Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[I'm A Banana]

Thanks a lot for setting the record straight, Ryan. I do adore it when the people who made the game I know and love tell me what's what.

I think I latched onto something in your post that I can maybe make a new thread, or maybe make my entire mission statement as a game designer myself. Specifically, it was this:

The danger of not taking those steps is that the RPG format risks losing its network value to MMORPGs. The RPG "hobby" can withstand a lot more attrition than the RPG "industry" can - so if you care about the ability of people to make a living designing RPGs, you have to care about how well those people are tackling the problem of making the RPG more fun than the MMORPG format.

I played CRPG's before I ever touched D&D. My first encounter with a Mind Flayer was not rolling saving throws, it was in the original Final Fantasy (where they were called WIZARDS, but are obviously rip-offs ). I came to D&D from a background of growing up on videogames. It strikes me that this is exactly backwards to the way that most of the designers have had it.

I have been constantly engaged in a struggle since discovering pen-and-paper RPG's to mesh it up with my on-screen experiences, while embracing the particular benefits of not having a computer program dictate the possibilities of my character. In examining what makes one fun different from another, and attempting to harvest the best of both worlds to meld them comfortably together. To note what pen-and-paper does differently than an MMO.

I think the future of gaming lies more in campaign settings and adventure paths than in countless rules updates, however.....

Okay, off to keep designing the game.

 

[RyanD]

Ryan, would you agree that part of 3E's "mission" was to put the players more in the driver's seat (hand off more power to the players and less to the GM)? Would you agree that one of the chief arguments in the rules heavy vs. rules lite "war" is also the issue of GM power vs. player power (perceived or actual)?

Answer to Question #1:

No: The mission was not to alter the power balance between DM and Player - the mission was to make D&D more fun to play. The power balance shifted as a result of that design goal. (Is that a tautology? Perhaps my answer should be "yes" - it is a bit of chicken & egg here I think.)

Let me give you an example: We (the designers, and myself as a fly on the wall) had a discussion with Peter Adkison one day about what combat modifiers should appear in the PHB vs the DMG. There had been a subconscious assumption in D&D since AD&D was created that there were some things that the DM was supposed to know and the players were not. (This is obviously silly, as most players who care enough buy DMGs even if they don't run games, but "hidden knowledge" was a philosophy that permeated the AD&D franchise). Peter gave clear direction as a result of that debate, which informed a whole host of other design decisions for 3E.

He said (paraphrasing): "I want to know exactly what modifiers are applied to my PC so I can game out the best decision for my action. If standing on the table, flanking, striking two handed with a two handed weapon is the best tactical scenario, then I want to know that and I want to be able to work to put my PC in that situation. If I feel that my PC, for roleplaying reasons would not make that detailed tactical analysis, that is my decision to make, not the DM's."

That's a shift to make the game "more fun" by empowering players to maximize the impact of their choices. If the player doesn't know (or isn't reasonably sure) that standing on the table, or flanking, or fighting two-handed is going to translate to a benefit, they're less likely to choose to do those things (which means that the space in the rulebooks allocated to explaining the rules required to adjudicate such actions becomes less valuable). Sure, there's always a "roleplaying" or "dramatic" narrative cause that might put a character in that situation because the player thinks it sounds cool or is a part of the PC's idiom, but the observed relationship between actually using a rule and the player's knowledge of that rule and how it will be applied is very, very strong. That is, "fun value of rule" correlates directly with "player believes rule will be enforced".

And so combat modifiers came out of the DMG, and moved into the PHB, and now the players have a basis for asserting that they're gaining such and such a bonus to their attacks "because the book says so". The DM now has to vary from the written rules if they want to change that modification. A DM who varies to excess, or who varies arbitrarily, will often find the willingness of the players to continue playing with that DM decreasing. If those modifiers were hidden from the players, or the rules stipulated that the modifiers would be assigned that the DM's discretion, the players would likely not respond as strongly to those variances. But they'd be having less fun, too, because they'd be less likely to have their PCs do interesting things. Combat would be, in most cases, typified by PCs standing toe to toe with monsters and making unmodified attack rolls until one or both combatants fled, died, or were removed from combat by other effects. In my opinion, "not fun". I think a lot of players share my opinion.

That philosophical decision to empower players to make tactical choices based on the rules created a shift in power, but shifting the power was not the objective.

Answer to Question #2:

Yes: I believe strong GM power is a key to the attraction of most rules lite game systems.

I tend to believe that the most staunch defenders of "rules lite" design philosophies are those people who either are exceptionally good at on the fly game design, or those who often play with others who are.

The "rules lite" design approaches I am familiar with (and my RPG library includes well over 100 different game systems) almost all rely on GM fiat as the fallback position for covering aspects of play that the game doesn't have a rule for. That empowers GMs tremendously.

For some GMs, I'm sure that's a subconscious attraction. (I doubt very many people overtly think: "I play Game X because when I run Game X the players have to give in to my whims.") But even subconsciously, I suspect it's a powerful motivating force for choosing a rules lite system.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I played CRPG's before I ever touched D&D.

You know, me too. *

My first encounter with a Mind Flayer was not rolling saving throws, it was in the original Final Fantasy (where they were called WIZARDS, but are obviously rip-offs ).

Ooh! And when they changed color, they became SORCERORS, and were more powerful!

Final Fantasy 1 is the only true game. All others are pale imitations!

* - In my first D&D session ever, on a boy scout outing, my human fighter - using a hand axe because it was a pretty powerful weapon in Dragon Warrior - killed a wolf. I asked whether or not we got any gold for killing it. After all, in FF, a wolf's worth 6xp and 6gp to a party of 4. After the laughter died down, the DM asked me where, perchance, a wolf would keep a gold coin - in its mouth?

I also carried around a potion of Cure Light Wounds the entire time, never thinking to use it. After all, I never took any Light wounds; I took some Fire wounds, and some Axe wounds, etc., but never any Light wounds. I thought it was odd, too, that I, one of the good guys, would need a potion that would cure me of holy damage.

 

[Andre]

That's a shift to make the game "more fun" by empowering players to maximize the impact of their choices.

Ok, that makes a great deal of sense to me. In fact, I have a hard time understanding why any rules should be hidden from the players. Maybe the future 4E should have all game rules in the PHB, with the DMG being closer to what the current DMG II is. Just a thought...

But it doesn't directly address the question of detail within the rules. One example: at last count, we have 16 different bonus types. Would the system have suffered severely if we had only 6? How about 8? Is that level of detail (and the consequent increase in recordkeeping) worth the decrease in fun? Shouldn't a good system strive to use the minimum level of complexity necessary to achieve it's goal?

On a related note, how should designers deal with the inevitable rules accretion? Each supplement, splat book, setting book, etc. adds new rules. Oftentimes, the new rules don't work well with existing rules. Worse, some new rules override the original rules, so the players have to keep track of multiple books. There is strong incentive for companies to publish add-on products with new rules, but I would argue that in most cases, the new rules do not add enough new fun to balance the added complexity.

 

[Ourph]

Do rules lite games make for better gaming experiences for some players? Yes, they obviously do. I am not saying that they do not.

See, this is a reasonable statement that makes me think I'm misunderstanding the point, but then you directly contradict yourself a few sentences later by writing....

That is, that the "rules liteness" of the game was not what was raising or lowering the "fun factor" - that the "fun factor" was being influenced by other effects that overwhelmed the impact of the rules complexity level.

Either rules-lite is more fun for some people or it isn't. Obviously I'm not trying to argue that the other factors you mention (DM skill, interpersonal relationships among the players, etc.) don't significantly impact the fun level of a game, but you cannot dismiss the amount of rules complexity as a factor in the fun level for some groups simply because one parameter (i.e. - decreasing complexity) doesn't increase fun for all groups.

I accept your assertion and analysis that at some point in the history of RPGs, designers made the mistaken assumption that rules-liteness was an automatic guarantor of fun-ness. That's a bad assumption. I think it's also a bad assumption to draw the conclusion that because (on average) a study group of RPG players didn't achieve 1) faster chargen times; 2) faster task resolution; 3) less rules conflict; or 4) more fun; with a rules-lite RPG that rules-lite games aren't compatible with those things on an individual group basis.

There are certain people within my group of gaming acquaintances with whom I would not play a rules-lite game because their personality is not rules-lite compatible. Depending on whether those people were sitting at the table, a rules-lite game session would look completely different to an outside observer. My question to you Ryan is, did your "research" control for this type of variable? If not, I don't believe the observations are really all that informative.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But it doesn't directly address the question of detail within the rules. One example: at last count, we have 16 different bonus types. Would the system have suffered severely if we had only 6? How about 8? Is that level of detail (and the consequent increase in recordkeeping) worth the decrease in fun? Shouldn't a good system strive to use the minimum level of complexity necessary to achieve it's goal?

Consider, for instance, 2nd Ed AD&D.

How many bonus types were there, then?

At least 1 for each spell in the game that granted a bonus and then some: your Bless bonus didn't stack with the Chant bonus, but it did stack with your magic weapon bonus and your Prayer bonus. Your armor improved your AC, and rings of protection improved your AC, unless you were wearing magical armor, in which case the ring worked if it was more powerful than the magic in the armor, and didn't otherwise - except it always gave the bonus on saving throws.

Etc.

16 is a pretty good number, from that point of view.

 

[WayneLigon]

I tend to believe that the most staunch defenders of "rules lite" design philosophies are those people who either are exceptionally good at on the fly game design, or those who often play with others who are.

I agree with this a great deal. It's one reason that, while I do like a number of rules-lite systems, I don't play many of them.

I think there was a quote about Everway, which was a rules-lite game I liked (and it may even have been you made this). It went something like: "Everway was a good game. and would have sold like hotcakes if we could have packaged Johnathan Tweet into every box to run it for people."

There is at least some anecdotal evidence I have, though, that there is some value to the rules-lite approach as regards to bringing new people into the hobby (something, again if I remember correctly, is a pretty big concern of yours). I know a mother of two who is trying to find a good system she can use with her son and his friends. She's got to balance the normal Mom chores and errands with being able to plan and run a game, develop scenarios, etc. The kids (14-16) don't really take too well to the large amount of complex rules in 3E right now, and so they're lost when trying to remember what to do and when to do it.

 

[RyanD]

One example: at last count, we have 16 different bonus types. Would the system have suffered severely if we had only 6? How about 8? Is that level of detail (and the consequent increase in recordkeeping) worth the decrease in fun?

Those are all excellent things worth testing under controlled environments. My gut instinct is that you are right in general that there are two many kinds of modifiers. I suspect that some of the modifier proliferation is directly linked to power inflation (how can I get some more stackable bonuses on this stat...) and controlling modifier bloat would also reign in power inflation.

I suspect that Monte, or Bill, or Mearls ( ) could chime in here and tell me that the modifiers in the system are all needed for some completely reasonable mechanical reasons though, so I'd still advocate for "Test" rather than "Assume".

Shouldn't a good system strive to use the minimum level of complexity necessary to achieve it's goal?

What if one of the goals is "complexity that increases over time"?

Reducing to minimum complexity is a great goal for pure math. It may not be a great goal for game design.

On a related note, how should designers deal with the inevitable rules accretion?

I'd like to answer the reverse question: "How should players deal with the inevitable rules accretion?" My answer is "ignore it". Stop buying and using new rules unless they fit a well defined need in your campaign (Rules for sieges. Rules for underwater warfare. Rules for a unique culture (samurai, neanderthal, etc.), etc.)

There are so many more valuable things that could be sold to players and GMs beyond new rules that I get greatly irritated by how many "rulebooks" I see in the marketplace.

The first wave of D20 successes defined a certain expectation for new P-Classes and new feats, and we're still riding that set of defined success well past the point of diminishing returns. I wish it would stop.

Here's an answer to your actual question:

As designers, we have to scope our efforts into a constrained space. If I worked at WotC on core D&D, I could only consider those rules published in core products when constructing content. I couldn't assume that the FRCS existed, for example. (If I wanted to use something in the FRCS, I'd have to import that rule system en toto. I can't just expect the reader to buy an FRCS so some feat or spell would be usable. That constraint tends to cut down on the amount of non-core stuff that finds its way into core books.)

I think the smart thing for 3rd party developers to do is to take a similar approach. Make a list of the books you think your target customer actually owns and is willing to use, and write content that uses that material exclusively. Better yet, tell the buyer what is on that list of assumed materials and then they can decide if they have the resources to match your design scope.

I'll also put in a plug for playtesting here. Way too much stuff is released without playtesting. And when you base other material (that is not playtested) on non-playtested content, well, things just spiral out of control quickly. If you don't know that a given work in your "scope" was playtested, incorporate that work into your playtest as well.

 

[delericho]

There is at least some anecdotal evidence I have, though, that there is some value to the rules-lite approach as regards to bringing new people into the hobby (something, again if I remember correctly, is a pretty big concern of yours).

This reflects my own experience as well. I've seen two paths for introducing new players to RPGs: either use a rules-lite game in which you can explain the bulk of the mechanics quickly, or use D&D and 'hide' the majority of the rules from the players.

(By that last, I mean using pre-generated characters, and only telling people what they need to know as they need to know it. In time, if they're sufficiently interested, they'll seek out the rest of the rules on their own.)

Either approach can work, and work well. However, I always found the first to be more satisfying. Naturally, that experience may well not be universal.

 

[Andre]

16 is a pretty good number, from that point of view.

So, essentially, I'm complaining that the designers of 3.x didn't go far enough? I can agree with that. And don't take my comment as a criticism of the designers. As you point out, they were coming from 2E - it's not fair to take them to task based on the past several years experience with 3.x.

But I do believe it's a reasonable question to pose concerning how games should be designed in the first place. How much detail is too little? How much is too much? How do the designers determine this?

It's a bit like security: locking my doors and windows is an acceptable inconvenience, but requiring a dna test to enter my own home isn't.