Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[EricNoah]

It's been very revealing to read parts of the other thread; I'd no idea that such a D&D vs. C&C battle was a-brewing. In some ways it seems quite silly, but in other ways it really gets down to the core issues of the various reasons people play RPGs, what aspects of the hobby they consider to be the "fun" bits and what they consider to be the "not fun" bits.

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)?

 

[fredramsey]

Oh, please.

Let's be reminded, in his own words:

My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.

How can anyone, in good conscious, not take that as an insulting statement? Desperately? Just because the statement was not directed at your preference (reverse the wording to be: "My opinion is that most people think "rules heavy" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.") does not mean it was not ill-conceived and insulting. With wording like that, why should he receive any credibilty on the subject? And we're supposed to consider his opinion elevated and well-reasoned?

Man.

Oh, c'mon. Neither of his statements said anything of the type, and it was not "obvious to all that [what he said] was absurd" -- or did you not read the replies that came from other than the rules lite choir in that thread?

It seems much more likely that you are on some question to debunk ...something... than that he is.

 

[BryonD]

never mind

 

[DaveMage]

Oh, please.

Let's be reminded, in his own words:

My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.

How can anyone, in good conscious, not take that as an insulting statement? Desperately? Just because the statement was not directed at your preference (reverse the wording to be: "My opinion is that most people think "rules heavy" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.") does not mean it was not ill-conceived and insulting. With wording like that, why should he receive any credibilty on the subject? And we're supposed to consider his opinion elevated and well-reasoned?

Man.

I don't take them as insulting. He's not saying *all* people, he's saying *most* people. And I think the *desparately* comment has to do with the fact that 2E users were so dissatisfied with their experience, that they desparately craved a better experience.

I don't find that insulting at all. In fact, I saw it in my 2E game group. There were two players in my group whose resentment for their 2E experience kept building and building, so finally they didn't want to play D&D anymore, and they had our group try other games, such as Rolemaster and Feng Shui. Other than those two people, everyone else in the group was dissatisfied with those games. After our main group stopped playing them, they did too, though they continually let the rest of us know that they enjoyed those other games more.

 

[fredramsey]

To each his own.

 

[Ozmar]

Oh, please.

Let's be reminded, in his own words:

My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.

How can anyone, in good conscious, not take that as an insulting statement? Desperately? Just because the statement was not directed at your preference (reverse the wording to be: "My opinion is that most people think "rules heavy" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.") does not mean it was not ill-conceived and insulting. With wording like that, why should he receive any credibilty on the subject? And we're supposed to consider his opinion elevated and well-reasoned?

Man.

I consider his opinion to be pretty well-reasoned. But maybe that's because I read his entire argument rather than focusing on one or two ill-chosen words?

Methinks you're choosing to feel insulted over a very slight provocation. A thicker skin does wonders to the blood pressure.

And Ryan Dancy's thoughts on game development and theory seem, to me, to be very well-considered and developed. He clearly spends a lot of time thinking about these things, and I, for one, appreciate reading his conclusions.

Ozmar the Dancy Fan

 

[Gentlegamer]

Don't you think that's a true statement?

I mean, don't you think that there are a number of RPG players who were dissatisfied with D&D, who were casting about for something "Better", who latched on to the obvious candidate pushed by the industry (rules lite)

Did game companies engage in marketing? Of course. I don't recall a big push for "rules lite" back then. What I remember was the White Wolf mentality of amature dramatics infecting many players' sense of what to expect from a RPG, and on that basis, grew dissatisfied with AD&D.

Have you not experienced the phenomenon of people believing something must be true, even when it is not - even when some evidence in their own experience suggests it is not true?

Yes. Lots of gamers that should know better think that d20 is newer edition of D&D when it is in fact a different game altogether.

It is much easier to fall back on the system itself, and vest belief in the power of the system to make the game more fun - even when that belief becomes irrational.

So . . . AD&D shouldn't have been to blame, the players just needed to shape up. I agree.

 

[T. Foster]

Hi Ryan,

IMO the true dichotomy isn't so much between rules-lite/rules-heavy (which are subjective terms, anyway) but rather between rules-opaque and rules-transparent, especially from the players' perspective. Does the player state what he's doing in 'real world' terms and leave the actual mechanical resolution of those actions mostly or entirely up to GM (regardless of whether the GM is then using a 'rules-lite' or 'rules-heavy' mechanism), or does the player think and state his actions specifically in terms of the rules (which again can be done whether those rules are 'lite' or 'heavy')?

3E seems (at least in my personal experience) to have shifted significantly towards the latter approach (by encouraging players to keep track of their own modifiers and synergies and feat effects and such, not to mention the entire concept of 'character builds'), which at least from my perspective is unfortunate, because I greatly prefer the former approach whether I'm playing a so-called rules-lite or rules-heavy game. While 3E can be played in a rules-transparent manner, I suppose, this doesn't seem to have really been the intent (based on, for instance, putting almost all of the core task resolution rules in the PH, as opposed to the model of the 1E PH which described most of the actual resolution rules (i.e. combat) in 'narrative' terms and confined the actual 'crunch' almost exclusively to the DMG) and isn't an approach that I suspect would naturally occur to most novice players/GMs from reading the 3E rulebooks.

Was this difference in preferences something you saw in your research (my anecdotal experience is that younger players and dedicated hobbyists tend to prefer more rules-opacity (they want to see how the numbers work -- that's 'part of the fun' to them) while older and more casual players tend to prefer more rules-transparency (they don't so much care how the GM is making his rulings, they just want the story/challenge/exploration (i.e. what they consider to be 'the fun part') to continue)? If so, how did you rectify it with the fact that the 3E design seems to favor the former approach so markedly over the latter?

 

[Zaukrie]

Ryan, thanks for chirping in. As someone that analyzes things at work, I can attest to how often the "obvious" is not really true. Not having participcated in your work I can't judge it's ability to be predictive, but I admire anyone that is striving to make this hobby more fun. I have no idea how to do that, so I'm glad someone is/was at least trying.

 

[mcrow]

I think I get Ryan's point now.

He is just saying that in his observations less rules does not ALWAYS mean that they are more fun. In fact most players like the crunchy bits of the d20 system and they make the game more fun becuase they give the player more control of the game.


I don't think he means that "lite" games are not fun or can't be fun. I know for a fact that there are a lot of people that hate d20 for the same reason people hated the Yankees during thier world series years. Some people just hate the top dog for being on the top.


I don't agree with some of it but I see where he's coming from now.