Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[der_kluge]

Not to disagree just to disagree, but why do you say that?

When a fighter swings his sword, there's a chance, usually based on the capabilities of the other character that he won't hit. Many spells don't have saving throws or attack rolls. How do you reward characters who take pains to try to "neutralize" the spells of the enemy mage? Can no spellcaster foil the casting of another?

It's good in theory, and an interesting concept, but it's one of those things that comes up so rarely, that when it does come up, it bogs the game down into a mire while people look up the rules. I mean - quick, how does counter-spelling work? Can you tell me without looking it up? I doubt it. In a poll on here a while back, I think like 5% of people on here ever actually even did counter-spelling regularly in their campaigns.

I played countless 2nd edition games, and we certainly never bothered to question why such a mechanic existed. It certainly doesn't seem like the game was less fun without counter-spelling. Some rules add value. This one certainly hasn't, at least not enough to justify its existance.

 

[Ourph]

I have a group where the one thing the players are most likely to battle with me about is how a NPC might respond to something. (Okay, part of that's due to the fact that we have shared ownership and authorship of NPCs, but it's still relevant.)

This is why I think that rules-lite vs. rules-heavy almost always makes significantly less impact on how safe or comfortable the players feel than how good the social contract and group interpersonal communication skills are. In any game that follows the standard RPG model, there are going to be significant instances where the referee/GM/DM/CK/whatever has to make decisions that significantly impact the game world and, as a result, the PCs (there are a few games where all players share the powers of the GM, which have their own issues). For players to feel some comfort level, the GM has to either 1) share a fairly similar outlook on how the game world works with the players, meaning his decisions mesh pretty closely with what they expect; or 2) consistently and actively engage in communication with the players - letting them know how he sees things and listening to their ideas about how they perceive the game world working.

While I'm sure that having a pre-packaged Assessment of Reality provided in the rules makes it easier for some groups to reach consensus, I still maintain that those groups (if the necessity arose) could probably do the exact same thing on their own, without the benefit of a pre-packaged AOR - and that groups who seem unable to establish a shared AOR with a game that comes without a pre-packaged one would generally run into the same problem even if they were playing a game that provided one for them. IME, if the communication between players and GM is good, a shared AOR usually just happens. If communication is bad, no matter how many aids the rules provide to help the group toward that goal, a shared AOR is very difficult to achieve.

 

[Akrasia]

This is why I think that rules-lite vs. rules-heavy almost always makes significantly less impact on how safe or comfortable the players feel than how good the social contract and group interpersonal communication skills are. In any game that follows the standard RPG model, there are going to be significant instances where the referee/GM/DM/CK/whatever has to make decisions that significantly impact the game world and, as a result, the PCs (there are a few games where all players share the powers of the GM, which have their own issues). For players to feel some comfort level, the GM has to either 1) share a fairly similar outlook on how the game world works with the players, meaning his decisions mesh pretty closely with what they expect; or 2) consistently and actively engage in communication with the players - letting them know how he sees things and listening to their ideas about how they perceive the game world working.

While I'm sure that having a pre-packaged Assessment of Reality provided in the rules makes it easier for some groups to reach consensus, I still maintain that those groups (if the necessity arose) could probably do the exact same thing on their own, without the benefit of a pre-packaged AOR - and that groups who seem unable to establish a shared AOR with a game that comes without a pre-packaged one would generally run into the same problem even if they were playing a game that provided one for them. IME, if the communication between players and GM is good, a shared AOR usually just happens. If communication is bad, no matter how many aids the rules provide to help the group toward that goal, a shared AOR is very difficult to achieve.

I normally don't like to quote an entire post, but this one is golden. I couldn't agree with it more.

Case in point: JohnSnow and I clearly have some disagreements over the whole 'rules medium/light versus rules heavy' question. But we were both in the same gaming group for about 16 months (until I moved away from San Francisco two weeks ago). These disagreements had very little impact on the actual running of our games -- and we in fact got along very well (indeed, we had a really great group of gamers).

Having a group of mature gamers all concerned with "having a good time" is probably the most important factor in ensuring a successful 'RPG experience'. The other important factor is having a GM who is enthusiastic about the game he/she is running. This is the reason why I would be happy to play in a 'rules heavy' game with a good GM, despite not liking to GM such systems myself.

 

[Staffan]

I mean - quick, how does counter-spelling work?

Ready action to counterspell. When the opposing mage starts casting, roll Spellcraft (15+spell level) to ID the spell. You can counterspell with either the same spell (automatic success), a spell specifically noted as countering the spell in question (e.g. haste vs slow; also automatic), or dispel magic (requiring a dispel check). The dispel option can be used even if you don't ID the spell. In addition there are feats that make it easier to counterspell.

Can you tell me without looking it up?

Yes. I'd need to look up what the various feats do for countering, though - IIRC, Improved Counterspell lets you counter with any spell that's the same school and higher level, but I'm not certain of that.

In a poll on here a while back, I think like 5% of people on here ever actually even did counter-spelling regularly in their campaigns.

Haven't had anyone try it yet, but I know the rules anyway

 

[oldschooler]

Ok, gotta vent a little. Try not to make too much sense of this, I'm just going off on a thread-ispired tangent:
Freedom is seen to be good by many people, but if they actually have it, it terrifies them.
Witness seat belt laws: Mere decades ago, kids could ride in the back of pick-ups in a world where some cars didn't even come equipped with seat belts, yet somehow we survived. Now, if you're caught not wearing one, it's hundreds of dollars out of your pocket because everyone voted to give up that freedom (mainly because we were told to).
Now, as for light/heavy rules: Originally, D&D had three skimpy books and somehow, we all survived. Must have been a pretty good game to get where it is now! But folks only talk about freedom. They can't practice it. Give somebody who's currently into d20 Fantasy a copy of those 30 year old rules and watch 'em squirm!
"What? the Referee controls the game? How can I exploit that? I have to use imagination? I can't! Gimmie rules! Tell me what to do! I don't know what armor looks like, quick, show me a picture!"
Face it America, all that talk about freedom and democracy means very little when it's Wal*Mart, Wizards of the Coast and Disney that tells you how to live your life. Do yourself a favor. Pick up a game with little or no rules. Open it. See if you can't just enjoy yourself a little bit without developing an ulcer over 'who goes first' or 'what do you mean save vs. poison or die'.
When I drive, I wear a seat belt. Not because of Maine state law, but rather Murphy's Law. If I want music, I'm not going to Wal*Mart because my supplier doesn't dictate what I demand. When I game, I want to game, not agonize over 5' steps or what feats to choose.

BTW:

Father Flagellent
18th level Cleric (OD&D)
Strength: 10 (not a Fighting-Man)
Intelligence: 12 (not a Magic-User)
Wisdom: 16 (+10% to XP)
Constitution: 9 (can't complain)
Dexterity: 11 (what's a Thief?)
Charisma: 17 (up to 6 henchmen & +2 to loyalty)
Alignment: Law
Gold Pieces: more than you
Experience: 51,200,000
Hit Points: 42
Spells: any 7 (from each of 5 spell levels), pick 'em and play!
Epuipment: silver cross, mace +2, plate armor & sheild +2, potions of Healing and Gaseous Form, Snake Staff, Boots of Levitation, backpack, iron rations, waterskin, 3 vials of holy water and a church in the city.
Backstory: explored White Lion castle in the name of God, wherein he eventually laid low the vile Baron Darkcloak and his undead horde. Now resides in the city of Emberfile, only occasionally going on quests for myriad holy reasons.

Yeah, that's the whole character and he took me all of two minutes to create. I'm not even going to attempt to make a 3.5 version!

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

And another thing ... we had to roll our dice uphill, BOTH WAYS, in the snow the whole distance and each of them there d20s weighed night on 400 pound and had edges so razor sharp I knew men as used them to shave horses.

AND we had to ink our own numerals!

--fje

 

[Ace]

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.

In my Friday Unisystem game we had a battle with 3 vampires that lasted about 5 minutes real time -- Another bar brawl (1 crazed hunter and a priest vs 5 Spriggans and an Elf Lord) lasted about 3

System overhead does matter to actual play

However the overhead can also be the goal -- if you want tactical gaming (something I actually enjoy) you need rules -- the D&D ones are rather good and provide a most excellent play experience

The trick is to find what YOUR group wants to play at any given time and play that

If you can keep the "least offensive common denominator" out of your campaign and get all the players on the same page your campaign will be better

This means folks need to understand the campaign, like and understand the system and have compatible characters --

It also means from time to time if a member fo the group is a problem under a the rules everyone else wants to play (say you have a 3e hater in the game) than he/she needs to be out

too much compromise on system, setting and theme leads to a sullen game

 

[BOZ]

And another thing ... we had to roll our dice uphill, BOTH WAYS, in the snow the whole distance and each of them there d20s weighed night on 400 pound and had edges so razor sharp I knew men as used them to shave horses.

AND we had to ink our own numerals!

LOL! nail on head.

older is better! new is bad!

 

[Henry]

A few counterpoints to think about:

Now, as for light/heavy rules: Originally, D&D had three skimpy books and somehow, we all survived. Must have been a pretty good game to get where it is now! But folks only talk about freedom. They can't practice it. Give somebody who's currently into d20 Fantasy a copy of those 30 year old rules and watch 'em squirm!
"What? the Referee controls the game? How can I exploit that? I have to use imagination? I can't! Gimmie rules! Tell me what to do! I don't know what armor looks like, quick, show me a picture!"

Yes, but when was the last time you were in a game with an average DM? Someone who you felt you either (A) couldn't trust to make a sensible ruling where the books didn't cover it, or (B) had a hard time thinking outside the box when you wanted something other than a strictly iconic character? One of the chief complaints from lots of inexperienced or newer players was the lack of flexibility in the basic rules, from AD&D onward to 2nd edition AD&D. It was part of the appeal of systems like Runequest, Rolemaster, GURPS, Ars Magica, Vampire: the Masquerade, etc. - systems that predated current games by decades in some cases. Where people didn't like classed and leveled systems, or wanted robust skill systems, etc. Hundreds of thousands of gamers over the past 20 years either experimented with these systems, or left AD&D entirely for them.

In a game with a good, experienced GM, who knows what their players want and how to entertain them, the level of detail in the system is not as important as the flexibility of the GM and the trust he/she can inspire in the players. On the other hand, where the GM is less devoted to this, the level of specificity in the system is preferred to having rules that are entirely GM-created.

...Do yourself a favor. Pick up a game with little or no rules. Open it. See if you can't just enjoy yourself a little bit without developing an ulcer over 'who goes first' or 'what do you mean save vs. poison or die'.

On the other hand, it is a mistake to assume that a more rules-complex system is either inferior, or suited ONLY for less skillful GMs. Some of the best GMs I've ever seen run with both d20 systems of all sorts, as well as systems like Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu. One I know ran CoC as the most rules light game you've ever seen, because he ran it without even having read the rules. And the questions aren't as simple as "who goes first" or death from one save; it's usually more like, "what do you mean my fighter who was raised in the military can't drill-instruct?" or "why doesn't my wizard know a darned thing about planar cosmology?" Without a GM that doesn't realize how far he can bend the system as needed, and do so in a way that keeps his player's trust, then a Rules-Light system appears to be a rules-confining system.

BTW:

Father Flagellent
18th level Cleric (OD&D)

Yeah, that's the whole character and he took me all of two minutes to create. I'm not even going to attempt to make a 3.5 version!

If I abbreviated several of the sections (such as saving throws, spells, and combat bonuses) then a 3E character would look relatively pithy, too. An OD&D character will be a shorter stat block, for sure, but his story is not told in that stat block, either -- like whether that 17 CHA means he is a leader of men, or whether he's just a slick-talker (not everyone is both), or whether despite his 11 DEX he is a skilled climber, or can tie a decent sailor's knot, or is a world-class cook, etc. All these things with a good GM are explainable -- but it goes to group dynamic, system preference, and just plain quality of the DM to whether they ARE explained or not. And speaking from personal experience, there are just as many average GM's now as there were 20 years ago.

 

[RyanD]

I can't help but wonder if this is what Ryan was trying to address when he came up with the OGL. It wasn't for the benefit of game publishers - it was to make it easier on gamers. Ryan, any comment?

<ASBESTOS>

Many moons ago, I suggested reasons that Open Gaming would be embraced by the market. As a result, I was excoriated for daring to suggest that the simple act of having many different RPG systems was a Bad Thing, and that the OGL/D20 project was A Secret Plan to Monopolize All of RPG Publishing.

Rather than restating, allow me to quote myself:

(from: http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=1)

I set up the problem thusly:

"The downside here is that I believe that one of the reasons that the RPG as a category has declined so much from the early 90's relates to the proliferation of systems. Every one of those different game systems creates a "bubble" of market inefficiency; the cumulative effect of all those bubbles has proven to be a massive downsizing of the marketplace. I have to note, highlight, and reiterate: The problem is not competitive product, the problem is competitive systems. I am very much for competition and for a lot of interesting and cool products."

And this was my statement of intent vis-a-vis Open Gaming to address this problem:

"The logical conclusion says that reducing the "cost" to other people to publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new systems, and the result of all that "support" redirected to the D&D game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D, thus driving sales of the core books. This is a feedback cycle -- the more effective the support is, the more people play D&D. The more people play D&D, the more effective the support is.

The other great effect of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it is interactive -- someone figures out a way to make something work better, and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it into their products. Including us. So D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the Open Gaming derivative of D&D."

</ASBESTOS>

It would be very fair to say that the implications of those statements are that one of the purposes of the OGL was to make the experience of playing an RPG more fun. I hope that, long term, that proves to be true.

=====

PS: This is one of those areas of the early period of the OGL process where I am often accused of "rewriting history" - mostly because so many people read the criticisms of things I wrote, rather than the actual things I did write, and when they hear me defend those writings today, it appears as though I've backtracked. Luckily (for me) Eric Noah (and now Morrus) have never removed those interviews and they're available as historical reference to anyone who chooses to read the primary source material in question.