Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[SweeneyTodd]

My point is that what most people think of as "big differences" between Game X and D20 are relatively trivial. It is a discussion of trees from people who live in a forest. To people outside the forest, we all seem to be nattering on about differences that are not meaningful.

"Big differences" would be things like:

* A game that didn't quantify ability scores

* A game where you had no system for killing anyone or breaking anything

* A game where you didn't play an individual character (*)

* A game where the players created their own virtual environment as they played


As it is, most RPGs are basically identical to each other on very fundamental levels. Then they diverge in terms of mechanical rules. Some use fewer rules than others. Some use less well defined rules than others. But eventually, they almost all come back to the same play pattern: A group of individuals who band together to confront challenges and gain in power.

For all the talk about "innovation" and "creativity", the RPG genre, as a whole, has disturbingly little of either.

I completely agree with this. I'm "outside the forest", and I think some of the arguing way back in this thread was because people inside and outside the forest were having disconnects in communication. (For instance, the person who asked the question that led to your response about rules-light gaming not being faster, that then started this thread? One of the developers of FATE, a game that's clearly outside the forest.)

So let me go down the list as far as how things are in games like FATE, Sorcerer, The Pool, Universalis, Primetime Adventures, HeroQuest, etc:

* Freeform ability scores -- often quantified, but, for example, you probably don't have a "Strength" score unless your character is particularly strong or weak. You could have "Strong", but you could also have "Loves Marsha" or "Alcoholic". (The stat that was rolled most against in the last campaign I ran in FATE was "Troublemaker", in fact.)

* Conflict resolution systems that use the same mechanic for killing and breaking as they do for anything else

* Possibility of troupe-style play. and sometimes shared characters

* Heavy Director stance, often codified in the system, so players are creating environment (and plot, for that matter) as they play

Those are the default play styles for the games I play, and a fair number of other people play. (I do admit these are games that are rarely discussed on ENWorld.)

There are some interesting things about these games, which I think are strongly tied to the differences above.

* Social Contract is often discussed in the rules themselves, and little or no attempt is made for the rules to "patch up" Social Contract issues like differing agendas or one player blocking another's creative input. (In other words, the games specify the kinds of things you need to get straight within a group before and during play.)

* Focus on what the player wants to do, rather than exclusively "what my character would do". Players can propose conflicts, frame scenes, and have access to "metagame resources".

* Ability, and expectation, for players to add creative input at all levels. Gamemaster is more of a "first among equals" and his ideas are not necessarily privileged above those of the players.

* Combat is deemphasized, in favor of conflict of all kinds. If there are tactical resource allocation elements, they apply equally to things like "Convince my tribe to give us aid" as they do to "Kill that guy". Social conflict is often more common than physical conflict.

* (And this is a big one) Almost no need for rules-heavy supplements, and no attempt to release regular supplements to produce recurring income. (Often these games have no supplements at all, or focus on setting. One exception: Primetime Adventures does benefit from supplements, in the form of "A DVD set of your favorite TV show". )

These games don't show up on the radar as far as sales compared to D20 products, for the most part, but I think some of them could if properly marketed. For example, Primetime Adventures is mechanically much simpler than Monopoly, and its subject material (TV shows) appeals a much larger potential market than heroic fantasy.

I imagine many people will think, "But those games only appeal to creative types, GMs". I'm finding that when you use a system that doesn't require design skills to create, players will surprise you. My players routinely come up with whole new directions for our "story" that are better than I'd thought of.

And I'll argue that all you need is the ability to come up with compelling issues and characters to play like this -- and anyone who's ever told somebody a story about how their day went has already done that.

Sorry for the long post. My question is: Is anybody else here talking about this too? Because, I guess I'm dense, but this is what I was thinking when I was talking about and defending "rules-light" play. Rules-light simulationist "party of adventurer" games work fine too, but I don't think many of us are trying to say "I want to play exactly like D&D 3.x, but with fewer rules".

 

[orangefruitbat]

To me, it looks like Chris Pramas D20ised WFRP already (though it's obviously not a D20 game). Take a look at the skills/talents divide (aka, skills and feats), movement rules (virtually D20, except for a lack of 5' step), and combat actions (full actions, half actions, basically the same as Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds). How do multiple attacks or two-weapon fighting work? Basically the same as D20. I definitely think WFRP benefited from these rules, and as GM, I benefited since I could explain the rules quickly to my players.

Now, I think a pure D20 system would not have been worth the bother (though I do think it would be possible). First of all, you lose compatibility/familiarity with WFB stuff, limiting the appeal for crossovers. (Like DnD, WFB and WH40K have their own networks). Second of all, you lose the career system (which while problematic in play, is quite distinctive). Third, you have to put up with a lot of hat of D02, which can drown out efforts to market your rerelease.

I am only a fan of WFRP, so I do not know Chris Pramas' reasons for not using d20 for the second edition. (I will mention that I think he did a really excellent job with the 2e WFRP book, and that I am glad that it has the mechanics that it does.)


.

 

[Turjan]

Sorry for the long post. My question is: Is anybody else here talking about this too? Because, I guess I'm dense, but this is what I was thinking when I was talking about and defending "rules-light" play. Rules-light simulationist "party of adventurer" games work fine too, but I don't think many of us are trying to say "I want to play exactly like D&D 3.x, but with fewer rules".

Actually, I was talking about that, yes. My last post was more my expression of disbelief about the stance that, basically, all (fantasy?) RPGs are more or less the same. This may be the case in comparison to quilting, but I don't think that this is some kind of general truth. Perhaps, games like C&C led to the connotation of 'rules-light' game with 'rules-deficient', because it's basically D&D 3.x with a few things taken out (no offence to C&C players; this is just semantics ). I never played FATE, but my experience comes from HeroQuest, which is an epic fantasy game that is 'rules-light' (sort of ), but has quite a few aspects that are completely lacking from the d20 rules set. Your description of FATE summed it up fairly well.

I'm not sure about how easy it is for players to go along with that. I had a few problems with my group that was used to D&D. The game asks for a change of the player's mindset, and it's sometimes hard. "What do you mean with I have no gold?"

 

[Henry]

From your description, though, it sounds like the only real difference between this and D&D hit points is that, in Alternity, you've got: three pools of hit points (an expansion of the basic hit point mechanic), a more complicated "Armor as DR" system (i.e., a particular suit of armor has higher DR against laser fire than it does against bullets) (present in d20 StarWars), and an expansion of the Wounded mechanic to each hit point pool (present in d20 StarWars).

Since I've never played Alternity, what am I missing that makes it radically different?

Alternity had three damage totals, similar to Shadowrun: Stun, Wound, and Mortal. Most weapons did wound damage, but thanks to the degrees of success that Staffan mentioned, (Ordinary, Good, and Amazing successes) higher powered weapons could do mortal damage outright, similar to hitting a vital artery. A mortal wound was not immediately fatal, but would cause further damage loss (blood loss) and if not treated within the hour, cause unconsciousness and ultimately death if not treated. Stun or Wounds would not cause unconsciousness until depleted, but after certain points would cause penalty to actions (similarly to getting the getting kicked out of you).

With hit points, you're either up or down. With vitality/wounds, you approach the kind of gradation possible with Alternity's system, but there's no way that a character can be "walking wounded" as we know the term; if someone is wounded, they'll live just fine, but they take time to heal. In our Alternity games, if someone took a mortal wound, they KNEW they had to get their character off the battlefield and into triage SOON, or they were dead. Furthermore, body armor made a life-and death difference, as a mortal wound might be partially or even completely stopped by said armor, or due to the type of attack, might be totally useless. Not to make light of the situation, but having just watched a documentary on the North Hollywood Bank Robbery of 1997, this kind of situation was brought home in frightening detail, and reminded me that in a hit point system, such a situation is not really possible. So in my mind, there is a mechanical advantage to such a system.

Looking in the d20 arena, Green Ronin came close with the system they devised for Black Company, but it's a little TOO lethal and maiming for the average game session.

 

[Akrasia]

To me, it looks like Chris Pramas D20ised WFRP already (though it's obviously not a D20 game)....

I will not deny that there are some minor 'd20-isms' in WFRP 2e, but there are also huge differences between d20 and WFRP. The skill system works differently, talents are much simpler than d20 feats, the magic system is completely different, and the combat system (despite the minor features you mention) operates very differently (the wounds system, hit locations, critical wounds, etc.). And, as you note, the WFRP career system differs greatly from the d20 class system.

Now, I think a pure D20 system would not have been worth the bother (though I do think it would be possible). First of all, you lose compatibility/familiarity with WFB stuff, limiting the appeal for crossovers. (Like DnD, WFB and WH40K have their own networks). Second of all, you lose the career system (which while problematic in play, is quite distinctive). Third, you have to put up with a lot of hat of D02, which can drown out efforts to market your rerelease.

I don't disagree with any of this, and don't see how it is incompatible with what I stated. (Were you disagreeing with me? I can't tell.)

 

[Pramas]

Now I'm extremely interested.

Could you discuss the reasons you think WFRP requires a mechanically distinct approach?

There were mechanical issues (a big one being that I wanted the game to be far more newbie friendly that D&D 3.5) but actually those were secondary. If I had really wanted to, I'm sure I could have rewritten the d20 rules to reflect the Warhammer world. After all, three of the "handful" of people who get d20 are on staff at Green Ronin. We have done grim and gritty adaptations for other properties like Black Company and Thieves' World after all. However, my primary reasons for eschewing d20 were business related. I felt that WFRP had nothing to gain from the d20 logo and much to lose. For most companies, being able to piggy back on D&D is a plus (or at least, it used to be). Warhammer though is one of the biggest brands in hobby gaming. It doesn't need the d20 logo, it already has enormous strength as a brand. Further, if anyone has the market presence to establish a rival fantasy RPG to D&D, it's GW.

 

[weasel fierce]

I think its very likely that Warhammer would loose more fans from going D20, whereas the amount of D&D players that would want to buy Warhammer D20 is not likely to be that big

 

[buzz]

Revising d20 *enough* to accurately capture the feel of the WFRP game and setting would have resulted in a game that differed *significantly* from 3e (and the standard 'd20' system).

IMO, the differences would be trivial, and the basic feel of WFRP would have been retained completely. How do I know this? Becasue Mearls basically did it already in FFG's Darkness & Dread.

I was a playtester for WFRP2. Looking at the system as a whole, there are already a lot of similarities to d20 (a not-uncommon complaint during the testing). Converting the remaining bits would be very simple and would keep the feel. E.g., careers already funciton so much like classes that it would be trivial to convert them (assuming you were using classes at all in the end product).

So, could it have been d20 and kept the WFRP feel? Absolutely, IMO. Should it have? I don't know; I'm betting the fanbase would have been annoyed enough that it would be a bad move. The deciding factor here is that WFRP was an existing game with an exising fanbase. I'm in agreement with Ryan (and Mearls, likely) that any new RPG should take a long, hard look before they decide not to go d20.

 

[buzz]

Since I've never played Alternity, what am I missing that makes it radically different?

In the grande scheme, not all that much. There are even d20 products (Unearthed Arcana, Iron Heores) that makes of some of its mechanics.

 

[The_Universe]

I think its very likely that Warhammer would loose more fans from going D20, whereas the amount of D&D players that would want to buy Warhammer D20 is not likely to be that big

I'd have bought it if it was D20 or OGL, and I won't because it's not. I certainly don't pretend to represent a majority of gamers, though. I think it's a famous enough product as it stands that any people like me it would have gained it would have lost from its old ranks - I think it would have sold just as well as D20, but it probably *would* have been catering to a different fanbase.