Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[buzz]

Obviously, you could run d20 this way, but the much more limited and discrete advancement would be a fundamental change to the game's basic assumption about increasing power levels.

I dunno, in both games you're accumulating XP by adventuring and then increasing your abilities at certain breakpoints. It'd be easy to create short, low-power-creep classes a la Darkness & Dread as a replacement for careers. And since hit points are not integral to "being d20", you just replace them with "Wound Points" or whatever highly-lethal damage system you want.

I just don't see it as much of a stretch.

 

[The_Universe]

I was talking specifically about brand recognition, not about the question how well the fantasy market does, and that's where your explanation doesn't hit the point. My soda example would go more like selling your Pepsi bottles in vendor machines with the Coca Cola logo on them, or serving it in Coca Cola cups. Both would be free advertising for your major competitor, and it would be mixing your brand logo with that of your competitor. That mixing is a boon for a very small company, but a definite 'no no' for a major competitor. That's basic economics.


I don't see any connection of your last sentence with the preceding one, like you want to construct it. No, I'm no Warhammer fanboy. I simply stated that it doesn't make economical sense to mix the 'Warhammer' trademark in any way with the 'D&D' or 'd20' trademark, because it erodes brand recognition in the long run. As simple as that.

I don't see any connection of your last sentence with the preceding one, like you want to construct it. No, I'm no Warhammer fanboy. I simply stated that it doesn't make economical sense to mix the 'Warhammer' trademark in any way with the 'D&D' or 'd20' trademark, because it erodes brand recognition in the long run. As simple as that.

I don't see them as necessarily competitive brands, even though they're both large brands in a similar market. Though the point about the D&D miniatures game competing with Warhammer certainly does make a point against my original position (a convincing one, in fact). I don't think the *rules of the game* have anything to do with how well it does or doesn't do in the market - but I can certainly see why a company would explicitly avoid using a ruleset from a major competitor. My inital position was that Warhammer and D&D weren't competitors at all - just two big shareholders in the larger fantasy gaming market. But, I'm backing off of that position now.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

But how far can you morph the system set forth in the SRD and still call the resulting game "d20". If the end product has no equivalent of AC, the three Saving Throws, caster/spell levels, 3-18 abilities with bonus increases every two points, etc. (none of which are present in the WH system) is it still "d20". If you retain those things in a d20 Warhammer ruleset, is it still Warhammer? IMO, no.

Doing a d20 Warhammer setting book is possible, but doing a d20 Warhammer rulebook is an oxymoron AFAIC. It's either d20 or Warhammer. It can't be both.

Does Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay use a system based on Warhammer Fantasy Battles? I've played the latter but haven't had the chance to pick up the former. If so, its unique mechanics fill an important role (tying it to the minis game). Otherwise, unless it has a significantly different level of mechanics (say, as rules-lite as SilCore or TriStat or moreso), those mechanics probably only existed in the first place to keep it from being a TSR copyright violation.

As to your individual questions, I'd say only one (AC) is integral to d20 in the way you phrased it.

AC - Fairly strongly part of the system, although an opposed d20 Def roll would be compatible. It could tie into generic Weapon Skill ala WHFB, too.

3 saves - Ryan says they're almost a key part of the system; I'm not so sure. C&C's ability score saves are one of its few real innovations and I wouldn't be surprised to see them supplant the existing saves.

caster/spell levels - Purely a D&Dism. They have nothing to do with d20 and a d20 Warhammer neither needs nor wants such baggage.

3-18 abilities with bonus/2 levels - the ability scores themselves are part of d20. Their having the structure they have is a D&Dism like spell levels; pure bonuses ala Blue Rose are almost strictly better, including for Warhammer.

 

[buzz]

But how far can you morph the system set forth in the SRD and still call the resulting game "d20". If the end product has no equivalent of AC, the three Saving Throws, caster/spell levels, 3-18 abilities with bonus increases every two points, etc. (none of which are present in the WH system) is it still "d20".

I don't see any reason these things would not be present in a WFRP d20 game. Even if they were not, it seems to still qualify as d20 by Ryan's definition. I mean, True20 ditches those last two and addds on tot he second, and it's still recognizably d20 (if not d20STL).

If you retain those things in a d20 Warhammer ruleset, is it still Warhammer? IMO, no.

Only if the WFRP1 mechanics are strongly tied to the conception of the Warhammer brand you have in your mind. This is one of the reasons GR decided not to go that route, as I udnerstand it. Mehcanically, I don't think there's anyting about the WFRP play experience that demands its system over another; d20, WFRP, Burning Wheel, and GURPS would probably handle it fine.

The Traveller universe is a good example of this. Classic Traveller, Megaraveller, Traveller:TNE, T4e, T20, and GURPS Traveller are all different systems, but are all recognizably Traveller (TNE may be an exception).

The fanbase, however, would probably have issues with such a change. And, as Pramas said above, the brand is powerful enough that they can forego d20 and not affect sales.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

...Mehcanically, I don't think there's anyting about the WFRP play experience that demands its system over another; d20, WFRP, Burning Wheel, and GURPS would probably handle it fine.

Are you seriously saying that using any of those systems would provide the same tone and style of play?

If someone can make d20 feel like Burning Wheel or GURPS in play, then I guess I can see why they'd use d20 for everything.

 

[shadow]

OK, I failed my save and decided to get into the discussion.

Rules-lite RPGs are aimed at specific audiences, and thus have some advantages for certain groups. I see three main advantages to the rules-lite approach.

1. Character creation - In many role playing games, character creation can be a major hassle. With the advent of skills and feats in 3.xe, character creation has often become an exercise in min-maxing; each specific feat needs to be weighed against other skills and feats. In my experience, it has not been unusual for a group to spend over an hour making 3.xe characters. However, with rules-lite RPGs, character creation takes much less time.
Case in point, a few weeks ago, a few players in our group were unable to show. As a result, the DM decided to play a one shot Castles & Crusades game. We were able to make fully equiped characters in less than 20 minutes.

2. Easy for new gamers - Let's face it, some of the game systems that we use have a lot of complicated rules. Although 3.x rules might not seem that bad for us gamers that have been playing a long time, they can seem completely confusing to new gamers. A while back a player's girlfriend wanted to start gaming. At first, playing 3.5, she was completely confused by all the different skills, feats, and special rules. But, after switching to Castles & Crusades, she suddenly got it.

3. Emphasis on role-playing rather than number crunching - With the emphasis on miniatures, 3.5 has in many ways reverted back to a miniature wargame in terms of combat. Rather than focusing on heroic, fantastic combat, players are encouraged to think in terms of numbers and strategy. This is true in areas besides combat as well. With rules covering all types of situations, there is often a tendancy toward metagame thinking rather than roleplaying.

However, with that said there are some disadvantages to the rules-lite approach. Namely, the DM has to make a lot of ad-hoc rulings. That could be a problem for inexperienced DMs. Also, some players may enjoy strategic combat. over roleplaying There is nothing wrong with that, it's simply a different play style. Ultimately rules-lite RPGs are a matter of taste.

Just my 2cp

 

[Ourph]

I don't see any reason these things would not be present in a WFRP d20 game.

I don't either, which is exactly my point. If you make Warhammer d20, it's not really Warhammer anymore. It's just another d20 setting/genre book like d20 CoC or d20 Traveller.

Even if they were not, it seems to still qualify as d20 by Ryan's definition. I mean, True20 ditches those last two and addds on tot he second, and it's still recognizably d20 (if not d20STL).

If we're using such a loose definition of d20 then, by default, WHFRPv2 is a d20 game, because what you've just told me is that you can change nearly every core rule mechanic in the SRD and the game will still qualify as d20.

Only if the WFRP1 mechanics are strongly tied to the conception of the Warhammer brand you have in your mind. <snip> Mehcanically, I don't think there's anyting about the WFRP play experience that demands its system over another; d20, WFRP, Burning Wheel, and GURPS would probably handle it fine.

And why would they not be? Aren't the core d20 mechanics strongly tied to the conception of the d20 brand you have in your mind? They obviously are for The Universe (who won't buy WFRP simply because it's not d20*).

I play Warhammer because I like the mechanics. I like the setting too, but if I preferred D&D I'd just play D&D set in my own homebrewed Old World setting. The setting is the setting, the game is the mechanics. I like the WHFRP game, both old and new versions and that's why I play it. I realize many d20 fans simply cannot grasp the concept that there are people out there who don't share their enthusiasm for the d20 game model, but they do actually exist, and I suspect quite a few of them are now happily playing WFRPv2.

Thank goodness Chris and the rest of the group at GR who worked on the project had the balls to resist assimilation by the HasBorg.

*Which leaves me completely bewildered. On one hand we have people saying that you can fold, spindle and mutilate the rules in the SRD into very nearly any conceivable configuration and still call the resulting game "d20", but we also have people who look at a game that - by most measures - isn't any further removed mechanics-wise from the rules in the SRD than many nominally "d20" games and saying they won't buy it because it's "not d20". I really just don't get it.

 

[BryonD]

OK, I failed my save and decided to get into the discussion.

No dispute on the different preferences for different people. But I'd like to throw out my take one your three points.

1) I agree that 3E char creation can take longer. To me that is no problem because I enjoy it.
I find the min maxing comment to be a gross generalization that applies to 3E groups no more or no less to another game community. Rules lite takes away RP customization potential every bit as much as it takes away min max potential. It cuts both ways.

The "joy" in the ability to crank out a character in 20 minutes and dive back in seems to run exactly contrary to idea of deep role playing. Your char dies so you crank out another semi-clone and hit the ground running? I can see the appeal, but I can't see how that makes a more RP less min/max case.

2) I agree completely. Rules lite is an excellent way to get starters in.
Some of your other pro-rules lite people are claiming the exact opposite, that beginners NEED lots of rules and only a "mature" player can handle rules lite. I find that absurd and it appears your experience syncs with mine here.

3) I can't even begin to see how number crunching is at odds with role playing. Again, I can see lots of reasons that groups may not want to use a battle mat, minis, etc... But that it somehow magically blocks out roleplaying doesn't stand to reason. My group uses a mat and minis and we have battles that frequently last 2 hours (cutting one down to 15 min would be as gratifying to me, personally, as reading a baseball box score and saying that I saw the game). And we role play the characters to the hilt, both in and out of battle. A robust mechanical model of the game world reality in no way detracts from pretenting to be a persona within that world.

 

[BryonD]

I play Warhammer because I like the mechanics. I like the setting too, but if I preferred D&D I'd just play D&D set in my own homebrewed Old World setting. The setting is the setting, the game is the mechanics. I like the WHFRP game, both old and new versions and that's why I play it. I realize many d20 fans simply cannot grasp the concept that there are people out there who don't share their enthusiasm for the d20 game model, but they do actually exist, and I suspect quite a few of them are now happily playing WFRPv2.

I've only palyed WHFRP a couple times, many moons ago. So I can't speak with much wisdom here at all.

But I think this is exactly right.

I like D20. But D20 ISN'T WHFRP. I can easily see playing Grim Tales in the WH setting. But that still would not be WHFRP. Taking some of the core mechanics out of WHFRP would make it not be WHFRP just as much as taking things like classes out of D&D would make it not be D&D.

Calling D20 Warhammer Fantasy "WHFRP" would be just as wrong as calling Grim Tales or Mutant and Masterminds "Dungeons and Dragons".

 

[Ourph]

The "joy" in the ability to crank out a character in 20 minutes and dive back in seems to run exactly contrary to idea of deep role playing. Your char dies so you crank out another semi-clone and hit the ground running? I can see the appeal, but I can't see how that makes a more RP less min/max case.

I agree. I enjoy rules-lite games, but not because they facilitate or encourage deeper roleplaying. I like them for "beer & pretzels" gaming because it's easy to throw something together for a night of fun. I really don't think rules-lite/heavy has anything to do with the depth or amount of roleplaying a group chooses to engage in.

2) I agree completely. Rules lite is an excellent way to get starters in.
Some of your other pro-rules lite people are claiming the exact opposite, that beginners NEED lots of rules and only a "mature" player can handle rules lite.

I think this depends on what you're using the game for. Newbies are probably more likely to engage in the kind of "beer & pretzels" type gaming I described above. Using rules-lite systems for in-depth, long-term campaigns does, I think, require a certain level of comfort with the whole idea of creating and adjudicating that newbies might not be up to. But that doesn't mean a creative and judicious newbie can't get there PDQ. I certainly think the best recipe for introducing new people to gaming is a rules-lite system with an experienced and mature GM. Then you get the best of both worlds (fast play, low barrier to entry and someone who has experience making calls that keep the game running smoothly).