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: 2390097" data-attributes="member: 27012"><p>I would argue that at least some of those complex situations will play very differently if the players have a good grasp, going in, of how things will be mechanically resolved instead of having to rely more on a GM's subjective assessment. Having played both rule-heavy and rule-light games, it is my experience that it's much easier for a player to make their own assessment of the situation without asking the GM "20 question" to find out how the GM thinks various situations might be resolved. I've never had a, "But I thought I could use X!" or "I though this would be handled by rolling against Y!" happen in a d20 or Hero game but I've seen that happen using Fudge. </p><p></p><p>To give you a more detailed example, suppose the PCs are trying to sneak into a keep and rescue the kidnapped noble. The players decide to scale the walls, follow a narrow ledge around to an open window, and then slip inside. As they move along the ledge, the GM requires a Reflex check but doesn't let one player use the much better Acrobatics skill he was expecting to roll against because the GM decided that balancing on a ledge isn't "acrobatic". The player falls. Further, the GM decides that the 40 foot fall has a good chance of being fatal and sets the damage accordingly. This surprises the players, who assumed that their PCs would likely survive a 40 foot fall. </p><p></p><p>The excuse of incomplete PC information and the possibility of a malicious GM aside, this wouldn't happen using a system like Hero or d20, which would allow the players to know which skill they'll roll against to keep their balance and tell them exactly how much damage they'll take from a 40 foot fall. And the only way to bridge that gap in information is for the players to spend time grilling the GM about what happens if they try to do the plan.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I don't assume that. In fact, I think the GM subjectively assessing the players' plans can create quite a few very real problems. There was a thread on rec.games.frp.advocacy a few years ago discussing "GM Biases" and how they can ruin games for players. Each of these examples reflects a pattern in how actual GMs decided challenges for PCs that ruined their games for their players. Among them:</p><p></p><p>"Fair Play" - If the players try their best, then everything will turn out OK in the end.</p><p></p><p>"Creativity Rewards" - The GM rewards players who come up with plans that entertain the GM with success.</p><p></p><p>"Interesting Times" - Nothing is ever simple and no matter how well the players plan, things will always be complicated and messy.</p><p></p><p>"No Free Lunch" - The PCs must earn or pay for anything good that they get.</p><p></p><p>"Appropriate Challenge" - Every encounter the PCs deal with is just the right power level to challenge them.</p><p></p><p>"Speed is Life" - The PCs shouldn't be given time to think or plan because doing so can be fatal.</p><p></p><p>"He Who Lives By The Sword..." - Violent solutions to problems never work.</p><p></p><p>"Nice Guys Finish Last" - No good deed or act of mercy by the PCs goes unpunished.</p><p></p><p>All of these problems are caused by the GMs subjective assessment of the challenge being based on things other than the setting and situation. (And, yes, I know there are people here who will probably call some selection of those biases "Good GMing".)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To be fair, you said, "No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up..." I don't think it's a matter of rule systems but GMing style.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Morrow, post: 2390097, member: 27012"] I would argue that at least some of those complex situations will play very differently if the players have a good grasp, going in, of how things will be mechanically resolved instead of having to rely more on a GM's subjective assessment. Having played both rule-heavy and rule-light games, it is my experience that it's much easier for a player to make their own assessment of the situation without asking the GM "20 question" to find out how the GM thinks various situations might be resolved. I've never had a, "But I thought I could use X!" or "I though this would be handled by rolling against Y!" happen in a d20 or Hero game but I've seen that happen using Fudge. To give you a more detailed example, suppose the PCs are trying to sneak into a keep and rescue the kidnapped noble. The players decide to scale the walls, follow a narrow ledge around to an open window, and then slip inside. As they move along the ledge, the GM requires a Reflex check but doesn't let one player use the much better Acrobatics skill he was expecting to roll against because the GM decided that balancing on a ledge isn't "acrobatic". The player falls. Further, the GM decides that the 40 foot fall has a good chance of being fatal and sets the damage accordingly. This surprises the players, who assumed that their PCs would likely survive a 40 foot fall. The excuse of incomplete PC information and the possibility of a malicious GM aside, this wouldn't happen using a system like Hero or d20, which would allow the players to know which skill they'll roll against to keep their balance and tell them exactly how much damage they'll take from a 40 foot fall. And the only way to bridge that gap in information is for the players to spend time grilling the GM about what happens if they try to do the plan. And I don't assume that. In fact, I think the GM subjectively assessing the players' plans can create quite a few very real problems. There was a thread on rec.games.frp.advocacy a few years ago discussing "GM Biases" and how they can ruin games for players. Each of these examples reflects a pattern in how actual GMs decided challenges for PCs that ruined their games for their players. Among them: "Fair Play" - If the players try their best, then everything will turn out OK in the end. "Creativity Rewards" - The GM rewards players who come up with plans that entertain the GM with success. "Interesting Times" - Nothing is ever simple and no matter how well the players plan, things will always be complicated and messy. "No Free Lunch" - The PCs must earn or pay for anything good that they get. "Appropriate Challenge" - Every encounter the PCs deal with is just the right power level to challenge them. "Speed is Life" - The PCs shouldn't be given time to think or plan because doing so can be fatal. "He Who Lives By The Sword..." - Violent solutions to problems never work. "Nice Guys Finish Last" - No good deed or act of mercy by the PCs goes unpunished. All of these problems are caused by the GMs subjective assessment of the challenge being based on things other than the setting and situation. (And, yes, I know there are people here who will probably call some selection of those biases "Good GMing".) To be fair, you said, "No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up..." I don't think it's a matter of rule systems but GMing style. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
Top