Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[SweeneyTodd]

None of which really much matters towards Dancey's original comments, IMHO.

Yeah. i think the topic more came up when some people said that they had played rules-light systems and their experience was so different from Dancy's study that they couldn't figure out where he was coming from, because their experiences involved faster play and didn't break out into constant rules disputes..

This led to, for reasons unknown to me, several pages of people arguing that that wasn't possible, because rules-light games were really just thinly disguised GM fiat. Those of us who'd played rules-light games and had a differing opinion tried to explain how that wasn't how they worked in practice, and much derailing and gnashing of teeth followed.

It was messy; hopefully it won't start all over again.

 

[Turjan]

This led to, for reasons unknown to me, several pages of people arguing that that wasn't possible, because rules-light games were really just thinly disguised GM fiat. Those of us who'd played rules-light games and had a differing opinion tried to explain how that wasn't how they worked in practice, and much derailing and gnashing of teeth followed.

It was a whole lot of talking about apples (e.g., C&C) and oranges (e.g., HeroQuest), complicated by the fact that neither the apples nor the oranges existed at the time Ryan Dancey referred to . The same is true for D&D3x, which also did not exist at the time of the study .

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This led to, for reasons unknown to me, several pages of people arguing that that wasn't possible, because rules-light games were really just thinly disguised GM fiat. Those of us who'd played rules-light games and had a differing opinion tried to explain how that wasn't how they worked in practice, and much derailing and gnashing of teeth followed.

It was messy; hopefully it won't start all over again.

I don't want to start it over again, but even in a game as you describe, I still see that it is either DM fiat or player fiat for more cooperative system. That hasn't really changed my point of view, trying to run a game as described by you would be impossible with almost every gamer I have ever met. I can only imagine that you got very lucky finding a group that can tolerate that sort of game.

Any time there isn't a rule for something, it is up to SOMEONE's fiat. Either the player makes something up and the rest of the players at the table have to accept it or the DM does. It "empowers" players because they have the freedom to make up what they want without a bunch of rules telling them they can't. On the other hand, every time you give power to one person, you take it away from the others.

Essentially, there is a pool of power. Contained in it is the power to decide everything that happens to every character and NPC in the game with every action. If one player is making up what happens to an NPC, it takes the power to decide what happens to that NPC away from everyone else at the table. They may be able to influence it in some system, but not actually control it. If the rules say what happen in a situation, then it takes the power away from everyone else at the table, including the DM (unless the rules are ignored).

Even given all of that, it seems that the type of games you refer to are more collective story telling with a couple more guidelines than normal rather than a role playing game. Generally the point of a RPG is to play one role and only have control over his actions within a world controlled by someone else.

 

[woodelf]

I, as a DM, got annoyed at players continually coming up with new tactical maneuvers that I'd have to invent rules for. So, when I didn't allow them to do tactical maneuvers in order to speed up the game, battles became "I hit for 20" "He hits you for 13" "I hit him for 10".

Since I've been playing and running 3rd ed, my players have been happier, they love to explore the combat options. I find that combat holds their interest longer and there are less people leaving the room while waiting for their turn or wandering off to the bathroom and saying "you can just roll for me, I have +12 to hit and do 1d6+10 damage". My players feel their decisions are more important and there are more ways to show the personality of their character in their combat styles.

And since, likely 80% of the game is combat, the other 20% is role playing, making the combat portion more interesting is good, IMHO.

Well, partly that's a difference of playstyle: i'd go nuts if a game i was running or playing was 80% combat. Heck, i'd probably get bored [with the combat portions] if it was 20% combat. I wish I could leave the room when combat comes up--but i'm the GM. So, i agree with you that making combat more interesting is desirable--but the way to do that for me is to strip out all the rules. That way, people can do all the fun outrageous flashy clever things they want, without having to bog down combat by looking up or figuring out rules for them.

But, on to the substantive comments: what do you do now, when they want to do something the rules don't explicitly cover? Do you still not invent rules and therefore forbid any other actions?

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Majoru, we disagree on two things: How easy it is to get along with people in a group, and what the definition of a roleplaying game is. Convincing someone to change their mind on either point is probably impossible.

For example, this:

On the other hand, every time you give power to one person, you take it away from the others.

I totally disagree with this. I wouldn't know how to begin debating it, though.

 

[BryonD]

nm!

 

[Zudrak]

You're going off on a tangent here.

Akrasia, what's your sine? How about cosine?

 

[Turanil]

nm!

AGREED!!


By the way, do you think that?...

 

[Silverleaf]

It was a whole lot of talking about apples (e.g., C&C) and oranges (e.g., HeroQuest), complicated by the fact that neither the apples nor the oranges existed at the time Ryan Dancey referred to . The same is true for D&D3x, which also did not exist at the time of the study .

At least Basic D&D existed since 1977, even before the AD&D attrocity.
Heck even the 3 little booklets from 1974 were quite lightweight. There was the skeleton of a game in there, for those willing to dig it out. Certainly it was freeform, with many subjects not addressed at all, and hence it put the ball squarely in the DM's hands to make things work. That means rules-light in spirit, though the presentation was done with wargamers in mind, so it may not seem that way to someone used to today's fancy-schmancy artsy-fartsy games...

 

[buzz]

I gotta say, when I started this thread, I thought I was noting an obscure point and would see, ast best, light discussion. That we'd hit 27 pages in almost as many days is amazing, at least for ENWorld. I figured a "lite"/heavy argument would get a lot of play on certain toher forums, but not ENWorld, i.e., d20 ground zero.

So... sorry!