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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2394737" data-attributes="member: 32164">And now we have someone else stating anecdotal evidence as fact, and pulling the thread back on topic. So...do rules light systems run faster? Anecdotal evidence claims yes. Dancey (who, AFAIK conducted the only observational market research ever done on roleplaying games) claims that wasn't what he found in his research.Bear in mind, he probably means "after correcting for variables like DM ability." So while a DM with a good understanding of his preferred system runs the game quickly, a  DM with a lesser understanding runs the system slowly.So can you teach someone to be a good rules-light GM? Or is Ryan right that the only GMs who can run rules-light games without them bogging down (or becoming unduly frustrating to players) are people with the natural talent (the "on-the-fly game designer" hypothesis presented in Ryan's original post). Thoughts?That's totally apart from the session prep time issue, which I wholeheartedly concur with. I think some people are willing, through mature assessment of the factors in question, to conclude that they can live with the inconsitencies of a GM lacking that talent if it addresses other areas of concern to the group (time to prepare certainly being one).I know that was the case in our group. We agreed to put up with whatever inconsistencies and limitations existed (there weren't many - as I've said before, Akrasia's a very good DM, maybe even one of those extremely rare "on the fly game designers") in the name of a good game where we could all have fun (and with a prep time that our beleaguered DM could live with).Personally, I think the 3e rules serve to train people to be good DMs. People may eventually conclude they don't need 3e's complex rules, but I think attempting to master them makes people better DMs. They internalize the rules, maybe even without realizing it. Subsequently their rulings are consistent and they can deal with a much "rules-lighter" version of the d20 system because when in doubt, they default to a ruleset they're not even aware of using. Of course, I could be wrong. :\Interestingly, I think there's an element here that touches on the OGL. If you're always running roughly the same system, your rules-experience is cummulative, either as a player or a GM, to the extent that the systems are the same. If all d20 games use the same balance mechanic, every balance check I make, witness, or referee helps me to internalize the mechanics. For example, we've all internalized the basic combat mechanic - the d20 roll + bonuses to compare to AC. It's not at all complicated anymore.Of course, if we constantly shift game mechanics (i.e. gaming systems) the experiences are still only cummulative to the extent that the games are similar. So if I play D&D and Vampire, the role-playing experience is cummulative, but the rules-experience isn't...at least not necessarily. I can't help but wonder if this is what Ryan was trying to address when he came up with the OGL. It wasn't for the benefit of game publishers - it was to make it easier on gamers. Ryan, any comment?</blockquote>

Verification