Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[JohnSnow]

Y'know, this thread is really entertaing when one just reads without posting (which I've been doing for about the last 2 pages - or since last night. :\

And the GM/CK/DM isn't just "making stuff up." There are standards by which those TNs can be easily arrived at.

There are?!?

Where?

No...I'm really curious. Where? For example, what is the "pick lock" TN for a good-quality lock? Cuz all I found in my C&C book was a handwavey "add X based on whether you feel a task is difficult, challenging, heroic or nearly impossible." Followed (or possibly preceded) by the comment about "level-appropriate challenges."

The former, of course, is also in D&D (3.5 PHB, p. 64). But D&D then goes on to suggest one or two (maybe a few more...) examples that MIGHT be considered to suggest the types of tasks that hit those handwaved difficulty levels. If that guidance is not in C&C, then where is the novice CK supposed to find it? And if that guidance will be in the Castle Keeper's Guide, then the game isn't yet complete.

On another topic...

(Gygax was a master poet and designer, but had the organizational skills of a butterfly on crystal meth).

*chuckle* That's gotta go into a sig somewhere...

So how do you feel about reading High Gygaxian? (the language in which Gary writes rulebooks).

 

[diaglo]

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

i always defend 3edD&D.
Holmes revised was still a good game.

 

[fredramsey]

nor is it required of the newer editions.

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

You know, you've managed to tire me out. And all it took you was to say the same thing, over and over and over again, with no proof.

Have you considered a job in talk radio? An interview show on Fox News? Because man, you're good.

/ for the sarcasm impaired

OD&D and everything that came after it was *centered* around the battle mat. And each round, characters agonized about where they moved next, and constantly moved around with their foes, using the incredibly robust tactical movement rules. Movement was more important that AC, in fact.

And all battlemats were drawn on using 1 square (inch) = 10', and if there was more than one person in that 10' space, the book told you to stack the minis on top of each other.

It has been the same since H.G. Wells wrote Little soldiers (whatever the heck it was called), and remains the same in 3.5 and on.

My god, my god, all those years, gone from my memory, I am left an empty shell, filled with only my hallucinations. I shall go now, and hang myself from a lightpole in my FLGS parking lot, with a note pinned to my chest, warning the world about the folly of trying to discuss facts with people on the internet.

That way, my death will have meaning.

Fred Wept.

Amen.

/off

 

[Shadowslayer]

Self edited for unecessary snarkiness. Sorry.

 

[fredramsey]

Does that mean youre finished now?

As finished as anyone who has tried to "push a chain" can be.

 

[der_kluge]

I went to the link that Buzz posted in post #1 to Dancey's comments to Mearls' blog. Here is his full reply:

In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.

There are two big problems with that shift:

1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.

2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.

I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.

My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.

I think on his first two points, he's right, but it kind of gets back to the definition of rules light and rules heavy.

I think the idea of a GM running rules ad hoc is more "rules insufficient" than rules light. But then, that begs the question, what exactly is "rules light"?

And by extension, is everythign really just rules light, and if you add more rules than is necessary, does that become rules heavy?

Should it be "regular" and "rules redundant" instead?

 

[der_kluge]

Scadgrad, I keep forgetting to ask, but I'd like to borrow that extra C&C PHB that you have. I'd like to try to read it over the weekend.

 

[diaglo]

Does that mean youre finished now?

stick a fork in him. he's done.

 

[Silverleaf]

stick a fork in him. he's done.

Finally an opportunity to use the Military Fork/Bec de Corbin/Ranseur polearm thingamajig in the 1e DMG...

 

[buzz]

And by extension, is everythign really just rules light, and if you add more rules than is necessary, does that become rules heavy?

I"m trying to imagine how one could add "more rules than necessary". Would those be rules that were redundant, e.g., a second set of grappling rules? Or is "necessary" just a synonym for "taste"? I mean, the detailed rules for vehicles in HERO's The Ultimate Vehicle aren't necessary per se, but someone who wanted more detail than was in the core book might find them rewarding (and, thus, necessary to their having fun).

Or is "necessary" possibly a design issue? E.g., "this rule subset for blah was unnecessary becasue there's already a mechanic that could be used to handle blah." Or is that just good/bad design?