Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[fredramsey]

Err, your vote has been cast and noted?

(Psst. Who is this guy, and why does he think he's in charge? That's just weird, man.)

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.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Welcome to the boards, Shadowslayer!

You sure picked an interesting topic for your first post!

Dude, this thread is a whole cornucopia of different topcs.

Thanks for the welcome though. (Ive lurked here from time to time)

Admittedly, I came here as a result of some chatter on a C&C board and came to see what all the hubbub was about. Funny thing is, this is all the same stuff RPG folks have been arguing about since message boards got invented....gaming style. Even over on the C&C boards there are different styles within that game. There's guys who have been adding and tweaking rules since day 1 (which in fact may be necessary, as the game wont be complete until their DMG comes out) ANd there's guys like me who pretty much play it as is.

ANyway, I have a favourite article, one of Monte Cooks older ones. Not sure entirely how relevant it is to the myriad of debates happening here...but its worth a read if ya havent already.

http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html

Have fun. ( with whatever game you prefer )

 

[buzz]

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.

Right, but most of those conditions get addressed in the books, or have guidance, or else are covered by something else. E.g., wet floors and losoe stones are handled by a Balance check; they don't affect the Jump DC. See, the nifty thing is that last sentence was basically the DMG's ruling, and won't change from session to session. I like that kind of game.

And, as I've said, most of the conditions you use in your example have rules that relate to them. The DM can simply lay out the conditions and I will know almost exactly what rules apply. I don't have to wait for him to say: "So... you'll need to... make a DC35 Str check." Not to metion deal with the same situation being handled by differently next session.

C&C just does away w/ the complexity of the current skill system.

But I like the "complexity". I like having a page in the book that shows a baseline for what a Jump +10 can do. I don't like just knowing my PC is "good at Strength stuff", yet having no idea whether he can jump 2' or 10'. If that's the case, I don't see the point in tracking how good a jumper he is anyway.

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?

He can declare it hindering terrain, or say it's like climbing, or require a balance check. I know that sounds like a lot of fiat, but at least those choices generally correspond to specific bonuses or DCs.

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.

Like I said, I don't pretend to be well versed in C&C. I'm simply using some details relayed to me about to make some points about what I do and don't like in a system, and when I think "lite" works and when I think it doesn't. I'm not trying to slam on C&C (though I feel confident that it is not the RPG for me).

Anyway...

Mearls main points seem to be that:

* "Lite" systems are often assumed to be inherrently more "mature" in terms of design; i.e., an ideal to be attained.

* Designers creating games buy into this, and thus strive for "lite".

* Said designers then often confuse "lite" with just "having less rules".

The end result then being the kind of "rules-insufficient" RPG that's really just a glorified die mechanic with some commentary attached, and not a "rules-sufficient" RPG that genuinely meets all the player's needs with a minimum of rules.

It'd be interesting to learn what RPGs were used in Dancey's testing. If they were any of the many "rules-insufficient" RPGs I've seen held up as great design, I have no doubt that game play was no more expedient than a heavier ruleset.

 

[buzz]

ANyway, I have a favourite article, one of Monte Cooks older ones. Not sure entirely how relevant it is to the myriad of debates happening here...but its worth a read if ya havent already.

http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html

Have fun. ( with whatever game you prefer )

I remember that piece. Good stuff. Bonus points for Shadowslayer!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I think this is the key point here. I've sat through too many games where I felt miserable and had no fun at all due to GM incompatibility.

It has to do with times where I said "Ok, I fire an arrow at the enemy, I'll never hit, but I'll try" and getting back an answer like "Ok, you crit your friend because logically with that many friends between you and the target, you are much more likely to hit them than the enemy." and when I say "but, in the rules..." they yell at me for quoting rules to them.

It's when the GM's ruling seem unnatural and counterintuitive to the way I think. Rolling a natural 20 hits the enemy, that's what it's about. You don't roll a 90% chance of hitting your friends with the crit because there are more of them than the enemy. I've tried many a move that I thought was perfectly logical: "I jump down on his head, since he is fighting someone else, he likely won't see me coming. I should knock him down, given that I'm wearing full plate." only to be met with "you get impaled by his sword that was sticking up and die."

These kind of things make me not want to try anything in the game, because I know they are just going to be twisted into something else. Why bother playing if what I decide to do is always going to turn out bad? This sort of thing really annoys me, so all it takes is ONE disagreement in a session and I'm in a bad mood for the whole session.

 

[der_kluge]

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.

I don't care for games like CoC much since it seems like the only point is to see how violent your death can be. I don't like Paranoia for the same reason, since the only point there seems to be how many ways you can find to die in a span of a single game. I think my expectations of a game of D&D is probably fundamentally different than something like Vampire, CoC, or something more story-driven, with less violence. I also don't think such a game would hold my interest over a long-term.


And I have the same "boilerplate" beef with 3rd edition. Why do all gnomes speak with burrowing mammals? Why do all dwarves have stone-cunning? What if my gnome or dwarf grew up in a city, and weren't exposed to those things? Why can't I swap out those for something else that makes more sense?

I do find it odd that C&C chose to assign various abilities at differing levels for the classes. Aside from the monk, I don't remember there being a lot of different class abilities in the early edition of D&D. I don't know why they couldn't have gone with a more feat-like system. It certainly wouldn't have unbalanced their system, and it would have made character creation a lot more flexible.

And that's the thing I like - I want flexibility in character creation. I don't like being given things that I don't need, or don't want, or don't make any sense for my character background. Maybe my characters are just too weird, I don't know.

 

[diaglo]

Knockback/Bull Rush.

they had rules for this in 1edADnD.

overbearing


you of all people should know them.

 

[der_kluge]

I think sometimes people view those 1st Edtion days through too much of a nostalgia filter.

Uh-oh, there's the "n" word. Now you're just asking for it!

Flame on!

 

[diaglo]

None of the combat for AD&D or Mentzer D&D (or the Rules Cyclopedia, with is Allston edited Mentzer D&D) requried the use of a battlemap. A battlemap could be used a visual aid, but it wasn't in any way required. Most of the time, I was able to make out basic positioning of combatants mentally on my DM map. That is, movement and positioning in those games was not tactical. Tactical combat didn't come to AD&D until the aptly named Combat & Tactics rulebook. Like the old Swords & Spells, it was completely optional.

nor is it required of the newer editions.

but that doesn't mean it wasn't covered in the rules.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

nor is it required of the newer editions.

but that doesn't mean it wasn't covered in the rules.

diaglo, are you okay? That almost sounds like you're defending 3e...