Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 2390260" data-attributes="member: 27012"><p>It's not simply an issue of crappy GMs but GMs who have a different assessment of reality than the players. A GM using a rule-heavy game that substitutes their own assessment of the situation rather than what the rules say is basically using a rule-heavy game like a rule-light game and it shouldn't be surprising that you get the same problems. But a GM using a rule-heavy system that uses the rules as written for players who understand the rules as written will avoid a lot of situations where the GMs assessment of a situation differs from a player's assessment. And all of the deference to the GM's final judgement in the world is not going to make a player really like a judgement that they don't agree with that's entirely subjective.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Having fairly extensive experience with both rule-heavy systems (Hero and d20) and rule-light systems (homebrews and Fudge), I require a lot less interaction with the GM to decide what my character is doing and to handle large parts of teh resolution myself. Why? Because the basic groundwork is provided by the rules. With a sufficiently rules light system, there is no basic groundwork. For example, if I want to tumble through some enemies to avoid attacks in D&D, I know what the DCs are going to be and can decide if it's a good idea or not without GM intervention. In a Fudge game, I have to ask the GM how it would be handled <em>to even seriously consider the action</em>. In other words, in a rule-light system, I not only have to ask the GM how to resolve the things my character does but I have to ask the GM how they might resolve all sorts of things my character might do simply to consider all my options for that round.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And unless the GM likes changing the numbers, the guidelines will cover a great many common situations or come darned close. Yes, you can run D&D like a rule-light game with freeform DCs. I sometimes do that when I'm lazy. Heck, I sometimes don't even have a DC in mind and evaluate the result numbers like I might evaluate a result in Fudge. But I don't get the impression that d20 was designed to be run that way and all you are really saying is that running d20 like a rule-light system has all the same problems as a rule-light system. But what about the places where d20 doesn't run like a rule-light system or isn't used like a rule-light system? For example, what about figuring out falling damage onto a known simple surface in d20 vs. Fudge (which has no official falling damage rules on purpose)?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a very big difference between how players view GM fiat with respect to a set-up and during play (the same is true in fiction, by the way). What's different is that once the GM has established the area, number of combatants, etc., most of the subjectivity has ended in a rule-heavy game but it keeps on going in a rule-light game, making the outcome much more subjective and subjet to GM fiat. Yes, it's possible for a D&D GM to start fudging and adjust abilities and hit points and such in the middle of a rule-heavy encounter but that's not how many players expect their GM to run an encounter in D&D. That a GM can run D&D like a rule-light game, producing all the same problems as a rule-light game, does not mean that's how many players want D&D to be run or that D&D GMs normally run D&D that way.</p><p></p><p>Again, all you are really doing is saying that D&D can be run like a rule-light game. D&D can also be run very differently, in a much more objective way. And that's something that you <em>can't do</em> with a rule-light game. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the GM makes a habit of not changing the DC (either explicitly or understood), then the players can depend on the DCs being reasonably close to what's in the book unless there are modifiers their characters are not aware of. In my experience, that's the norm. Whether it really is or isn't the norm. that option <em>does not exist</em> for a rule-light game unless the GM makes it up.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The difference between a lighter system and a heavier system is that the heavier system provides a baseline. Yes, an experienced D&D GM might use similar DCs in C&C because they've learned what's "right" from playing D&D. But what if the C&C GM hasn't played D&D. Do you really think that every GM who is given C&C but has never seen D&D will automatically come up with the same DC for tumbling past an enemy in combat as D&D 3e? I don't. Heck, I've seen different GMs who have played together for a decade or more come up with wildly different difficulty assessments for the same tasks using many rule-light systems like Fudge.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not an issue of being impartial, fair, and consistent. It's a matter of objectivity and the GM being on the same page as the players concerning difficulty and probability. Given absolutely no guidelines about how much damage a character might take after falling 40 feet or how hard it might be to tumble past an enemy (both of which are true in Fudge), any two GMs and any players might come up with wildly different assessments depending on a variety of factors (e.g., whether they assume the game is cinematic or realistic, etc.). Having specific difficulties and rules for common situations helps mitigate that problem.</p><p></p><p>And, yes, I'm sure many D&D GMs, when given C&C, will run C&C very much like D&D because D&D has trained them to think a certain way. But what would happen if a role-player picked up C&C who had never played D&D 3e? Would they really be as consistent and predictable as you expect them to be? From my own experience with subjective GM assessments, in many cases, I doubt it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Morrow, post: 2390260, member: 27012"] It's not simply an issue of crappy GMs but GMs who have a different assessment of reality than the players. A GM using a rule-heavy game that substitutes their own assessment of the situation rather than what the rules say is basically using a rule-heavy game like a rule-light game and it shouldn't be surprising that you get the same problems. But a GM using a rule-heavy system that uses the rules as written for players who understand the rules as written will avoid a lot of situations where the GMs assessment of a situation differs from a player's assessment. And all of the deference to the GM's final judgement in the world is not going to make a player really like a judgement that they don't agree with that's entirely subjective. Having fairly extensive experience with both rule-heavy systems (Hero and d20) and rule-light systems (homebrews and Fudge), I require a lot less interaction with the GM to decide what my character is doing and to handle large parts of teh resolution myself. Why? Because the basic groundwork is provided by the rules. With a sufficiently rules light system, there is no basic groundwork. For example, if I want to tumble through some enemies to avoid attacks in D&D, I know what the DCs are going to be and can decide if it's a good idea or not without GM intervention. In a Fudge game, I have to ask the GM how it would be handled [i]to even seriously consider the action[/i]. In other words, in a rule-light system, I not only have to ask the GM how to resolve the things my character does but I have to ask the GM how they might resolve all sorts of things my character might do simply to consider all my options for that round. And unless the GM likes changing the numbers, the guidelines will cover a great many common situations or come darned close. Yes, you can run D&D like a rule-light game with freeform DCs. I sometimes do that when I'm lazy. Heck, I sometimes don't even have a DC in mind and evaluate the result numbers like I might evaluate a result in Fudge. But I don't get the impression that d20 was designed to be run that way and all you are really saying is that running d20 like a rule-light system has all the same problems as a rule-light system. But what about the places where d20 doesn't run like a rule-light system or isn't used like a rule-light system? For example, what about figuring out falling damage onto a known simple surface in d20 vs. Fudge (which has no official falling damage rules on purpose)? There is a very big difference between how players view GM fiat with respect to a set-up and during play (the same is true in fiction, by the way). What's different is that once the GM has established the area, number of combatants, etc., most of the subjectivity has ended in a rule-heavy game but it keeps on going in a rule-light game, making the outcome much more subjective and subjet to GM fiat. Yes, it's possible for a D&D GM to start fudging and adjust abilities and hit points and such in the middle of a rule-heavy encounter but that's not how many players expect their GM to run an encounter in D&D. That a GM can run D&D like a rule-light game, producing all the same problems as a rule-light game, does not mean that's how many players want D&D to be run or that D&D GMs normally run D&D that way. Again, all you are really doing is saying that D&D can be run like a rule-light game. D&D can also be run very differently, in a much more objective way. And that's something that you [i]can't do[/i] with a rule-light game. If the GM makes a habit of not changing the DC (either explicitly or understood), then the players can depend on the DCs being reasonably close to what's in the book unless there are modifiers their characters are not aware of. In my experience, that's the norm. Whether it really is or isn't the norm. that option [i]does not exist[/i] for a rule-light game unless the GM makes it up. The difference between a lighter system and a heavier system is that the heavier system provides a baseline. Yes, an experienced D&D GM might use similar DCs in C&C because they've learned what's "right" from playing D&D. But what if the C&C GM hasn't played D&D. Do you really think that every GM who is given C&C but has never seen D&D will automatically come up with the same DC for tumbling past an enemy in combat as D&D 3e? I don't. Heck, I've seen different GMs who have played together for a decade or more come up with wildly different difficulty assessments for the same tasks using many rule-light systems like Fudge. It's not an issue of being impartial, fair, and consistent. It's a matter of objectivity and the GM being on the same page as the players concerning difficulty and probability. Given absolutely no guidelines about how much damage a character might take after falling 40 feet or how hard it might be to tumble past an enemy (both of which are true in Fudge), any two GMs and any players might come up with wildly different assessments depending on a variety of factors (e.g., whether they assume the game is cinematic or realistic, etc.). Having specific difficulties and rules for common situations helps mitigate that problem. And, yes, I'm sure many D&D GMs, when given C&C, will run C&C very much like D&D because D&D has trained them to think a certain way. But what would happen if a role-player picked up C&C who had never played D&D 3e? Would they really be as consistent and predictable as you expect them to be? From my own experience with subjective GM assessments, in many cases, I doubt it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
Top