Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Gentlegamer]

*head explodes*

 

[Gentlegamer]

Now you're mixing posts so you can stay mad. You're combining one thing that Mr. Dancey *does* have proof of with a later statement in which he details his conclusions *from* the empirical evidence.

The proof is about observable speed, not about preference.

From the first post in this thread, quoting Ryan Dancey:
"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."

He has no empirical evidence of any kind to support this kind of statement.

 

[The_Universe]

'Proof'? Oh please...

Mr. Dancy's (now out of date) study has to do with players who do not regularly play with each other. Thus his 'proof' (a silly word for an empirical study, btw -- the study in question is not a mathematical or logical 'proof') is inapplicable to most groups' experiences.

(On a completely different note, I am amazed that this thread is still alive. It is a mad gibbering horror at this point -- and one that I gladly feed.)

Fine then, we'll do it this way - I have a different anecdote, and I think my anecdote is better because it's my anecdote. Your anecdote doesn't count, because it's not the same as my anecdote. Also, your anecdote hurts my feelings, and makes me feel like I'm unpopular. At the very least, it makes me feel like my game isn't popular enough.

But I have anecdote that says it is!

...or we could use an empirical study. But hey - as long as you're happy...

 

[JohnSnow]

From the first post in this thread, quoting Ryan Dancey:
"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."

He has no empirical evidence of any kind to support this kind of statement.

True. He doesn't. Which is why he said it was his OPINION.

What he does have empirical evidence for is that character creation and conflict resolution took just as long in the rules-light games that he studied as they did in the games with more rules. So in other words, based on his research, the biggest claim made by proponents of rules-light games - that they have faster character creation and conflict resolution - doesn't hold up. Lots of people disagree, but they can't present any evidence based on "observation" of gaming groups rather than participation in one.

Frame of reference matters. If you're involved in the game, it might seem to go faster when, in reality, it doesn't.

Of course, now a bunch more people will come out with anecdotal evidence to "prove" me (and Ryan) wrong, but I doubt even one of them will be from someone who watched two groups play different systems, as opposed to someone who was a participant in those groups.

Now, I freely admit you can come up with the mechanics for a rules-light character faster if there are fewer choices to make. However, I submit that the story side of character development coexists with the mechanics side in rules-heavier games. When the character's mechanically DONE, he's totally DONE. By contrast, in rules-light systems, I submit that while the mechanics side is faster, the story development continues and creation as a whole takes just as long.

So you can have a hollow, mechanically simple creation (a playing piece with no soul). But if you want a well-developed character, you spend just as long creating that character. In the rules-heavier system, the difference is that you're not done with the mechanical side 1/4 of the way into the total time required to do that development. Of course, that might not be what Ryan meant, but I think it might be.

 

[The_Universe]

Of course, that might not be what Ryan meant, but I think it might be.

Based on what I'm reading here, I'm pretty sure Ryan meant that he wanted to kick everyone's dog(s). Or spit on their grandmothers. Sheesh!

All I know for sure is that he definitely *didn't* see an observable trend in length of character creation regardless of the "liteness" of the system involved. After all, I have an anecdote from some time ago that (though I was *not* timing the procedure in an effort to come up with empirical trends of my own) I'm pretty sure might conflict with that. And since I have that anecdote, he must want to spit on my grandmother.

Obviously.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Based on what I'm reading here, I'm pretty sure Ryan meant that he wanted to kick everyone's dog(s). Or spit on their grandmothers. Sheesh!

All I know for sure is that he definitely *didn't* see an observable trend in length of character creation regardless of the "liteness" of the system involved.

That's because he "desperately (didn't) want to."

 

[Akrasia]

Fine then, we'll do it this way - I have a different anecdote, and I think my anecdote is better because it's my anecdote. Your anecdote doesn't count, because it's not the same as my anecdote. Also, your anecdote hurts my feelings, and makes me feel like I'm unpopular. At the very least, it makes me feel like my game isn't popular enough.

But I have anecdote that says it is!

...or we could use an empirical study. But hey - as long as you're happy...

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I have nothing against 'empirical studies'.

My point -- which you apparently fail to grasp -- is that the study in question did not involve players who regularly game together. Rather, it involved players without any history gaming with each other.

Hence, even if it was a well-conducted study, it is inapplicable to most groups' experiences.

Comprendez-vous?

 

[The_Universe]

That's because he "desperately (didn't) want to."

Obviously. I see conspiracy whenever something disagrees with me, too.

 

[Akrasia]

...What he does have empirical evidence for is that character creation and conflict resolution took just as long in the rules-light games that he studied as they did in the games with more rules. So in other words, based on his research, the biggest claim made by proponents of rules-light games - that they have faster character creation and conflict resolution - doesn't hold up. Lots of people disagree, but they can't present any evidence based on "observation" of gaming groups rather than participation in one.
....

The results of any 'empirical study' can only be understood if one clearly understands the variables in question.

Dancey's study concerns players who do not regularly game together. Given that, it does not suprise me at all that 'rules light' games would not be any faster than 'rules heavy games'.

However, the study is completely inapplicable to the actual experiences of most gamers (who tend to play with the same people over time).

 

[fanboy2000]

If a group of gamers has never played together, wouldn't a rules-heavy game have more non-fun rules arguments than a rules-light game?

Personally, I think Dancey's observations are a little better than personal experience, but not by much. Social science's flaws increase exponentially when applied to personal taste.

Speaking of science, I'll have to drop in on the other thread and ask if Mr. Dancey had a null-hypothesis.....