Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2389334" data-attributes="member: 27012"><p>The "mother may I" problem that my group has (and we've played plenty of rules-light games using homebrew rules and Fudge) isn't so much a matter of permission but achieving a common understanding about what's likely to happen. If the GM thinks that jumping from the balcony, swinging from the chandelier, and kicking the BBEG is really hard and likely to fail while the player thinks it's really easy and likely to succeed, there can be a big problem when the player player states the action and then the GM resolves in a very different way than expected. The solution, in my experience, is for the player to play what I call "20 questions" with the GM to evaluate their options and make sure the see things eye-to-eye with the GM. </p><p></p><p>And, no, I'm not talking about the player knowing things that their character wouldn't know. I'm talking about situations where the player's character should have at least some idea of the risks involved. I've also had a couple of decades playing rules-light games (down to the level of "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad" being the only real rule) and this is one of the key reasons why my group (some of whom I've role-played with for nearly a couple of decades) seems to have a minimal level of desired complexity for anything but a one-shot game and why we also play Hero and (recently) d20.</p><p></p><p>In a rules-heavy game, in my experience, the players can have a very good idea of what's possible and what's not possible for their characters and in many such systems, they can even resolve complex actions without GM input. For example, I don't have to ask the GM in a D&D game that I'm playing "How far can I move?" nor do I need to wait for the GM to tell me to make an attack of opportunity when a character moves past my character. I can keep track of all that myself. In a rules-light game, I need to ask the GM "Can I try to hit him as he runs past me?" or even, if we're not using a battle mat, "Does he get close enough to me to try to hit him?" And it can create even a bigger problem if the player based their previous actions on the assumption that their character would be able to stop the bad guy if they tried to run past them while the GM rules that it's not possible. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You've never had a problem with a player disagreeing with the mechanic you've decided to use or the difficulty level that you've set? Do your players always see eye-to-eye with the GM or do they simply go along with whatever the GM says, even if they didn't understand the situation the same way?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Morrow, post: 2389334, member: 27012"] The "mother may I" problem that my group has (and we've played plenty of rules-light games using homebrew rules and Fudge) isn't so much a matter of permission but achieving a common understanding about what's likely to happen. If the GM thinks that jumping from the balcony, swinging from the chandelier, and kicking the BBEG is really hard and likely to fail while the player thinks it's really easy and likely to succeed, there can be a big problem when the player player states the action and then the GM resolves in a very different way than expected. The solution, in my experience, is for the player to play what I call "20 questions" with the GM to evaluate their options and make sure the see things eye-to-eye with the GM. And, no, I'm not talking about the player knowing things that their character wouldn't know. I'm talking about situations where the player's character should have at least some idea of the risks involved. I've also had a couple of decades playing rules-light games (down to the level of "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad" being the only real rule) and this is one of the key reasons why my group (some of whom I've role-played with for nearly a couple of decades) seems to have a minimal level of desired complexity for anything but a one-shot game and why we also play Hero and (recently) d20. In a rules-heavy game, in my experience, the players can have a very good idea of what's possible and what's not possible for their characters and in many such systems, they can even resolve complex actions without GM input. For example, I don't have to ask the GM in a D&D game that I'm playing "How far can I move?" nor do I need to wait for the GM to tell me to make an attack of opportunity when a character moves past my character. I can keep track of all that myself. In a rules-light game, I need to ask the GM "Can I try to hit him as he runs past me?" or even, if we're not using a battle mat, "Does he get close enough to me to try to hit him?" And it can create even a bigger problem if the player based their previous actions on the assumption that their character would be able to stop the bad guy if they tried to run past them while the GM rules that it's not possible. You've never had a problem with a player disagreeing with the mechanic you've decided to use or the difficulty level that you've set? Do your players always see eye-to-eye with the GM or do they simply go along with whatever the GM says, even if they didn't understand the situation the same way? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
Top