Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rasyr" data-source="post: 2388168" data-attributes="member: 2855">Technically, Dancey is not on WotC's payroll as he stopped working for them a number of years ago, however, he continues to espouse propaganda and theories, and suggestions all meant to further his own private agenda of supporting the OGL and/or WotC. (This is born out by watching his actions and reading his statements over the past couple of years).Dancey also has a bit of a history of skewing facts to support his own agendas. This bit about the watching of groups through is two way mirror is nothing more than drivel because he does not support any of his observations with the details of his "test". What is the gaming experience of the subject? What is the "rules lite" game being used? What is HIS definition of rules lite? He never tells you, and I wouldn't expect him to as doing so would most likely invalidate his "experiment". To him the only "facts" that seem to matter are those that support his positions.In regards to Mr. Mearls' opinion about rules-lite games, all I can say about that is that it appears that he is or has been heavily influenced by Dancey. The Prediction blog, in which the quoted Dancey remark was a comment, seems (at least to me) to have been coached, or influenced by  Dancey's own opinions on the matter. That prediction almost sounds like Dancey's wishlist of events to happen to the gaming market (as it would of course aid him in his agenda of advancing WotC). Mr. Mearls did not explain anything behind his reasoning or thought processes for that prediction, yet lo and behold, along comes Dancey who does give an explanation for them. It is also interesting to note that several of his predictions seem to only be viable if 4e were to come to pass soon (such as a number of companies dying within a year - this would mirror the collapse of a number of companies when 3.5 came out).Interesting side note: A few months ago, in one of the many 4e threads, Mr. Mearls stated that he believed that 4e would be coming in a year or two. Yet, his prediction says "hypothetical" 4e. A change in tune? or an NDA? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As to the subject of rules lite versus rules heavy, IMO, neither is better or worse than the other, and the definition of both IS highly subjective to the individual looking at them.For example, take Rolemaster and D&D. In my opinion, Rolemaster is rules lite and D&D is rules heavy. Why? It is simple, Rolemaster has very few rules by exception, whereas D&D has a number of them. Both systems have a universal mechanic (which is virtually identical except for the size of the dice used in resolution). Yes, Rolemaster has a lot of tables/charts, but guess what, those are not rules, those are just tables. So, while Rolemaster is table-heavy, it is, IMO, rules lite. But for D&D, which is relatively table-lite, it is rules heavy because it has lots of special case, or situational rules, that may or may not follow the core mechanics of the system.Neither is a bad system, better than the other, they are just different systems. As different systems, they support different styles of play. This is the major difference between rules lite and rules heavy games, they support different styles of play. So, of course, somebody who prefers one is not likely to like the other, at least for a given specific style of play.</blockquote>

Verification