level, exactly like 3.X. And the GM/CK/DM isn't just "making stuff up." There are standards by which those TNs can be easily arrived at.

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".

The same paradigm exists in C&C. An 11th level Barbie might make that leap easily as long as he doesn't succumb to the pipes first. A 1st level Barbie, probably not. In the end, the resulting outcome is the same. C&C just does away w/ the complexity of the current skill system.

It could be entirely my preference, yes.

And that's totally cool.

For me, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that you and I can come up w/ what the difficulty of the aforementioned Brb jumping incident is (I'd say slightly difficult, but requiring as much Dex as Str and therefore you'd get both bonuses if you have them) and move on. In the 3.X example, the DM will have to apply some sort of modifier for using the table as a ramp won't he? Or is there a rule for that in 3.X that I've forgotten about?

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.

Well, that's not the case in C&C. Those numbers do mean something, you just fail to grasp how the system really works that's all. Not a slam, just evident, by your commentary.

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.

C&C is really not like that. It's not 2nd ed, really. I don't spend anymore time in our current game "telling PCs what they can do" than I did in all of my 3.X campaigns.

 

[Gentlegamer]

This is very true. It's not explicitly stated anywhere in 1e that minis are required, and it seems like even Gygax didn't play on a battlemat all that much as D&D evolved.

However, the RAW do imply a relation to a battlemat (the use of inches and talk of scale), and there are plenty of combat rules that care about position, area, distance, and movement. Use of a battlemat would certainly be pretty useful for a game that, as written, cares about all this stuff. And it's not like the game explicitly states that you shouldn't use minis. And given that there's been D&D-branded minis since the seventies, one would assume that somebody at TSR figured that D&D players would find them useful.

And on the flip side, I've seen plenty of people here on the boards who don't use minis with 3e and seem to be having a good time.

Personally, if the rules care about the kind of thigns a battlemat helps track, I'll use a battlemat; adjudication is easier that way. If the rules don't address those issues, then the mat goes back up on my gaming shelf.

The point is that tactical combat (where precise positioning and blow-by-blow attack options) was not part of (A)D&D, and is not necessary in a fantasy RPG. There is nothing illegitimate about adding it, as well. Mearls had made a comment about rules interface that seemed (to me) to imply that such a thing was neccessary (instead of modular or optional) and by extension a RPG without it fell short in terms of "interface."

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Apart from the lengthy debate about AD&D 1e (which might have some relevance to this thread that escapes me), what I've taken from the last few pages is this:

Groups should use a rule system that supports their preferences and expectations. In addition, that system will often be shaped or "drifted" to bring it closer still to their preferences.

That's pretty straightforward. But what it make me realize is that we don't really have a good way of talking about what those expectations are. Now that I get it, I can see this kind of thing come up in house rules discussions, anytime people start debating "battlemat vs. no battlemat", and certainly in the C&C arguments.

Very few people play 100% RAW. Whether you're adding house rules to a system, ignoring rules in the book, or even adding a splatbook, you're shaping the system to match your needs.

So how can we as gamers communicate those needs (especially within a group, which is the only place it really matters) rather than by debating the raw materials (like game systems and rules complexity)?

 

[Psion]

And it's not like the game explicitly states that you shouldn't use minis. And given that there's been D&D-branded minis since the seventies, one would assume that somebody at TSR figured that D&D players would find them useful.

Not only has it had minis, in the 1e DMG IIRC it explicitly warns you against the dangers of using minis other than official D&D minis.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Wow, you guys sure play some weird games ...

LOL he said cheese poops.

As an aside, my group always had a "no cheesie snacks" houserule. AFter all, after having paid like 150 bucks for the core rules, then splat books, monster books etc, and you dont wanna get orange fingerprints all over everything.

Anyway, just to address something someone wrote earlier. It bears repeating that C&C is a new system, and that the second main book JUST came out. I hear guys talking about dcs for jumping over pits etc, and I think this stuff is all still forthcoming in the CKG. There seems to be the impression that its simply DM fiat just cuz the dc for various tasks are not laid out in full. Thats not entirely true. Any DM CK worth his salt is going to have some sort of system in place that the players will be made aware of. Players do need to have an idea of their characters capabilities so they can make judgements on a course of action. And I'd quit a game myself where the DM kept me guessing all the time what my character was capable of.

I love roleplaying, and I enjoy playing 3e too. My main beef with 3e is the constant glut of books. I've always been a "PHB only" player, but then again Ive always had other hobbies besides roleplaying games too. Im the guy who hears someone say "PHB only? How restrictive." and thinks "jeez, you got 77 different race/class combos in the core book, not counting multiclassing and PRCs, and that aint enough choice for ya?" But I dont say it because I dont want to restrict anyones fun, but Ill admit it does sour me on D&D a bit. But the game itself is great.

My love for C&C is mainly because it gives me more bang for my buck as a DM. Prep is more fun, I dont need a computer app whenever I need a bunch of NPCs. Admittedly, I also have less to think about during combat, as theres little in the way of monster feats etc. I also notice that my group is having as much fun as the last group I played D&D with, and the campaign is cracking along at a quicker pace then my 3e campaign ever did.

So its all good. I think. Admittedly, Ive been trying to figure out the ultimate point of this thread and have so far been unsuccessful.

 

[Turanil]

It seems that the thread has reached its logical conclusion. That is, after having reading the entirety of this thread three times in a row and having made careful analysis, it's obvious that C&C wins and Ryan Dancey loses.

Now a mod can close the thread, thanks.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Welcome to the boards, Shadowslayer!

You sure picked an interesting topic for your first post!